Iraq Rape/Murder Investigation

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:00 am

What do you guys think about this? I find it deplorable! WTF?!?!?!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/09/soldi ... index.html

Whats your take on it?

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:28 am

What do you want us to think?

That these towel heads are telling the truth?

Girl runs from a house with a bomb strapped to her or what ever too harm the troops,Perhaps does not listen too the order too halt,Bang ,dead, bad person dead,good person live.

Mayor who hates American soldier boy says too news,You kill little girl you big bad American soldier man.You gonna get bad press in America.You are supposed too die for us GI.

This is a war ladies and gentlemen,It's not pretty,and crap happens.

We are talking about people that will behead your mom and drag her body for miles around town and make you watch just for fun on their day off.

there are no signs too tell you where the good ones are or bads ones are,All must be treated with extreme caution.

I know,I know,I'm a bad man for not wanting world peace.I'm a bad person for taking the flag and wrapping it around my fist and punching enemy right in the face.

We don't know what really happened in this incident,but rest assured that the Iraqis and the anti-American/anti-war people will paint it the most negative light possible too make it look bad.

America stands for freedom,Peace and Justice.

It stands for Courage and most of all the Responsibility to protect those qualities and too Question any nation that would deny its citizens the same Liberties.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:34 am

Ok. So rape is okay to use it as a weapon? I guess she deserved it huh?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:55 pm

There are 30,000 troups over there under extreme pressure and strain that you and I couldn't comprehend. In such situations, there are bound to be a few bad apples. They have been charged and will face trial. If the evidence supports conviction they could face the death penalty. I don't think anyone will cry for them if they are guilty of such a heinous crime. If they are innocent, I hope to God they are exonerated. Either way, the insurgents are accountable to no man and no law. They kill indiscriminantly. This is what seperates us from most of the middle east - the rule of law.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:57 pm

AZ

another great post

Diuretic

I stand by yours as well:-6

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:00 pm

Shweet tatersalad wrote: What do you want us to think?

That these towel heads are telling the truth?

Girl runs from a house with a bomb strapped to her or what ever too harm the troops,Perhaps does not listen too the order too halt,Bang ,dead, bad person dead,good person live.

Mayor who hates American soldier boy says too news,You kill little girl you big bad American soldier man.You gonna get bad press in America.You are supposed too die for us GI.

This is a war ladies and gentlemen,It's not pretty,and crap happens.

We are talking about people that will behead your mom and drag her body for miles around town and make you watch just for fun on their day off.

there are no signs too tell you where the good ones are or bads ones are,All must be treated with extreme caution.

I know,I know,I'm a bad man for not wanting world peace.I'm a bad person for taking the flag and wrapping it around my fist and punching enemy right in the face.

We don't know what really happened in this incident,but rest assured that the Iraqis and the anti-American/anti-war people will paint it the most negative light possible too make it look bad.

America stands for freedom,Peace and Justice.

It stands for Courage and most of all the Responsibility to protect those qualities and too Question any nation that would deny its citizens the same Liberties.

As a military wife, I am disgusted by the crime that these "soldiers" are accused of. If they are quilty, then they should be punished.

There are two soldiers in my house right now - both of them have served in Iraq. They both agree with me.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:10 pm

What do I think? It breaks my heart--on many levels!

Am I the only one here old enough to remember My Lai?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:32 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: If they're found guilty, they should be turned over to the Iraqis for punishment.

Umm. No.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:55 pm

We were horror-struck, ashamed, broken-hearted and stricken...hearing of My Lai, and it's the same feeling now. We'll never know the complete truth, any more than we can ever understand the horror of combat, the stress of walking in soldiers' boots and being in the constant grip of adrenaline.

Harls · Post by **Harls** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:17 am

DesignerGal wrote: Ok. So rape is okay to use it as a weapon? I guess she deserved it huh?
NO ONE deserves to be raped,no matter what the situation.

Lets hope the real story comes out & if these soldiers are guilty,I hope the rot in hell.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:09 am

Diuretic wrote: We have to be aware of our tendency to make and believe generalisations.

You are so right.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:36 am

LilacDragon wrote: Umm. No.

Umm yes. THey committed the crime in IRAQ. The crime(s) were committed against IRAQIS. Why in the heck wouldnt they be tried there? It makes perfect sense to me. If we ever catch Bin Laden dont you think he would be tried over here for masterminding the 9/11 attacks? But it seems what you think is he should be tried in Afghanistan, right? Is that what you are saying?

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:24 am

DesignerGal wrote: Umm yes. THey committed the crime in IRAQ. The crime(s) were committed against IRAQIS. Why in the heck wouldnt they be tried there? It makes perfect sense to me. If we ever catch Bin Laden dont you think he would be tried over here for masterminding the 9/11 attacks? But it seems what you think is he should be tried in Afghanistan, right? Is that what you are saying?

