Rape and Murder by US Troops in Iraq
 

"Five American soldiers have been accused of raping an Iraqi woman then killing her along with three members of her family, including a child, before burning their bodies to destroy the evidence.

Military officials in Baghdad said yesterday that the men were the subject of a criminal investigation after two soldiers from the same infantry platoon came forward with information about the alleged incident. A week-long preliminary inquiry had established that there was sufficient evidence to proceed.

One soldier is reported to have been arrested after admitting his role in the incident, while four others have had their weapons taken away."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...01/ixnews.html

Ofcourse !

Thats just a mather of statistics. Rape and Murder is committed by a certain percentage of the pupulation. That percentage includes Millitary, priests, sweet school teachers, brothers, and the guy working at the news paper stand on the corner.

Right... rape and murder... just a statistic. :roll:

Edit: there are a few things about this that I find particularly notable:

It involved 4 or 5 perpetrators (depending on the article you look at); unlike the Haditha incident, it was reportedly a "crime of opportunity" (and not done in the heat of battle); three members of her family were killed and the house burned down to cover it up; the incident was initially attributed to sectarian violence (until someone came forward).

Its also a little different from a crime committed by "priests, sweet school teachers, brothers, and the guy working at the news paper stand on the corner" because:

a: None of the above are armed by a foreign occupying power;

b: None of the above are responsible, as an occupying power, for maintaining the security of the people;

c: None of the above are engaged in fighting an insurgency and "winning the hearts and minds of the people".

That comes with every war. I have predicted things like Abu Graib, this mess now, or guerilla warfare emerging after the field battle and later switching to terror and civil war even beoire the invasion 2003 and was bashed for that. Not the first and not the last incident of this kind. Maybe one should not be so enthusiastic about going to war, then. "Krieg vertiert" (E. Bahr).

I was never in favour of it and felt quite relieved when our PM declined the "invitation" to join. But you cannot just dismiss this stuff as "inevitable" or "merely a statistic" either; after all, the US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and has a responsibility, as an occupying power, to respect them - as do those in its military (which is why these incidents are naturally being investigated and why, if there is guilt, the perpetrators will presumably be held accountable).

Edit: there's another factor here that makes this intriguing:

This happened back in March. In June two soldiers from the same regiment were kidnapped, killed, and mutilated which was what prompted one of the accused in the March rape incident to come forward (according to various articles). The coincidences, timeline, and circumstances of the confession lead me to speculate as to if the kidnappings were prompted as retaliation for the March rape/murders - not that the insurgencies seem to need any excuse to commit their own atrocities, mind you (and therefore the two incidents could easily be completely unrelated). However the enemy's ability to recruit among the disaffected, its ability to hold grudges and inflict stupendous brutality all indicate to me just how important it is to scrupulously follow the Geneva Conventions and punish those who violate them; else who knows how more civilians decide to join the insurgency and perpetrate brutality of their own in reprisal.

I pity the people over there - both the military trying to do an uneviable job and those simply trying to live their lives in this hellhole.

In defence of Drebbel, I dont think he is limiting the tragedy to that of a simple statistic but making the point that In a certain population...whatever the population you will have a certain percentage of bad apples. Like in a city or 150,000 people you may have 20 rapes and 15 murders in a year. Well, when you have 150,000 troops you are going to get similar statistics (actually the percentages of crimes commited are lower for military personel from what I have heard, when this was discussed during desert storm).

If it turns out they are guilty, they deserve never to see the light of day again, or breath free air. (If I were in favor of the death penalty this would be one instance considering the circumstances where a firing squad would be in order).

I'm not sure what your curiousity or confusion is about. A criminal is a criminal, even if he's whering a uniform. These guys should be prosecuted and it sounds like its already underway.

Yep - simple statistics. Actually, if this is the only incident, then it is a low statistic as suggested.

-S

PS. Read up on Napoleonic times - this happened then too as well as throughout history.

Apparently this was planned and premeditated, which under US Military law does make them eligible for the death penalty - if the allegations are true and they are convicted.

Edit: as to this: If I lived in a city of 150,000 where the rape of a woman and killing of her family was so common as to be regarded as simply "a statistic" (that is, a norm) I would move. I live in a city of 180,000 and I don't think there's been a single rape/murder here in the 10 years that I've lived here so this behaviour is not normal to me. And there are nowhere even close to 20 rapes or 15 murders per year here. I would say that if things in your own societies have gotten this degenerate than perhaps you'd have been a lot smarter and better off to spend that $200 billion on fixing your own rape and murder problems rather than trying to fix someone elses.

