not for nothing, but its a big difference between the Army's own webpage for prevention and the fake testimony of a demoted officer before some kangaroo war crimes tribunal. My company has similar materials for the prevention of sexual harassment, and in the 10 years I've been here there hasn't been any rapes. I'm not saying that there is no sexual harassment in the armed forces, there may very well be, but I think using the existence of the webpage to support the existence of these allegations is wrong, at best, and more likely "miss leading."
lol - clever!
not sure how close your work environment is to that of being in combat, but that's a good track record (as long as we are assuming everyone who is assaulted reports it).
whaddya know? i'm not saying that there is no sexual harrassment in the armed forces either! i'm also not saying that is there is no sexual assault or abuse.
i think the website is a good one. i think it is preventative and i think it is there as an acknowledgement of a problem. that is a good thing.
and i think you will write a snappy comeback disagreeing with something i've written.
Fuck - I just wrote this LONG ASS response and then the SS server shit-canned it. This happens all too often...wtf?
Ok, let me try this again:
1) Keith - Haditha is a big, big story. Sure, it was underreported when the first accusations started filtering out, but in the last few weeks, I think it's safe to say it's been the biggest story coming out of Iraqi with a lot of attention being paid to it by the mainstream media (MSM). The idea that Bush has been able to convince the MSM to look elsewhere and forget about Haditha simply isn't a reality at all. This story has been front-page magazine and newspaper news.
In fact, it's such a major story that even the National fucking Review thinks it might be "the story of the year" though of course, for them, that's just another sign that the leftist MSM is taking any bad news about Iraq and blowing it out of proportion. Nonetheless, they seem to think this story has been getting TOO much attention if anything.
2) Rape/military - American soldiers, stationed in very peaceful places (let alone Iraq) rape women. Therefore, it should not be difficult, at all, the believe that sexual assault is happening in Iraq - whether of American servicewomen or Iraqi women. The question becomes not one of "is this happening?" but rather "how rampant?" Defenders want to say it's an isolated incident. Critics want to say it's part of the culture of the military. I'm not sure which is true (though, just to note, I'm pretty sure we have at least one or two people on Strut who've been IN the military so maybe they'd like to opine).
Army Rape Accuser Speaks Out Feb. 20, 2005(CBS) Few problems have been more persistent or produced more bad news for the military than the issue of rape within its own ranks.
Allegations that not enough is being done to help victims or prosecute offenders have been raised from the service academies to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan -- where hundreds of cases of sexual assault have been reported by women in uniform.
It was that revelation, plus pressure from Congress, that???s forced the Pentagon to once again examine sexual misconduct in the military ??? which has been done 18 times in the last 16 years. The result has been more recommendations and sweeping policy changes.
But there are plenty of skeptics, and one of them is Lt. Jennifer Dyer, who talks to Correspondent Steve Kroft in her first interview after accusing a fellow officer of rape.
"They???ve done nothing but lie to me and treat me like a criminal," says Dyer.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that he will have zero tolerance when it comes to sexual assault in the military.
To that, Dyer says, "I don???t believe it. Zero tolerance would mean that I would not have been treated the way I???ve been treated."
When 60 Minutes first met Dyer, the Army was treating her like a criminal, threatening to arrest her for desertion. The eight-year veteran of the New Jersey National Guard had been AWOL for two months after refusing to return to Camp Shelby, Miss., where she says she was sexually assaulted by another lieutenant after a night of drinking with friends at the Officers Club.
"He raped you," asks Kroft.
"Yes," says Dyer.
"Is there any way he could have misinterpreted your intentions?" asks Kroft.
"I don't feel it's possible to misinterpret, 'No, don???t do this. Or stop.' Those are the words that I used again and again,??? says Dyer.
Dyer says she reported the rape "within 10 to 15 minutes," and after she was taken to the emergency room to be examined, she was then sequestered for three days without access to a telephone.
She says her story was greeted with disbelief by military investigators and indifference from her command, which gave her only a two-week convalescent leave, then refused to extend it.
"They stated that two weeks was enough time to recover from such an incident," says Dyer. "I was told that if I didn't return on time, they would send MPs to my door and have me arrested."
Dyer, who was a law enforcement officer in civilian life, says she was willing to risk criminal charges rather than return to the place where her alleged assailant was still walking around.
She says she didn't want to return to Camp Shelby because she "was fearful for my health and safety and sanity."
All this happened just a few months after a Pentagon Task Force found that some commands showed ???insensitivity??? to rape victims and failed to appreciate "the need for long-term supportive care.???
"The military as a whole has wished this issue would go away," says Scott Berkowitz, founder and president of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network ??? which runs the largest rape hotline in the country. He also worked with the Pentagon task force on sexual assault, a crime he believes is much more prevalent in the military than in civilian life.
"Three out of every 100 military women say that they were sexually assaulted. That compares to ??? the equivalent civilian rate for women that age ??? it???s about 3 in a thousand," says Berkowitz. "So if the defense department numbers are right, the problem in the military could be as much as 10 times the civilian problem."