DGal

Do you trust the Iraqi 'justice system' to investigate and treat the Americans fairly?

I, for one, do not.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:47 am

cherandbuster wrote: Do you trust the Iraqi 'justice system' to investigate and treat the Americans fairly?

I, for one, do not.One wonders, perhaps, at the ability of the US 'justice system' to investigate and prosecute Bin Laden fairly, come to that. They're currently prosecuting ex-President Hussein under Iraqi jurisdiction because they didn't dare bring him to into either a US or an international court.

Would anyone see parallels between the US administration's recent comments and those of the leadership of the Dayton Avenue Church of God, in http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/ ... lead1.html ? I find them almost word-for-word interchangeable, except the Dayton Avenue Church of God hasn't mumbled "treason" yet.

woppy71 · Post by **woppy71** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:55 am

Adam Zapple wrote: There are 30,000 troups over there under extreme pressure and strain that you and I couldn't comprehend. In such situations, there are bound to be a few bad apples. They have been charged and will face trial. If the evidence supports conviction they could face the death penalty. I don't think anyone will cry for them if they are guilty of such a heinous crime. If they are innocent, I hope to God they are exonerated. Either way, the insurgents are accountable to no man and no law. They kill indiscriminantly. This is what seperates us from most of the middle east - the rule of law.

Agreed

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:08 am

spot wrote: Would anyone see parallels between the US administration's recent comments and those of the leadership of the Dayton Avenue Church of God,

Would you be so kind as to provide the administration's recent comments?

The Iraqi justice system, other than the Al Queda kind, isn't ready for this case. The Hussein trial is a farce and joke. Why don't we just let it play out. I have full faith in the U.S. military justice system to handle this. As someone mentioned before, the soldiers that are there or have been there are just as appalled by these charges and know that horrible crimes committed by their brothers-in-arms just make their mission that much harder and their lives more at risk. In fact, I'm more worried that they will offer up innocent men as sacraficial lambs to appease and defuse muslim anger. However, I trust (as a vet) that they will handle it properly.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:16 am

spot wrote: One wonders, perhaps, at the ability of the US 'justice system' to investigate and prosecute Bin Laden fairly, come to that. They're currently prosecuting ex-President Hussein under Iraqi jurisdiction because they didn't dare bring him to into either a US or an international court.

Would anyone see parallels between the US administration's recent comments and those of the leadership of the Dayton Avenue Church of God, in http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/ ... lead1.html ? I find them almost word-for-word interchangeable, except the Dayton Avenue Church of God hasn't mumbled "treason" yet.

You always say what I want to say but more articulate and eloquent. Thank you.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:25 am

DesignerGal wrote: Umm yes. THey committed the crime in IRAQ. The crime(s) were committed against IRAQIS. Why in the heck wouldnt they be tried there? It makes perfect sense to me. If we ever catch Bin Laden dont you think he would be tried over here for masterminding the 9/11 attacks? But it seems what you think is he should be tried in Afghanistan, right? Is that what you are saying?

Having talked to my DH and my BIL - who have both been there, I wouldn't trust an Iraqi court to prosecute an American for jaywalking.

What it boils down to is this - IF there was a trial in Iraq - the press and the locals have already said that these boys are guilty and if you think that they will listen to any evidence before torturing them and killing them, then you need to think again.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:13 am

cherandbuster wrote: DGal

Do you trust the Iraqi 'justice system' to investigate and treat the Americans fairly?

I, for one, do not.

If you were iraqui would you trust the americans to try the case properly? If this is not tried openly then it plays in to the hands of the insurgents that americans are allowed to rape and slaughter innocents with impunity. If they did rape and kill a fourteen year old the fact they are american soldiers shouldn't make any difference.

also remember which nation thinks it's ok to lock people up and hold them without a proper trial but still claims to hold the moral high ground when it comes to law and order.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:32 am

gmc wrote: If you were iraqui would you trust the americans to try the case properly? If this is not tried openly then it plays in to the hands of the insurgents that americans are allowed to rape and slaughter innocents with impunity. If they did rape and kill a fourteen year old the fact they are american soldiers shouldn't make any difference.

also remember which nation thinks it's ok to lock people up and hold them without a proper trial but still claims to hold the moral high ground when it comes to law and order.

Amen to that.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:50 am

Adam Zapple wrote: [QUOTE=spot]Would anyone see parallels between the US administration's recent comments and those of the leadership of the Dayton Avenue Church of GodWould you be so kind as to provide the administration's recent comments?[/QUOTE]What I had in mind was an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch a couple of weeks ago in which the parallels seemed quite clear, and from which I abstract these first paragraphs:

Thirty-five years ago this week, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 against the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the Vietnam War. Justice Potter Stewart wrote for the majority:

"In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry _ in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."

