EDITORIAL – Learning disability doesn’t excuse scandal

Private Lynndie England might have a learning disability, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t… Private Lynndie England might have a learning disability, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t guilty of several horrendous crimes.

Made infamous by her role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal — photos of her standing over naked or leashed prisoners are easy to find on the Internet — England is currently defending herself in court. According to testimony, it’s a surprise that she even made it into the military in the first place.

Though surgeons quickly remedied the situation, Lynndie England was born mute. Throughout her childhood, she shied away from other children, in part because of some odd facial and eye mannerisms. She shuffled between special education and mainstream classes and was diagnosed with an unnamed learning disability by her school psychologist.

This disability is now being used as justification for her actions in Abu Ghraib. Doctors have testified that while England has trouble interpreting the spoken word, she is especially quick to learn from what she sees. This, apparently, has led her to develop a strong desire to please authority figures by unquestioningly following their example, according to the psychologist.

Sounds like the perfect soldier — so then what went wrong?

If England truly has a learning disability that impairs her judgment, she should never have been accepted into the Army Reserves. The military spends plenty of money testing potential enlistees, and if its psychologists found England to be a fully cognizant, able person, then the court must treat her as such. In fact, an Army psychiatrist said England was mentally stable enough that she could have decided to walk away or refused to pose in photographs. Others who were at Abu Ghraib with England testified that she willingly engaged in the abuse and appeared to enjoy herself.

The best soldiers are often considered to be those who follow orders without question, and a certain amount of blind faith in one’s superiors is necessary for a functioning military, but there are limits to this acquiescence. This country’s citizens — soldiers and civilians alike — need to be held accountable for their actions. Too much peer pressure is simply not an excuse for mistreating others or committing acts of such indecency.

What’s more, holding a learning disability up as a valid excuse for misbehavior in a grown adult is insulting to other learning-disabled people who have learned how to cope with their situations.

England did not create the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib; her responsibility extends only to her own actions. Other people, those of superior rank to England, also need to be held accountable for allowing this sort of violation of basic human rights to occur.

Focusing on England initially shifts the blame away from more powerful actors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to the lowest common denominator. Focusing on this supposed learning disability shifts the blame again, this time away from England herself. Blame is not usually something to be shifted; it is something to be shared.