5 U.S troops accused of rape and murder


Jersay
#1
BEIJI, Iraq (AP) - Five U.S. army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three members of her family in Iraq, a U.S. military official said Friday.

This is the sixth current inquiry into the alleged slayings of Iraqi civilians by American troops. The soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of assaulting in the March incident, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

The U.S. command issued only a sparse statement saying that Maj.-Gen. James Thurman, commander of coalition troops in Baghdad, had ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged killing of a family of four in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad. The statement had no other details.

At least 14 U.S. soldiers have been convicted in such cases.

The United States also is investigating allegations that two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. marines in the western town of Haditha on Nov. 19 in a revenge attack after one of their own died in a roadside bombing.

"The entire investigation will encompass everything that could have happened that evening. We're not releasing any specifics of an ongoing investigation," military spokesman Maj. Todd Breasseale said of the Mahmoudiyah allegations.

"There is no indication what led soldiers to this home. The investigation just cracked open. We're just beginning to dig into the details."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he had no additional details on the incident but added that the military routinely investigates all allegations of misconduct.

However, a U.S. official close to the investigation said at least one of the soldiers, all assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, has admitted his role and been arrested.

Two soldiers from the same regiment were slain this month when they were kidnapped at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah. The military has said one and possibly both of the slain soldiers had been tortured and beheaded.

The official told the AP the accused soldiers under investigation were not only from the same regiment but also from the same platoon as the two slain soldiers.

The official said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one of them to disclose the rape-slaying on June 22.

According to a senior army official, the alleged incident was first revealed by a soldier during a routine counselling-type session. The official, who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said that soldier did not witness the incident but heard about it.

A second soldier, who also was not involved, said he overhead soldiers conspiring to commit the crimes, and then later saw bloodstains on their clothes, the official said.

He also said the four people killed included three adults and a child, and one of the adults was the woman who allegedly was raped.

One of the accused soldiers already has been discharged and is believed to be in the United States, several U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The others have had their weapons taken away and are confined to Forward Operating Base Mahmoudiyah.

Senior officers were aware of the family's death but believed it was due to sectarian violence, common in the religiously mixed town, a U.S. official said.

The killings appeared to have been a "crime of opportunity," the official said. The soldiers had not been attacked by insurgents but had noticed the woman on previous patrols.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=w063031A.xml
 
JonB2004
#2
That's disgusting! There is no reason for the U.S. soldiers to be raping and killing innocent civilians. I know they are upset that their comrades were killed, but it is no reason to do that.
 
I think not
#3
They're going to get the death penalty.
 
Claudius
#4
[edit]coulda sworn Jon2004 posted here and I responded to him. Must be getting old [/edit]

They did a special psyche-screening of every US forces member over there a while back. Studies reported that there was an alarming increase of mental disorders from the time the same people took a similar (actually a much lighter) mental screening test when they got in and it turns out that there was an increase before and after of 12%....going from 3%.

Now it should be noted that the first screening recruits take when they get in, (get in, apply, receive orders for a mission like Iraq; not sure which actually), is far lighter and some would probably be right to be sceptical about it. The one that was taken later was probably much more stringent.

So, an increase from 3% to 12%. I thought this sounded reasonable considering the stress yet many people of course that it was monstrous and it was the flavour of the day until a JFDI guy (me) decided to just go look it up. Wouldn't you know it but the current level of mental disorders in the USA was anywhere from 20% to 50%(!) depending on who you asked: official medical groups, or pharmaceutical companies. Turns out also that though those numbers are higher than UK and Canada, their (our) numbers where still remarkably high. I attribute that to the 'sale' of mental disorders, or the early discovery of them to the very trendy industry of therapy. More doctors, more patients, more prescriptions. Still the overall gist of it was that considering everything that's going on there were less mental disorders in the forces. Which leads us to the further point that in every sizable population there are going to be x-number of mentally disturbed people, and of sickos.

What's my fking point already? My point is that things like this come to light and people assume it's the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes it's true, like Abu Garib, so that doesn't help, but the vast majority of the time it's just a representative demographic of mostly young men, and so many of them are going to be sickos. The backdrop of war and destruction begs only to add to this assumption but, as loosely indicated by my mental disorder story, it has less to do with it than it would seem likely, (even to me).