In an eerie coincidence, President Bush chose Monday, the 35th anniversary of the date the Pentagon Papers case was argued, to condemn another instance of newspapers publishing information the government was trying to keep secret. Bush was reacting to the disclosures Friday in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal that the United States secretly has been monitoring overseas financial transactions as part of the war on terrorism.

"The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," Bush said in remarks to reporters at the White House. "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."

The White House, trying to dissuade The New York Times from going to print, made what the paper's editor, Bill Keller, called "half-hearted" arguments that disclosure might cause terrorism suspects to change their tactics. When Keller and other editors were unconvinced by the arguments and decided the public had a right to the information, the administration did what it usually does when it's caught cutting constitutional corners: It attacked.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday, "Some of the press, particularly The New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs."

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., said, "We're at war, and for The Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:06 am

Adam Zapple wrote: I have full faith in the U.S. military justice system to handle this.Sadly, whenever they've been invited to comment on the activities of the troops on the ground, the U.S. military justice system has shown a woeful prejudice in favor of its colleagues, as in:

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent manslaughter for killing an Iraqi general during an interrogation by stuffing his head into a sleeping bag, binding him with electric cord and sitting on his chest until he died. He was sentenced in January to a reprimand and fine.There you go. I bet that reprimand really hurt, don't you suppose? And a fine, too! The reprimand, in case you're wondering, consisted of two months' house arrest. The fine was $6,000.

To give him back his name (which most news reports failed to do in reporting the trial), the victim was Air Force commander Major-General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, and he'd gone to the base voluntarily, seeking news of his two sons who had been in US custody.

To quote one of those sons, Qusay Mowhoush: "Justice wasn't done in our father's case by the U.S. forces because if he was a criminal they should have interrogated him fairly and not tortured him barbarically and then killed him.' I don't imagine he has "full faith in the U.S. military justice system to handle" anything at all, and with good reason.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:24 am

Lulu2 wrote: We were horror-struck, ashamed, broken-hearted and stricken...hearing of My Lai, and it's the same feeling now. We'll never know the complete truth, any more than we can ever understand the horror of combat, the stress of walking in soldiers' boots and being in the constant grip of adrenaline.

it is worth remembering - and it is barely known or acknowledged, because it doesn't fit the 'all soldiers are babykillers' paradigm - that the my lai massacre was *stopped* by american soldiers who intervened, at extraordinary risk to themselves. those soldiers only received recognition of their heroism in recent years - and they only accepted the recognition reluctantly, since they felt they were merely doing what was right and necessary.

same uniform. different actions.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:36 am

What you say is entirely true, anastrophe, and to the undying credit of the men involved and the uniforms they wore. What is also true is that the military establishment convicted just a single man on the ground for the entire event, the President interfered to ensure he served no sentence in jail, and his sole punishment was house arrest. Notions of justice seem very arbitrary in the US Military, as we've seen since.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:42 am

i would not say arbitrary, but rather - perhaps - jaundiced. war in and of itself is inhumane, no matter the rationale, no matter the outcome. justice within the military must exist within a sphere of behavior where killing is for the most part acceptable and often desireable. without regard to this particular case, the reality is that often a 20 year old kid who has already killed many people 'justly' may find himself on trial for having killed someone unjustly, while barely knowing the difference.

just as there are bad apples in the military as there are in society in general, there are weak and unjust sentences in the civilian criminal justice system too at time. as well, the american soldier perpetrators of the torture at abu ghraib received stiff sentences - but were those sentences just, or were they a response to the public/political outrage?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:04 am

DesignerGal wrote: What do you guys think about this? I find it deplorable! WTF?!?!?!

Deplorable? YES! Also despicable, detestable, and abhorrent. Thanks for giving our entire country a black eye, just when we didn't need that.

I guess what worries me the most is, how did this guy ever get into the military in the first place? Are we taking in all psychopaths these days? Isn't there any kind of screening?:(

