England, who served about half of a 3 year sentence for her relatively minor role in the Abu Ghraib scandal — she was only convicted of posing for the pictures of abuse committed by her boyfriend (and the father of her child) — returned to her hometown (and her parents' house) after she was paroled. It wasn't an easy homecoming, according to a new story by the AP.

Former Army reservist Lynndie England hasn't landed a job in numerous tries: When one restaurant manager considered hiring her, other employees threatened to quit.

She doesn't like to travel: Strangers point and whisper, "That's her!"

Her family received hate mail from all over the world because of the publicity surrounding the photographs and trial and, 5 years after the abuses were discovered, letters just keep coming. This, despite the fact that England wasn't actually accused (or convicted) of physical abuse of prisoners — and despite the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were the direct result of Administration policies that "conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees."

What England does have is the son, Carter, with whom she was pregnant when she began serving her sentence — but even motherhood is difficult for her.

She worries about whether she's a good mother to her 4-year-old son Carter.

"Normal moms have jobs. They get up, they take their kids to school, they go to work, they come home, they cook, they clean, they do all that," she says. "I'm home all day."

She says she submitted hundreds of resumes for all kinds of jobs, but no one would give her a chance. She stopped trying months ago and depends on welfare and her parents to get by.

Lynndie England, however, isn't really alone in this. An earlier article in the Guardian about her post-incarceration struggles points out that fast food places won't hire felons. It's true, too, that many landlords won't accept convicted felons as tenants. Having spent a sum total of 18 months in prison (and another 18 on parole), with a dishonorable discharge on her résumé — let alone with her now infamous face — England may well be destined to spend a good chunk of her life relying on the state to support her.

According to the Department of Justice, in the U.S., the overall recidivism rate — the rate of those released from prison who are re-arrested — is nearly two-thirds. The recidivism rate for women offenders is lower — 52 percent — but that still means that more than half of all women who do time end up arrested again. Women like England, who was only convicted and imprisoned once, the recidivism rate is 21 percent, which still means one out of every 5 women incarcerated is arrested again. In no small part, the recidivism rate is a reflection of the doors this society closes for most people convicted of crimes — and anyone that thinks that the money one can (or cannot) afford to spend on a lawyer is often a factor in the kind of justice one receives is fooling themselves. Those people convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison are by and large people without much (if anything) in the way of financial resources; when they are released, they are then subject to what amounts to extra-judicial punishment in terms of employment and housing discrimination. No one expects that prison does much, if anything, to rehabilitate its inhabitants so, when they're released, they are treated as though prison has made them worse people.

Should Lynndie England really be prevented from answering the phone in an office or flipping burgers at McDonald's? And, maybe more importantly, is it in our benefit that she is prevented from doing so? The statistics on recidivism and anecdotal evidence of those that did their time yet can't reintegrate into society say no — but, day in and out, they're told that there's no place for them back in our world... and then we wonder why we keep sending the same people to jail.

Abu Ghraib Scandal Haunts W.Va. Reservist [Associated Press]
'What Happens In War Happens' [The Guardian]

Related: Criminal Offenders Statistics [Bureau of Justice Statistics]
Women Offenders [Bureau of Justice Statistics]

Major General Antonio Taguba, now retired, conducted the investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib and had this to say about some of the pictures Obama is refusing to release out of a concern that they will further endanger U.S. (and British) troops.

"These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.

"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

"The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

According to these reports, the photos depict the rapes of both male and female detainees by military personnel, the forcible removal of a female detainee's clothing and the rape of multiple prisoners with inanimate objects. The Administration is denying that the photographs depict those acts.

The Telegraph report has provoked a variety of thoughtful reactions among people, some of whom — like Vanessa Gezari — now agree with Obama's decision and the reasoning behind it. There's an interesting debate to be had, too, about whether it's appropriate, given things like rape shield laws and the stigmas attached to being a victim of sexual abuse, to release pictures of victims being assaulted — which is certainly something that would not be done in the United States in a criminal case — or whether the need to confront the true horror of what was done in our name trumps the right to some privacy of the victims.

Then there's Susannah Breslin's take. You know it's going to be bad when a story about pictures of rape and assault starts off like this.

The Daily Telegraph reports unreleased Abu Ghraib photographs include sexual torture and "rape."

