Ex-Soldier Charged in Iraq Rape, Killing

[underbear1]

It appears they are scapegoating ONE soldier, but one soldier confessed this crime and another admitted it occured. It also is evident all these soldiers were drinking and talking about raping this girl, and they CHANGED TO DARK CLOTHING, which makes it premeditated. All 5 failed to report this incident, and even more COWARDLY attempted to incinerate this poor girl's body to cover their crime. I wish they were tried in Iraq, if guilty they should receive NO MERCY!
After Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and another city with one man murdered, now this rape/murder, I have to wonder is this the tip of the iceberg? Remember they successfully hid most of these incidents for up to a YEAR.

[RickSp]

Not only are they scapegoating one soldier but they are ignoring the rules of engagement set up by the commanding officers that virtually guarantees civilians will die needlessly and can only encourge this sort of brutality.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Not only are they scapegoating one soldier but they are ignoring the rules of engagement set up by the commanding officers that virtually guarantees civilians will die needlessly and can only encourge this sort of brutality.

Could you elucidate how the ROEs promote rape and murder?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Could you elucidate how the ROEs promote rape and murder?

I never wrote "promote". Nevertheless, rules of engagment that promote troop protection may make perfect sense in a conventional war but can be highly countrproductive in a guerilla war. On example is the raid near the town of Ishaqi where to kill one insurgent up to ten civilians were killed including five children and four women. If it is OK under the ROE to kill eleven Iraqi women and children in order to kill one insurgent. It sends a clear message that Iraqi civilian lives don't matter. Military Cleared in Raid on Iraq House

U.S. commanders used appropriate force in taking down a safe house in Iraq during a March 15 military raid that led to the deaths of as many as a dozen civilians, according to the results of an investigation announced in Baghdad yesterday. Officials moved quickly to tamp down allegations of a civilian massacre in the town of Ishaqi, near Balad, after a video broadcast by the BBC this week appeared to show that several civilians, including children, were shot to death in the nighttime raid. Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, issued a statement last night saying that investigators had found no wrongdoing in the Ishaqi raid and that the ground force commander "properly followed the rules of engagement as he necessarily escalated the use of force until the threat was eliminated."

The US military has admitted to using napalm and white phosporus in civilian neighborhoods. Until recently up to eight civilians were killed per week at checkpoints by US troops. Of course, the US doesn't even bother to keep track of Iraqi civilian deaths. As Tommy Frans said "We don't do body counts." Iraqi civilian deaths are so unimportant they aren't worth counting.

The message is clear - Iraqi civilians don't matter. That is effectively what the rules of engagement say. When in doubt light them up. Should anyone be surprised when Iraqi civilians are murdered? And of course, the only ones getting blamed will be from the non-coms on down.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: underbear1 These guys better hope they get military court marshalls in the US, I have a feeling the punishment for raping and murdering a child in Iraq would be BARBARIC.

They hang 'em. Saddam was barbaric, and Al Qaeda is barbaric, but the Iraqi people may be different amongst themselves. They may want justice, but not necessarily a revenge type deal. They used to cut off limbs which is outrageous, but hopefully they will throw some of that old stuff out, and get more modern day. I think their leadership kept them in the dark ages as much as their religion did.

I think any group can have murderers and rapists. Instead of looking at a young girl they might be looking at a young boy. I don't think sexuality has anything to do with murder and rape. I'm no psychologist though.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp I never wrote "promote". Nevertheless, rules of engagment that promote troop protection may make perfect sense in a conventional war but can be highly countrproductive in a guerilla war. On example is the raid near the town of Ishaqi where to kill one insurgent up to ten civilians were killed including five children and four women. If it is OK under the ROE to kill eleven Iraqi women and children in order to kill one insurgent. It sends a clear message that Iraqi civilian lives don't matter. Military Cleared in Raid on Iraq House The US military has admitted to using napalm and white phosporus in civilian neighborhoods. Until recently up to eight civilians were killed per week at checkpoints by US troops. Of course, the US doesn't even bother to keep track of Iraqi civilian deaths. As Tommy Frans said "We don't do body counts." Iraqi civilian deaths are so unimportant they aren't worth counting. The message is clear - Iraqi civilians don't matter. That is effectively what the rules of engagement say. When in doubt light them up. Should anyone be surprised when Iraqi civilians are murdered? And of course, the only ones getting blamed will be from the non-coms on down.