Part of the problem has to do with relatively small numbers of women living and working with much larger numbers of men, often far from home and family. It is a young population and alcohol is a factor in 70 percent of the cases, which usually involve people who are at least acquainted with each other.
Often, the cases are hard to prove. And in a military culture still dominated by men, the decision on whether or not to prosecute almost always rests with the male commander.
Berkowitz says that the chances of actually going to prison, if you're accused of rape in the military, is "pretty slim."
What does Berkowitz think is the biggest problem with the way the military has been handling rape cases?
"I think the crux of the problem is confidentiality," says Berkowitz. "The fact that immediately everyone you know will know what happened to you is a huge disincentive to come forward."
"Before I returned from the hospital the next morning, I found out that my entire command had been told in formation by the company commander what had happened," says Lance Cpl. Sally Griffiths.
What happened to Griffiths and other female veterans that Kroft talked to are typical of the complaints leveled against the military for more than a decade.
"There???s a survey that found that 30 percent of female veterans said that they had either been victims of rape or attempted rape. Do you think the problem is that prevalent," asks Kroft.
The group responded: "Definitely. Absolutely, if not more."
"I think when they see what happens, they fear the retribution," says Griffiths. Griffiths was stationed on Okinawa in 1993 when she reported she was raped by a fellow Marine, yet she was the one accused of making false statements. As the investigation unfolded, she happened to stumble across her own case file.
It included a polygraph statement in which the suspect "...admitted that victim had made the statement, 'But, I don't want to,' prior to ... penetration..."
"I noticed a filing cabinet with my name on it and the case files. And I began to look through there because they had accused me of lying," says Griffiths. "And I found in the case file that the suspect had confessed. I made photocopies, sent it home to my parents, who took it to a local senator -- a
t which point, he was instrumental in helping me get out of the military."
What happened to the soldier? "Nothing," says Griffiths. "He served six more years and was promoted several times."
Sharon Mixon was a staff sergeant, and a highly decorated combat medic during Operation Desert Storm. She was in Saudi Arabia, and about to come home, when she says she was drugged and gang-raped.
"I woke up face down on a cot. I was being held down. And there were six men taking turns raping me," recalls Mixon. "They were U.S. soldiers, and they told me that if I told anybody that they would kill me. But I went and told the MPs anyway. And they told me the same thing."
"They kind of laughed and said, 'Well, what did you expect, being a female in combat? And we will always know where to find you. And if you open your mouth, you know what???s gonna happen,'??? adds Mixon, who kept quiet for more than 10 years.
Mixon continued her military career until she said she began having flashbacks and was hospitalized for post-traumatic stress disorder. She has actively lobbied Congress on behalf of military rape victims.
"I had been awarded for valor in combat," says Mixon. "I went from being a standard-setting soldier to being something that they wanted to hide in a closet."
"They want to brush it under a rug. They want it to go away," says Marine Lt. Tara Burkhart, who comes from a military family. She was serving with distinction as a public affairs officer in Kuwait during Operation Iraqi Freedom, escorting reporters in and out of the combat zone. She and several enlisted men from her unit were invited to a party thrown by Kuwaiti nationals to thank them for all they had done.
"During the course of that evening, the sergeant who was under my command raped me," says Burkhart, who didn't initially report it. "I was afraid. I had seen what other people had gone through when they had tried to report sexual assault or rape."
She didn???t say anything, until allegations surfaced that she and her men had violated orders by drinking at the party, and that she had sex with a subordinate.
"I got my attorney. And he immediately contacted the command," says Burkhart. "'This is crazy, my client was raped.' And my command said, 'No, she???s lying. We don???t believe her. You shouldn???t either. And we???re gonna prosecute her. She???s gonna go to a court-martial.'???
Lt. Burkhart was charged with 19 counts, including sexual misconduct, providing alcohol to enlisted men, making false statements and disobeying orders ??? charges that could have sent her to prison for 26 years.
The soldier who Burkhart says raped her was later accused in another rape. "He was accused during my investigation," says Burkhart. "The other victim came out and claimed that he raped her in Kuwait, too."
Burkhart says the soldier was never prosecuted: "There has never been any charges brought against him. He was given a grant immunity to testify against me."
Burkhart was eventually acquitted of the most serious charges, including sexual misconduct, but served 30 days for violating alcohol policies and disobeying orders.
As for her career, Burkhart says, "It's over. It's over."
"I think most of these women will tell you, 'The rape was bad enough. How the military treated me was worse,'" says Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California. She is the ranking female on the House Armed Services Committee, and one of the strongest Congressional advocates for military victims of sexual assault.
"If you talk to a lot of them, they???ll tell you, 'I???m the one that was, you know, drummed out of the military. I???m the one that suffered from this. All they did was move him to a different unit. He???s still out there.' In case after case."