I'm probably going to get accused of making excuses for these men but I'm simply not, no more than I would be by pointing out the demographic realities of crimes such as these in our society. The numbers simply don't suggest that soldiers are more likely to commit crimes like this until the statistics are completely skewered to say so.



.
 
Jersay
#5
I would agree Cladius if it was one or two incidents. But this is the sixth or seventh incident excluding Ab Ghrabid and most have to do with Marines, some don't.
 
Claudius
#6
Quote:

I would agree Cladius if it was one or two incidents. But this is the sixth or seventh incident excluding Ab Ghrabid and most have to do with Marines, some don't.

Well I could play Devils advocate and point out that there are 130000 troops there. Lets call that about 100000 men out on the streets. With the caveat of course that they're in a war zone and everyone's armed to the tilt.

Have you looked at the rape numbers? The gang vs. family murder numbers?


Just for a hoot, here they are. Forcible rape statistics for '03 and '04 per population of 100000

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offen...ible_rape.html

Year Number of offenses.....Rate per 100,000 inhabitants
2003 93,883......................32.3%
2004 94,635......................32.2%

Murder rates per 100000
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offen...me/murder.html

Year Number of offenses.....Rate per 100,000 inhabitants
2003 16,528 .....................5.7
2004 16,137 .....................5.5

No offence, but you can read whatever the opinion is on the front page, or you can spend 5 minutes on Google and decide for yourself.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin', y'know?


I could make that point, but I won't. I say burn 'em at the stake.

.
 
Machjo
#7
So when planes flew into buildings, that ws due to Islamic fanaticism spreading across the Middle East and so Bush and company had to do something about it and fast.

But when US soldiers do it, oh poor them, it's because fo mental disorders!

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that the claim of mental disorders is not legitimate, but rather the double standard.

If a foreigner kills Americans, it's because he's a savage fanatical beast of prey devoted to destroying the Great Satan! Yet if a US soldier commits an attrocity, we all start talking of mental disorders.

Have we ever considered that maybe a large number of "insurgents" are suffering from the same mental disorders, having seen family members blown to bits. have we not considered that just as US soldiers go out on revenge killings, maybe some of the "terrorists" are also people who, just like their US counterparts, have simply lost their marbles after a family member dies and so dicided to blow him/herself up too, and get a few US soldiers along the way?

Why is it that when an Iraqi kills a US soldier, we have no concern whatsoever for the mental health of the Iraqi population, yet when a US soldier does the same, we're so concerned about it. Sure, we ought to be concerned about it for US soldiers, it's only human compassion to do so. Yet why do we not react the same way when many Iraqis do the same, and instead just immediately label them terrorists? Is it because the Iraqis are "them" whereas the US is "us?
 
Claudius
#8
Quote:

So when planes flew into buildings, that ws due to Islamic fanaticism spreading across the Middle East and so Bush and company had to do something about it and fast.

But when US soldiers do it, oh poor them, it's because fo mental disorders!

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me but if it is then you need to read the whole post again because that clearly wasn't my point. IOW, are you arguing with me, or yourself?


,
 
Jersay
#9
That is in America Cladius. Not in Iraq I saw.
 
Claudius
#10
Sure. That was my whole point. There is in these incidents always the appearently clear implication that these things are done out of proportion because they won't get cought, or because they're soldiers or because they're all murderious animals, specifically because they are an army or because there is a specific plan behind all of this, and the numbers just dont suggest that. there is the further implication that it's always the tip of the iceberg. I dispute that.

I mean really, there is a war zone and then there is society. What other numbers am I supposed to compare to point out that this isn't disproportionate?




.
 
Jersay
#11
Good point.
 
Claudius
#12
They're still assholes though. They gotta go.

.
 
Jersay
#13
Agreed.
 
JonB2004
#14
I think that the rapes and murders that are being commited by the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are for revenge and not because of a mental disorder.
 
Jersay
#15
Possibly.
 
Claudius
#16
Quote:

I think that the rapes and murders that are being commited by the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are for revenge and not because of a mental disorder.

Why would you think it was because of a mental disorder? Did someone suggest that?

Revenge? Well doubtless they have a "reasoning" for their acts, every violent criminal does.

.
 
JonB2004
#17
Well, it makes sense, does it not? These soldiers are pissed off because these suicide bombers are coming around and blowing up their comrades. They want revenge. But taking their revenge on innocent Iraqi citizens is unacceptable.
 