Ah! You did not say promote, you said encourage. I stand corrected.

If the murderous swine would not attack from among the crowd, the innocents need not die.

But pray tell, short of the murderous swine coming out from behind the woman and children of Iraq, what should be the response of U.S. and Iraqi troops who come under fire and take casualties from attackers who hide among the woman and children of Iraq?

[Scribbler1]

The US should have kept the Iraqi army together, given control to the elected government and gone the hell home. THAT should have been done before ANY "response" was necessary. I suspect you already knew that, though.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The US should have kept the Iraqi army together, given control to the elected government and gone the hell home. THAT should have been done before ANY "response" was necessary. I suspect you already knew that, though.

You don't really believe that simply going "the hell home" would have lead to a better Iraq, do you?

For that matter, wouldn't Iraq be a whole lot better off if the "insurgent" swine went the hell home?

[jose]

does nobody read sun tzu´s art of war?
"to capture the enemy's army is better than to destroy it…
http://www.sonshi.com/sun-tzu-terrorism.html

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Apeman81 You don't really believe that simply going "the hell home" would have lead to a better Iraq, do you?

Am I supposed to believe " a better Iraq" is worth all the money and American lives wasted over there? Am I supposed to believe Saddam Hussein, who was NO threat to the US, was suddenly in need of being overthrown after he had already been a dictator for almost thirty years, many of them with OUR help and support? Am I required to believe Bush has such a compassionate nature that he decimated Iraq in order to "save" it, while ignoring so many REALLY brutal dictatorships in Africa?

Am I supposed to believe the same weak, tired and transparent bullshit that YOU do, Apeman?

For that matter, wouldn't Iraq be a whole lot better off if the "insurgent" swine went the hell home?

Most of them ARE home, Apeman, which is something NONE of our people over there can say.

You can do better than that.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: jose does nobody read sun tzu´s art of war? "to capture the enemy's army is better than to destroy it… http://www.sonshi.com/sun-tzu-terrorism.html

That's the thing. We HAD their army and we broke it up, only to let them take their guns and their training and go underground and resurface later on to shoot at US! That was only ONE of a series of idiotic mistakes which were so bad Bush should have resigned in shame for any of them.

[underbear1]

"But pray tell, short of the murderous swine coming out from behind the woman and children of Iraq, what should be the response of U.S. and Iraqi troops who come under fire and take casualties from attackers who hide among the woman and children of Iraq?"

This was not the case in this rape/murder, 5 soldiers drinking and plotting to rape this girl, and even changed to dark clothing, didn't do this in the heat of battle or after an IED attack in that neighborhood........they did it cold blooded and with INTENT, they also didn't let the murdering of the girl's parents and her 5-7yo kid sister kill their hard on for this 15yo girl. Quite frankly if found guilty, stoning them in the street seems justice to me.

Attempting to incinerate this girl's body, and covering up this event for MONTHS adds insult to injury, and I hope several up the chain of command lose their careers as well.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Ah! You did not say promote, you said encourage. I stand corrected. If the murderous swine would not attack from among the crowd, the innocents need not die. But pray tell, short of the murderous swine coming out from behind the woman and children of Iraq, what should be the response of U.S. and Iraqi troops who come under fire and take casualties from attackers who hide among the woman and children of Iraq?

Spare me, ape. I know - you blame the victims. You want the insurgency to wear uniforms and line up to be gunned down by superior fire power. The insurgency is fighting a guerilla war, and all your silly name-calling doesn't change a thing. Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney wanted to fight their illegal war on the cheap, so they sent in too few men and relied on firepower and technology, which has proven to be a fine way to lose a guerilla war.

The US rules of engagement which says that it is OK to kill eleven civilians to nail one insurgent, suggests that someone in command is dumber than a sack of hammers. How many hearts and minds did we lose that night? How many new insurgents will rise to seek vengence against the American invaders that killed the children of their relatives?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Spare me, ape. I know - you blame the victims. You want the insurgency to wear uniforms and line up to be gunned down by superior fire power. The insurgency is fighting a guerilla war, and all your silly name-calling doesn't change a thing. Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney wanted to fight their illegal war on the cheap, so they sent in too few men and relied on firepower and technology, which has proven to be a fine way to lose a guerilla war. The US rules of engagement which says that it is OK to kill eleven civilians to nail one insurgent, suggests that someone in command is dumber than a sack of hammers. How many hearts and minds did we lose that night? How many new insurgents will rise to seek vengence against the American invaders that killed the children of their relatives?