Why are there quotes around the word rape? The denotation of the quotations, in this case, is to indicate that it wasn't rape, in much the same way that I refer to the criminal "justice" system when talking about sexual assault cases. So, apparently, some of the rapes in Abu Ghraib, in Breslin's mind, don't qualify — and I don't think I'm going too far in suggesting that the rapes that Breslin thinks weren't rape-y enough were the ones that didn't involve an actual penis.

Suffice it to say that it doesn't get better. Breslin, who's built a successful career writing about sex, pornography and sex work (among other things) then sneaks in this gem.

What makes this new photographic revelation tricky, and is what, I suspect, led to Obama's some say "stunning" reversal, is that these photographs, for all intents and purposes, are pornographic.

And this is where I said to myself, "Hold up!" Because pornography isn't simply representations of any and all sex acts — even if you want to define genital torture, forcible anal penetration with a tube and wires and ripping off a prisoner's clothes to expose her breasts as "sex acts" as opposed to "acts of physical violence that happen to involve body parts also occasionally used for sex acts."

The American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law agree on two things about the definition of the word pornography: it has to be intended to incite arousal, and the images or words need to be either "sexually explicit" or "erotic," respectively. Were the pictures intended to cause arousal in others? One assumes that, like most of the rest of the pictures taken by the people who perpetrated the many acts of abuse at Abu Ghraib, the intention was to first further humiliate the victims and to display the abusers' own power. That they depict sexual acts or might titillate the rapists or others probably didn't factor that far into the equation. Without seeing them, I have no doubt they're not erotic, though they may be sexually explicit.

Breslin's conflation of "sexually explicit imagery" with pornography is pretty problematic for another reason. For an industry that has long struggled to define itself as one in which women are fully-consenting adult participants, I can't think that the pornography industry would be happy with anyone defining pictures of heinous crimes of physical abuse that might feature genitals as "pornography." Are pictures taken in the course of rape exams "pornographic" because they prominently feature women's genitals? Not everything that depicts sex is pornographic — even when the depictions are deliberately titillating. Are consensual, yet R-rated, sex scenes in films "pornographic" because they depict erotic acts? Is Rodin's sculpture Cupid & Psyche pornography? No, right? Defining pictures of physical violence as "pornographic" just because they feature physically violent penetrations is, at best, sloppy and, at worst, offensive to people in the porn industry and victims of sexual violence alike.

And, just when you thought it wouldn't get worse, Breslin says the real reason that Obama won't release the photos, but should nonetheless, is that they'll turn us all on.

Rightly or wrongly, in all likelihood, these photographs will titillate. All the P.C. politics of the mind cannot override the un-P.C. desires of the libido. But it is in spite of this fact that these photographs must be released.

Those pictures might titillate Breslin — and I have no doubt that there will be people in this world who already enjoy graphic depiction of non-consensual acts of sexual violence who will additionally get off on these — but I don't think anyone in the Administration is actually worried about too many Americans getting their rocks off. And it's just strange to couple a call for Americans to bear witness to the acts of sexual violence done in our name with an admission — nay, promise — that we will find the pictures titillating.

Barack Obama Attempts To Block Alleged Torture Photos [Telegraph]
Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos 'Show Rape' [Telegraph]
Pentagon Denies Report Iraq Prison Photos Show Rape [Reuters]
Releasing More Detainee Photos Could Make Abuses More Difficult to Discover [Double X]
The Abu Ghraib Photos We Can't Bear to See [Double X]

[Beverly Hills, May 27. Image via Getty]

A woman attends a demonstration on May 27, 2009 in front of the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California, to protest US President Barack Obama's opposition to the release of photos documenting detainee abuse in US facilities during the war in Iraq. Obama is to make remarks at a fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)

• In news that will resonate with parents everywhere, Sasha and Malia Obama are apparently shirking their doggie duties at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Says mom: "I'm still up at 5:15 a.m. taking my dog out." [People]