Claudius
#18
Quote:

Well, it makes sense, does it not? These soldiers are pissed off because these suicide bombers are coming around and blowing up their comrades.

Why does that make sense? Every violent act requires a rationale, even for maniacs. There are 100000 troops there. If they all wanted revenge would there not be more a heck of a lot more of this?

Rapes happen here at home too, a lot more of them apparently. What's their excuse? Revenge? Again they may indeed tell themselves that's the reason but I suggest it's not. The reason is they're a group of fuktards. I suggest any one of them could've commited the same rapes at home and gone completely un-noticed by the media. It's still the responsibility of their forces to keep them in line, I'm not disputing that, but again the indication that this is happening because they're in Iraq; because they're pissed off, has a high potential to be false.

Quote:

They want revenge. But taking their revenge on innocent Iraqi citizens is unacceptable.

Obviously. Their arrest would indicate that.

.
 
Simpleton
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

That's disgusting! There is no reason for the U.S. soldiers to be raping and killing innocent civilians. I know they are upset that their comrades were killed, but it is no reason to do that.

I don't know why people continue to get so excited by this kind of news. This is typical wartime activity. It happened in Viet Nam, Korea, and in World War II.

Let's remember that troops are men. They're not machines. They get fatigued. They get lonely. They get horny. And they don't know if they're ever going to make it home.

Now I'm not defending their actions, I'm just saying that what they did is typical wartime activity. It probably happens a lot more often than is reported, but it's still relatively rare. Understandable, but certainly not acceptable. And totally unpreventable.
 
JonB2004
#20
This kind of thing is preventable. Pull the troops out of Iraq! They shouldn't of been there in the first place!
 
Colpy
#21
This is just silly.

Take 130,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 25, which is the age/gender group with by far the highest murder/crime rate, and yes, there will be murders, and there will be rapes.

This would be a scandal if it were covered up by the authorities, it is a tragedy no matter what......the same type of tragedy that would take place within this population NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE!

As long as this is handled properly, the accused are tried, the guilty are punished, life goes on........
 
Simpleton
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

This kind of thing is preventable. Pull the troops out of Iraq! They shouldn't of been there in the first place!

Can't do that, JonB2004. The U.S. is in it for the long haul whether they like it or not. If the U.S. backs out now, and Iraq enters a full scale civil war, America will not only suffer the wrath of a very hostile international community, but they'd have to think twice before ever seeking a UN resolution on anything in the future.

This whole Iraq thing has been a huge disaster for the United States. They don't need to be reminded, however. They see the chaos unfold everyday on their television screens.
 
Jersay
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

This is just silly.

Take 130,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 25, which is the age/gender group with by far the highest murder/crime rate, and yes, there will be murders, and there will be rapes.

This would be a scandal if it were covered up by the authorities, it is a tragedy no matter what......the same type of tragedy that would take place within this population NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE!

As long as this is handled properly, the accused are tried, the guilty are punished, life goes on........

Its not silly Colpy. Because it keeps popping up. Maybe several incidents, can occur but not the number that we are finding including Abu Gharib
 
Machjo
#24
The US authorities should have considered this kind of thing long before they ever decided to go into Iraq.

Let's say, for instance, that the US had limited itself to within the boundaries of international law. It would have stopped at Afghan because that is where the UN gave them a legitimate mandate. With US forces concentrated there, theyprobably would have cought Bin Laden by now! Saddam Hussain would be in power in Iraq and still hate the US and vice versa, but both the US and Iraq would still view Bin Laden as a common enemy. So Al-Qaida would get no respite in Iraq either. Al-Qaida, being Wahhabi, doesn't get along well with Iran either, and never had. So effectively, Bin Ladin would have been cornered.

Add to taht that due to the sheer number of US troops and rest time which could be given them,not to mention a large number of allied forces, including Canada, which were willing to help wiht a UN mandate, the likelyhood of murders and rapes would have been reduced in the first place, and even if it should have occurred, it would tend to limit itself to a legal as opposed to a political issue.