Truly pathetic. I press your to explain a better way and you fall back on jingoistic platitudes, avoiding the question.


"I know - you blame the victims" Show me anywhere on any thread where I have said this. Explain to me how you leap to this conclusion.

"illegal war" Define for me the point of law used in this gartuitous assertion. Show me how this war is illegal.

"insurgents" Define insurgent and tell me, if these swine who hide among civilians from which they attack seeking to draw fire upon the people of Iraq, are seeking to overthrow the current, elected government, what government are they seeking? And why should these few murderous scum be given carte blanche to hide among the citizenry from where the launch attacks in order to bring further suffering to the people of Iraq? Why is ok for them to do this? Why do you overlook their actions?

Would the eleven civilians have been caught in a crossfire if the one worthless insurgent hadn't attacked from among them?

C'mon Rick. Stop dancing on the edge of the issue. Put your pat phrases and practiced non responses back in the drawer and deal with these questions directly.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: underbear1 "But pray tell, short of the murderous swine coming out from behind the woman and children of Iraq, what should be the response of U.S. and Iraqi troops who come under fire and take casualties from attackers who hide among the woman and children of Iraq?" This was not the case in this rape/murder, 5 soldiers drinking and plotting to rape this girl, and even changed to dark clothing, didn't do this in the heat of battle or after an IED attack in that neighborhood........they did it cold blooded and with INTENT, they also didn't let the murdering of the girl's parents and her 5-7yo kid sister kill their hard on for this 15yo girl. Quite frankly if found guilty, stoning them in the street seems justice to me. Attempting to incinerate this girl's body, and covering up this event for MONTHS adds insult to injury, and I hope several up the chain of command lose their careers as well.

Answer my question.

Don't try to hide behind a completely unrelated story. Answer my question

[RickSp]

Ape this is getting boring.

This war is illegal because it is an aggressive war as defined be the Nuremberg Principles, largely drafted by the US. Leading an aggressive war is a war crime. The invasion of Iraq also violated the UN Charter. Because the US is the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, it has gotten away with so far, if you call sinking into a quagmire at the cost of 20,000 dead and wounded, hundreds of billions of tax payers dollars squandered, and creating a new center for training terrorists, getting away with it.

The US military continues to try to fight a guerilla war with too few troops and by using overwhelming force. This is a great way to lose a guerilla war and that is just what they are doing. Killing eleven civilians to kill one alleged fighter by calling in an air strike to collapse the building is effective but incredibly stupid. The eleven were not "caught in a crossfire" as you represent it. They were crushed to death by falling masonry.

And here you go again with your idiotic rant about "swine who hide among civilians". If you cannot see how you are "blaming the victims" you are not as smart as I suspect you are. This is the nature of guerilla war and why it is so hard to counter.

I don't consider the actions of the insurgents necessarily right or proper. Neither do I consider the rules of engagement used by the US to make sense, where it is OK to sweep a room in a civilian house with automatic weapons fire or a frag grenade without first determining who is in the room. It is essentially OK to kill civilians.

Here are comments by the attorney for one of the soldiers who killed the 24 civilians in Haditha.

It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines."

And heer are the ROE they followed:

Gary Myers, a civilian attorney for a Marine who was with Wuterich that day, said the Marines followed standard operating procedures when they "cleared" the houses, using fragmentation grenades and gunshots to respond to an immediate threat. A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said. Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children -- most likely civilians -- they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

Any ROE that says it is fine "to shoot first and ask questions later" is stupid and encourages rape and murder. As I suggested before, it is a fine way to lose a guerilla war.

[RickSp]

A story suggesting that the motive for the kidnapping, murder and mutiliation of two US soldiers was revenge for the rape and murder of a teenage girl and her family.