• Speaking of dog fights, despite the protestations of his colleagues, Supreme Court Justice David Souter - who was instrumental in preventing the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 1992 - is planning to retire at the end of the Court's current term, this June. Prepare for more wingnuttery, i.e. a highly entertaining confirmation battle. [NY Times]
• Three (female) names being bandied about as Souter's replacement: Sonia Sotomayor, Diane P. Wood, Elena Kagan. Oh, and these formidable ladies: Kathleen M. Sullivan, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Jennifer M. Granholm, Leah Ward Sears. [Washington Post]
• More details on the female contenders, here: [The Nation]
• Notre Dame will not be awarding its top honor during commencement this year: its intended recipient, law professor and anti-choicer Mary Ann Glendon, turned it down in protest over the decision to have President Obama speak to the university's graduates. [Time]
• Other Catholics are not so up in arms: according to a poll, only 25% oppose the university's decision to invite the President to speak. [US News]
• In less surprising survey results, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that churchgoers are more likely to support torturing terror suspects. There's a blasphemous joke about the Crucifixion to be made here, but I'm not the one to make it. [CNN]
• The truth about the United States' torture program continues to seep out: Two of its architects, psychologists and former military men Bruce Jensen and Jim Mitchell, boasted about being paid $1,000 a day to oversee the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques. [ABC News]
• Guess who's still not talking about the CIA's interrogation memos? [LA Times]
• No surprise here: "Now, the recent release of Justice Department memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques has given [Abu Ghraib guard Charles] Graner and other soldiers new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels." [Washington Post]
• Get me a truth commission! Does Peggy Noonan's latest torturous WSJ column compare the country's chief executive to the unnamed romantic interest in a famous Roberta Flack/Fugees song? [WSJ]
• Michael "Heckuva Job" Brownie is criticizing the Obama Administration's response to the threat of swine flu, alleging that the threat level has been raised because the White House wants more "attention" and "legitimacy". A suggestion for Mr. Brown: Stop while you're ahead. Oh, and the WHO raises the threat level, not the White House. [US News]
• How long before Daily Show editors or some enterprising videographer makes a response to this absolutely insane "rebranding" video cooked up by the GOP? [Politico]

Programming note: Megan is ailing today, hence the different byline - and completely boring, straightforward take - on the items in the News at 10 post. My apologies.

England, who served 521 days in prison for her role in the physical, sexual, and emotional abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, is now living in a trailer with her parents in rural West Virginia, and spends most of her time with her lawyer, Roy, a Gulf War veteran who seems proud of his client's infamous conduct. England is perhaps the best known face of the Abu Ghraib scandal, as photographs showing her dragging a prisoner by a leash came to best represent the horrors being committed at the prison; the fact that England was a woman only horrified people more, and as Brockes notes, she "wasn't the only woman soldier in the photographs - Sabrina Harman and Megan Ambuhl were both court martialled for their roles - but England was the most arresting looking, like a 14-year-old boy who shouldn't have been there in the first place. Her legal defence, that she was unduly influenced by Specialist Charles Graner, the father of her child and the only soldier still serving time for abuses at Abu Ghraib, was compounded outside the courtroom by assumptions about her background; that she came from a place where people didn't know better."

Back in her hometown, England is now having trouble finding work, due to her record as a felon and her notoriety. She claims that she's received both hate mail and fan mail, and recalls her time at Abu Ghraib with a type of weird fondness, a laughter that springs up at strange times. When Brockes asks England about any female prisoners at Abu Ghraib, England responds, while laughing:"At one point we had four. Oh my God, this one, she was crazy. They had to take her to the loony bin. We called her the wolf lady coz she had all this hair. She was screaming and whatever."

England becomes incredibly defensive when Brockes suggests that perhaps Megan Ambuhl, a fellow female soldier, was smart enough to stay out of the photographs: "She didn't plan that. It just happened. She wasn't clever. She's a pothead. She was just there. She wasn't in a lot of photos because she didn't want to be. She would just walk away," and later claims that she was coerced into taking the photos by Specialist Charles Graner (who also happens to be the father of her son), ""I didn't want them. But he was so persistent. Go on! Just for me! If you loved me, you'd do it. I'm like, gee, OK just take the damned picture."

Though Graner is still in prison for his role in the scandal, as Brockes notes, "it is England's rather than Graner's face that will be remembered. The photographer invites England to accompany him for photos, but she is reluctant; she lingers at the table and fidgets. Roy jokes, 'How about I find you a hood and some wires?' England laughs, mirthlessly. 'You know me too well.'"