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:55 pm

Jives wrote: Deplorable? YES! Also despicable, detestable, and abhorrent. Thanks for giving our entire country a black eye, just when we didn't need that.The implications of this comment are confusing. The reporting of this case is widespread outside of the USA. Is some form of self-censorship in the US itself meant to have a positive effect, in your opinion? Is discussion of the effects of the war within the USA to be considered breaking ranks? Most particularly, why is now "just when we didn't need that"?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:00 pm

anastrophe wrote: as well, the american soldier perpetrators of the torture at abu ghraib received stiff sentences - but were those sentences just, or were they a response to the public/political outrage?That's a serious question? The sentences were an outrage, the people who were sentenced are palpably as much victims of the events at the prison as those they abused, they should have been prosecution witnesses and not on trial themselves and the intelligence personnel who set the prison regime in place and brought in uninformed assistant Pizza Restaurant managers as guards have got away scot-free as usual, may they rot.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:25 pm

spot wrote: The implications of this comment are confusing. The reporting of this case is widespread outside of the USA. Is some form of self-censorship in the US itself meant to have a positive effect, in your opinion? Is discussion of the effects of the war within the USA to be considered breaking ranks? Most particularly, why is now "just when we didn't need that"?

i can't - and won't - speak for jives, but i believe his sarcastic 'thanks' comment was intended to be taken as directed towards the perpetrators themselves, not to the reporting of same.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:58 am

DesignerGal wrote: What do you guys think about this? I find it deplorable! WTF?!?!?!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/09/soldi ... index.html

Whats your take on it?

Hopefully the guilty parties will be handed over to the Iraqis to face whatever

penalty is appropriate in their country.

Latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rape08.xml

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:06 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Hopefully the guilty parties will be handed over to the Iraqis to face whatever

penalty is appropriate in their country.

Latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rape08.xml

i want these men to see justice as much as anyone. there are laws and agreements already in place for dealing with this. the men who may have committed it are american citizens, and cannot, should not, be tried by a foreign court. as well, they are under military jurisdiction.

handing them over to the iraqi's would be wrong, and would not necessarily get them a fair trial.

i believe the penalty for their crimes under military law is death. if they did it- and it certainly seems clear they did - i hope they hang.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:05 pm

Diuretic wrote: You're right, as I understand it in terms of the previously agreed jurisdiction. I remember reading somewhere that any allegations against the military would be dealt with by the military and that was agreed with the Iraqi government.

But do you mean in your comment "the men who may have committed it are american citizens, and cannot, should not, be tried by a foreign court" that an American who allegedly commits a crime in a foreign country should not be tried in that country?

less on the basis of being american citizens, more on the basis of being US military. i wrote it poorly.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:31 pm

anastrophe wrote: less on the basis of being american citizens, more on the basis of being US military. i wrote it poorly.

What difference that their military?

The alledged crimes were not committed in the course of their duty, nor were they in uniform. They were civil crimes and should, surely, be tried as such.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:12 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: What difference that their military?

The alledged crimes were not committed in the course of their duty, nor were they in uniform. They were civil crimes and should, surely, be tried as such.

do you have a citation for the opinion that they were not on duty? so far what i've read online doesn't suggest they were off-duty. their being in uniform or not is irrelevant. your opinion of how they should be tried is irrelevant - all that matters is the specifics of the agreement with Iraq that US soldiers are exempt from prosecution in Iraq courts.

as i said, if they're found guilty, which certainly doesn't seem like a stretch, i hope they hang.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:23 pm

anastrophe wrote: do you have a citation for the opinion that they were not on duty? so far what i've read online doesn't suggest they were off-duty. their being in uniform or not is irrelevant. your opinion of how they should be tried is irrelevant - all that matters is the specifics of the agreement with Iraq that US soldiers are exempt from prosecution in Iraq courts.

as i said, if they're found guilty, which certainly doesn't seem like a stretch, i hope they hang.

In my opinion they taken themselves off duty by changing out of uniform and leaving their post but that's just me - and I'd totally forgotten the gentleman's agreement which does, I agree, take precidence.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:16 pm

Diuretic wrote: The jurisdictional issue would appear to be more than a gentleman's agreement

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... munity.htm

Interesting article and mercifully brief.

It is interesting. Do they (the Iraqis) yet have their own government and law-

making process, or not?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:26 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: In my opinion they taken themselves off duty by changing out of uniform and leaving their post but that's just me - and I'd totally forgotten the gentleman's agreement which does, I agree, take precidence.
There is no "off duty" in a military war zone. The soldier serves and represents the United States regardless of clothing or time of day. It's only unfortunate that politicians have softened the rule of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; otherwise, the trial would be over and the guilty would be going home in a box.

And we would never have heard about it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:12 am

Accountable wrote: There is no "off duty" in a military war zone. The soldier serves and represents the United States regardless of clothing or time of day. It's only unfortunate that politicians have softened the rule of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; otherwise, the trial would be over and the guilty would be going home in a box.

And we would never have heard about it.

Different rules over here then - ISTR several cases in Northern Ireland where the outcome depended whether the soldier was on or off duty at the time.

BTW - didn't Blair and Bush declare the war to be over some time ago?

Seriously, if the case had been sorted out as soon as it came up we probably wouldn't have heard about it.