With the US in Iraq, now legally, but initially not, and with few allies, and suspected by the Iraqis due to its illegal entry, along with troop shortages, not only does the chance of this happening increase, but when it does, it then takes on a political dimension, making it an explosive issue in the region, adding likewise to stereotypes of the US re: its sexual mores, big taboo in a Muslim country. And then add to that that with all the already existing animosity, it thus gives the impression that US troops see Iraqis as nothing more than cattle to shoot at now and then. Needless to say, Iraqis will react.

Just because of this event, two US soldiers have already been killed in an apparent revenge killing by the iraqis. So were those Iraqis insurgents or terrorists, or perhaps just family members who decided to behead two US troops. What goes around, comes around. Now that this will make it into the Iraqi news, one way or another, we will probably end up with 100 new "terrorists" in the next month, all from the same town, many with the same family name!

The US authorites should have considered the potential psychological, social, political, cultural and religious issues of the area before ever going to war, and that would have included considering the age, maturity, training, etc, of US troops, as well as how their behaviour could make or break the US in this war.

They only looked at the military side of things, their fault.
 
JonB2004
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

This kind of thing is preventable. Pull the troops out of Iraq! They shouldn't of been there in the first place!


Quote: Originally Posted by Simpleton

Can't do that, JonB2004. The U.S. is in it for the long haul whether they like it or not. If the U.S. backs out now, and Iraq enters a full scale civil war, America will not only suffer the wrath of a very hostile international community, but they'd have to think twice before ever seeking a UN resolution on anything in the future.

This whole Iraq thing has been a huge disaster for the United States. They don't need to be reminded, however. They see the chaos unfold everyday on their television screens.


Iraq is going to enter a civil war regardless of whether the U.S. is there or not. This whole disater is not only going to result in the demise of Iraq, but the U.S. as well. The U.S.'s demise will be financially though. Iraq will be reduced to rubble.
 
Simpleton
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

This kind of thing is preventable. Pull the troops out of Iraq! They shouldn't of been there in the first place!


Quote: Originally Posted by Simpleton

Can't do that, JonB2004. The U.S. is in it for the long haul whether they like it or not. If the U.S. backs out now, and Iraq enters a full scale civil war, America will not only suffer the wrath of a very hostile international community, but they'd have to think twice before ever seeking a UN resolution on anything in the future.

This whole Iraq thing has been a huge disaster for the United States. They don't need to be reminded, however. They see the chaos unfold everyday on their television screens.


Iraq is going to enter a civil war regardless of whether the U.S. is there or not. This whole disater is not only going to result in the demise of Iraq, but the U.S. as well. The U.S.'s demise will be financially though. Iraq will be reduced to rubble.

Doesn't the U.S. currently have their eye on the ball in Iran? If they pull out of Iraq right now, how can they hope to accomplish anything with Iran?

Besides, if they can ever make any progress in Iraq, it will make for good base for any offensive actions against Iran. Should any offensive action become necessary, of course. And, providing the international community gives the U.S. the go ahead to f*ck up another country in the middle east.
 
JonB2004
#27
They can accomplish things with Iran without occuping Iraq. And why should the U.S. be allowed to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran? Haven't the people of Iraq suffered enough?
 
Machjo
#28
And considering that many Shi'i in Iran and Iraq have a good relationship, the US attacking iran from Iraq could suddenly find its feet standing on wobbly ground. Hard to fight when you're busy hanging on to the ground shaking under your feet.

Granted, common faith aside, the Iraqi and Persian Shi'ites might find the language barrier problematic in coordinating attacks, although there probably are enough bilinguals near the border areas. Yet even without coordinated stikes, unrelated attacks comming from both sides would still put the US in a two-front war.

But hey, if the US govt wants to rock and roll, attacking ran would be the way to years of fun and excitement.

Welcome to the wasp's nest!
 
JonB2004
#29
I hope the whole Iraq problem brings the U.S. government down.
 
Just the Facts
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

And considering that many Shi'i in Iran and Iraq have a good relationship, the US attacking iran from Iraq could suddenly find its feet standing on wobbly ground.

I think that ground is pretty wobbly already. Sistani is highly pro-Iranian, if not entirely controlled by the Iranian mullahs. I have seen lots of reports of Iranian involvement in Iraq already.
 

Similar Threads

1
Accused Impersonator Freed in Rape Case
by sanctus | May 18th, 2007
3
Astronaut accused of attempted murder
by m_levesque | Feb 6th, 2007