England tells Brockes that she's still processing the events that took place at the prison: ""I mean, I had a lot of time to think about it after the trial and what I'd learned. Thinking back ... I don't want to say I matured more, but I realised that I was so naive and trusting. But what happens in war, happens. It just happened to be photographed and come out. Of course, a lot of people said if you guys had just shut up or killed them, there wouldn't have been any trouble. I could think of it like that, but ... I mean, I don't even know how to describe it. They were the enemy. I don't want to say they deserved what they got, but they ... um. They ... This is my problem. I can't think of words."

Perhaps the weirdest element of the interview is the bubble England and her lawyer, Roy, seem to live in. Despite (or, perhaps due to) the fact that she and her child have to live in a trailer with her parents, that she can't get a decent job, she seems to latch on to the Abu Ghraib days like some people latch on to high school or college memories; one gets the sense that it was the only time she felt like she was wanted or belonged somewhere, a horrible idea, considering that the bond these people shared was the torture of other human beings. Though she says she'll be on antidepressants for the rest of her life, one wonders if she has even begun to process her actions or how they affected others; for now, it seems, England's life revolves around a sequence of hiding, passing the blame, and waiting for the rest of the world to forget.

She's Home From Prison, But Lynndie England Can't Escape Abu Ghraib [The Guardian]

How she met the inimitable Charles Graner

I really didn't even notice him because at the time I was married. He kept following me around, like when I went out for a smoke break. He didn't even smoke but he started smoking just to hang out with me. I started talking about my problems at home and he suggested I leave my husband. I was dumb enough to listen to him and I ended up believing him.

Ugh.

And why were the detainees forced to masturbate in front of you?
Well, that happened right after. They were standing and kneeling in front of the wall. They still had sandbags on their heads and by this time most of the guards had gone. Frederick and me stayed downstairs to watch them. Freddie went up to the guy on the end and tried to get him to start by touching his arm and moving it back and forth. And when he didn't really catch on to what he meant he took his sandbag off and motioned to him what he wanted him to do and then he put the sandbag back on. And so he started doing it.
You can't even say the word "masturbate".
(remains silent)
You stood next to him and allowed it to happen. Did you not protest just once?
I did. I asked Frederick, "Why are you doing this?" And he told me, "I just want to see if he'll do it." So I was like, "Whatever."

No more?
No. I was like, "Fine, you know, whatever." Then Graner and Frederick tried to convince me to get into the picture with this guy. I didn't want to, but they were really persistent about it. At the time I didn't think that it was something that needed to be documented but I followed Graner. I did everything he wanted me to do. I didn't want to lose him.

"He was one of the 'Ghost Detainees' that officially never existed."

Yeah, I heard about it. Actually, I was there the night the Iceman was killed. I went to Tier One and someone said this guy had been taken to the showers and they had the water running, and you could hear this guy just screaming bloody murder. It got to the point where it was so loud and unbearable that I went back to my room. And the next day when I came back there was this puddle of water outside the shower. And I asked, "What's that from?" And they said, "Oh, its ice from keeping the body till they could transport him." The Iceman was one of the "Ghost Detainees" that officially never existed.

Yup, men fuck up everything.

Looking back on it, if I could change it I would. I would have never met Graner, I never would have gone over there, I would have stayed in my little work area in Abu Ghraib, did what I had to do.... He had said that he was going to marry me. We were going to have kids. I was just so pissed off with him...I feel more like a puppet. First I was played by Graner. Then the media portrayed me as their puppet so they could flash my picture out over and over and over and over again. And then I became the government's puppet because they didn't back me up, or remotely take my side. They just agreed with what the media said...I do take responsibility. I was dumb enough to do all that. And to think that it was okay because of the other officers and the orders that were coming down. But when you're in the military you automatically do what they say. It's always, "Yes Sir, No Sir." You don't question it. And now they're saying, "Well, you should have questioned it."... I actually thought about that before the pictures came out. I thought, "I hope this never comes out because it'll change the way people see the war. And the way people see America." And it did, it changed everything. I felt bad about that. I felt sorry. And I still do.

Prison wasn't so bad, though!

Literally, it was like flies on shit, man. When I got there, they were all like, "Oh my God." They loved me. I was like a celebrity.

Lynndie England: "Rumsfeld Knew" [Stern]