Two dead soldiers, eight more to go, vow avengers of Iraqi girl's rape

The American soldiers accused of raping an Iraqi girl and then murdering her and her family may have provoked an insurgent revenge plot in which two of their comrades were abducted and beheaded last month, it has been claimed. Pte Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Pte Thomas Tucker, 25, were snatched from a checkpoint near the town of Yusufiyah on June 16 in what was thought at the time to be random terrorist retaliation for the killing of the al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in an American air strike two days earlier. Now, however, residents of the neighbouring town of Mahmoudiyah have told The Sunday Telegraph that their kidnap was carried out to avenge the attack on a local girl Abeer Qassim Hamza, 15, and her family. They claim that insurgents have vowed to kidnap and kill another eight American troops to exact a 10-to-one revenge for the rape and murder of the girl. Prosecutors alleged that Green and others entered the home of a family of civilians, where he killed the girl's parents and young sister, raped the teenager along with another soldier then shot her in the head. The bodies were found burnt in an apparent cover-up attempt last March. US commanders initially thought the killings were the work of insurgents.

[underbear1]

Ape explain to me how this rape/murder will make ANY woman in our troops any safer in Iraq, in Afghanistan? Explain how this rape/murder ends the sectarian acts of violence which is killing both Iraqis and Americans. If you have no answer...............shut the hell up!

[RickSp]

Five more soldiers have been charged.

Five soldiers charged in Iraq rape-murder case

The rape victim was apparently 14.

[RickSp]

An article in yesterday's Washington Post addresses the problem which is not just the five cases where criminal charges have been filed, but the many, many more incidents where Iraqis civilians have been killed in accordance with the rules of engagement.

Recall a more recent incident, in Samarra . On May 30, U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint there opened fire on a speeding vehicle that either did not see or failed to heed their command to stop. Two women in the vehicle were shot dead. One of them, Nahiba Husayif Jassim, 35, was pregnant. The baby was also killed. The driver, Jassim's brother, had been rushing her to a hospital to give birth. No one tried to cover up the incident: U.S. military representatives issued expressions of regret. In all likelihood, we will be learning more about Haditha and Mahmudiyah for months to come, whereas the Samarra story has already been filed away and largely forgotten. And that's the problem. The killing at the Samarra checkpoint was not an atrocity; most likely it was an accident, a mistake. Yet plenty of evidence suggests that in Iraq such mistakes have occurred routinely, with moral and political consequences that have been too long ignored. Indeed, conscious motivation is beside the point: Any action resulting in Iraqi civilian deaths, however inadvertent, undermines the Bush administration's narrative of liberation, and swells the ranks of those resisting the U.S. presence. Through the war's first three years, any Iraqi venturing too close to an American convoy or checkpoint was likely to come under fire. Thousands of these "escalation of force" episodes occurred. Now, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, has begun to recognize the hidden cost of such an approach. "People who were on the fence or supported us" in the past "have in fact decided to strike out against us," he recently acknowledged. In the early days of the insurgency, some U.S. commanders appeared oblivious to the possibility that excessive force might produce a backlash. They counted on the iron fist to create an atmosphere conducive to good behavior. The idea was not to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Iraqis, but to induce compliance through intimidation. "You have to understand the Arab mind," one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. "The only thing they understand is force -- force, pride and saving face." Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it." Such crass language, redolent with racist, ethnocentric connotations, speaks volumes. These characterizations, like the use of "gooks" during the Vietnam War, dehumanize the Iraqis and in doing so tacitly permit the otherwise impermissible. Thus, Abu Ghraib and Haditha -- and too many regretted deaths, such as that of Nahiba Husayif Jassim. As the war enters its fourth year, how many innocent Iraqis have died at American hands, not as a result of Haditha-like massacres but because of accidents and errors? The military doesn't know and, until recently, has publicly professed no interest in knowing. Estimates range considerably, but the number almost certainly runs in the tens of thousands. Even granting the common antiwar bias of those who track the Iraqi death toll -- and granting, too, that the insurgents have far more blood on their hands -- there is no question that the number of Iraqi noncombatants killed by U.S. forces exceeds by an order of magnitude the number of U.S. troops killed in hostile action, which is now more than 2,000. Who bears responsibility for these Iraqi deaths? The young soldiers pulling the triggers? The commanders who establish rules of engagement that privilege "force protection" over any obligation to protect innocent life? The intellectually bankrupt policymakers who sent U.S. forces into Iraq in the first place and now see no choice but to press on? The culture that, to put it mildly, has sought neither to understand nor to empathize with people in the Arab or Islamic worlds? There are no easy answers, but one at least ought to acknowledge that in launching a war advertised as a high-minded expression of U.S. idealism, we have waded into a swamp of moral ambiguity. To assert that "stuff happens," as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is wont to do whenever events go awry, simply does not suffice.