Yes, but your city isn't mired in violence as a way of life is it? Move your 180,000 to Iraq and see what happens. Military services are not all filled with perfect citizens.

That's a bit circular. Is the rape and murder of a woman and her family the norm in cities where the US Military is stationed in peacetime? If the National Guard responds to a domestic crisis and there is looting and violence, would Americans like yourself expect some of them to take that as an opportunity to commit premeditated rape and murder? Or is it merely expected because the woman who was raped and then murdered, along with her family, happened to be Iraqi, and therefore somehow less than human anyway?

Ah, I see. You want an argument.
Afraid you really aren't going to get one. There really isn't anything to argue about. I think you want me to defend the incident for some reason but it's not going to happen.
I will however expand on the military in peacetime and wartime. The peacetime miliary is kept strictly supervised and disiplined. Wartime on the other hand is not so strictly supervised and disiplined. It's impossible too. What could get you busted in peacetime will get you nothing but an eye roll in wartime. It's harder to control your soldiers because they are more spread out and communication is done by radio ( in a city enviroment). You expect and trust that your soldiers will do the right thing. If they do the wrong thing as in rape and murder and it is found out they will be disiplined under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMF). What more could you expect? No military force in the world has a pych test to see how you will react under the pressures of combat that I am aware of. You put a loaded firearm in someones hands and they change and thats a fact. Skybird might have a twenty page essay on the subject somewhere dealing with the subject. I'm not going to get into it.
You are under the mistaken impression that soldiers are supposed to be knights in shining armour and we are in the age of chivalry. I find that amusing. You have good and bad just like any society and you trust that justice will prevail as it will in this case.
To expect everyone in an armed force to be perfect gentlemen is pretty delusional. That hasn't happened in the age of mankind yet and it won't in the future.

An army is no representative image of society. It is still mostly a male society, and it only attracts - in non-conscript armies - people with an interest in that. And sociological reserach probably reveals that certain social groups are over- (under-) represented. So the argument that the army reflects the ammount of crime to be expected from civil society, necessarily must be distorted a bit. the first is not representative for the latter. But the overall climate and mood may change and influence the spirit inside an army. For example I am very much aware that British soldiers and officers behave and talk in different and mnore relaxed way than many German ones. the tradition in both armies is different.

But all that is not so much decisive, I think.Decisive is that EVERY man, civilian as military as well, will change and will be affected by the presence of violance of that scale over a long time, with his life at risk for so long, with situations he do not see meaning in, and the genral situation of chaos that war necessarily brings. War changes man's mind and attitude, and for the worst it does so. That's no question of guilt or non-guilt, it simple a reality of human nature - man bears so much, and beyond that he brakes, in whatever that symptom will show up: hate, frustration that leads to vandalism or an attiude tnot to care for life anymore. It has always been that way in every war ever fought, and it will always be like that. That's why it is "war", and not a picnic in the park. By the way an army is trained and lead, and the spriit that is held alive in it, the time-factor and the degree to which such barbaric things happen can be influenced: but it cvannot be totally prevented. All you can do is examine what happened, and force the ones guilty to accept legal consequences by military code of law - that's what it is there for.

"Krieg vertiert." War turns men into dogs. If you don't want to see it happen, don't wage war.

A discussion perhaps, but fair enough. :D

Well said, and in fact I don't expect the armed forces to behave as chivalarous knights. :lol: This is actually a very good arguement as to why the US Military had no business "liberating" Iraq from its own government, unless of course they themselves would not succumb to the same behaviour that Saddam Hussein's henchmen had partaken in. But as you say, this is an impossible standard and the brutality of acts such as this and warfare in general completely undermines the "liberation" rationale for the war. Perhaps that's what Skybird was getting at (I won't put words in his mouth, and besides, he can write his own essays on this and probably already has :)).

I won't say you're guilty of this, because I don't know your feelings on the subject, but there seems to me to be a definite disconnect among those who advocated the war on humanitarian grounds but are curiously silent on this subject, or else simply dismiss it as "statistics", the "heat of battle", etc. I mean collateral damage is one thing, and that's been dismissed from the outset as a "necessary evil", but this is a whole other thing to me. Especially after Abu Ghraib and Haditha - and especially in light of the fact that there is still no end to this occupation in sight.

Nobody likes to be told their side is doing something wrong. I don't like being told that something I was a part of for so long is commiting atrocities. But I also know that sh!t happens and it can't be ignored.
I also think that the general public is so used to hearing about violence, day in and day out that they have become anesthetized to it and are able to just shrug it off and say stuff happens..