[SpamCop-Social] Re: Judge Throws Out England's Guilty Plea

[D.F. Manno]

In article <d5dhff$hgi$1 at news.spamcop.net>,
 "Sylvesterthekat" <nobody at spamcop.net> wrote:

> But what they seem to be saying here is that she didn't know that what she
> was doing was illegal and therefore she can't plead guilty to it.

In making her plea, England told the judge that she knew that the 
photographs of naked prisoners were intended solely for the amusement of 
American military guards, including herself, and that she understood her 
actions were wrong.

But in the sentencing phase, the defense put on a witness who testified 
that photographs of naked prisoners taken at Abu Ghraib Prison near 
Baghdad had a legitimate training use for guards. The witness also said 
he had ordered Private England to hold a leash around the neck of a 
detainee and said that the leash had become attached to the prisoner's 
neck by accident.

That's contradictory. You can't say one thing in your allocution 
(statement to the court pleading guilty) and then say the opposite in 
the sentencing phase. It's as if a defendant pleaded guilty to murder, 
and then during the sentencing phase offered witnesses who said he 
couldn't have committed the crime. The plea would be rejected and the 
case set for trial in either system, military or civilian.
-- 
D.F. Manno
dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."