Sanchez tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to update what she calls "archaic" military statutes on sexual assault that were written more than 50 years ago. She says they need to be brought in line with current civilian laws and changing attitudes.
"We have a society that???s very tough on the victim," says Sanchez. "And in the military, it???s even worse because some commanding officers say, 'You know, you should be tough enough to take it. You know, I don???t want you impacting the morale of my unit by accusing someone of being a rapist. Can???t you be one of the boys?'"
But Sanchez, who was a rape victim herself while she was in college, is not giving up: "They want it to go away. They want me to go away. They want the subject to go away. It???s not going to go away."
The Pentagon declined a request from 60 Minutes for an interview. But last month, under pressure from Congress, Undersecretary of Defense David Chu announced sweeping policy changes recommended by the Pentagon Task Force.
"The department understands that our traditional system does not afford sexual assault victims the care and support they need across the board," says Chu. "And we are moving aggressively to put new systems in place to address this shortcoming."
The changes include mandatory education on sexual assault for everyone in the armed services, the designation of a victim advocate for every military command, the promise of confidentiality for rape victims until a formal investigation begins, and the appointment of Brig. Gen. KC McClain to oversee the entire process.
"This is not a silver bullet. There is no overnight solution," says McClain. "And to do this right, it is going to take time."
Berkowitz wants to believe it???s progress.
"There was a task force the year before that came out with some great recommendations. Which is good. The problem is, there was a task force before that and there were 10 task forces before that," says Berkowitz.
"And every time, as soon as the public interest and the media attention died down, the reports of the task force were quickly filed and forgotten. The good news is that this time they seem a lot more serious about fixing the problem."
This time, Congress is demanding more than promises. It wants to see the Pentagon's plan for implementing the new policies and proposed changes to military law within the next two weeks.
The glare of publicity may have already affected one case. Shortly after 60 Minutes interviewed Lt. Dyer, the Army dropped its threat to prosecute her for desertion and granted her request for an honorable discharge.
The officer she accused of assaulting her is now being court-martialed for rape. He maintains the sex was consensual.
??MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Statement
The question becomes not one of "is this happening?" but rather "how rampant?" Defenders want to say it's an isolated incident. Critics want to say it's part of the culture of the military. I'm not sure which is true (though, just to note, I'm pretty sure we have at least one or two people on Strut who've been IN the military so maybe they'd like to opine).
It's safe to say the social behavior of our military mirrors the general population.
But let's just say sexual assaults occur at half the rate of the civilian population. That is still completely unacceptable.
Interesting points. But the problems in Iraq amount to one thing:
Total incompetence on the part of civilian leadership.[/b]
The 4 to the left w/ nominal/little (does ROTC for Rumsfeld count?) to no military service/actual combat experience - coincidence? Praxis doesn't always jibe w/ theory... And anticipated behavior in a combat zone?
The question becomes not one of "is this happening?" but rather "how rampant?" Defenders want to say it's an isolated incident. Critics want to say it's part of the culture of the military. I'm not sure which is true (though, just to note, I'm pretty sure we have at least one or two people on Strut who've been IN the military so maybe they'd like to opine).
It's safe to say the social behavior of our military mirrors the general population.
But let's just say sexual assaults occur at half the rate of the civilian population. That is still completely unacceptable.
I don't think the social behavior of the military mirrors the general population - the military are trained to "break things and kill people" (as I heard a military sociologist describe the other day) and I'm not even saying this derisively. I'm echoing points made by people in the military itself: the main purpose for a military force is to defend, subjugate and kill if necessary. That kind of training is not some shit you're going to get from "the general population".
2) Rape/military - American soldiers, stationed in very peaceful places (let alone Iraq) rape women. Therefore, it should not be difficult, at all, the believe that sexual assault is happening in Iraq - whether of American servicewomen or Iraqi women. The question becomes not one of "is this happening?" but rather "how rampant?" Defenders want to say it's an isolated incident. Critics want to say it's part of the culture of the military. I'm not sure which is true (though, just to note, I'm pretty sure we have at least one or two people on Strut who've been IN the military so maybe they'd like to opine).
When I was over there from '03-'04, I didn't see rape/sexual assualt within our unit (or against civilians). I can tell you that when we re-deployed back to the states, there was an incident (rape) in the barracks that I was living in.
I'm saying to make two points. (1) Soldiers aren't kicking in doors and raping women when they are going on missions. We're trained to accomplish our giving mission and that's it. We're also taught things like code of conduct and the Army values.
(2)Yes, there are some knuckleheads in uniform that have or will commit this crime (rape). Soldiers do tend to lose their military bearing once they return from a year (or longer) deployment. Let's take your average single, young troop. He/she probably partakes in things like drinking, clubbing, etc,. You are not doing that on a deployment. So that first chance you can let your hair down, you're gonna act a fool and unfortunately, this means some dumbass is going to rape someone.
So to answer you're question, O, I just don't think soldiers are doing this (rape/sexual assault) on a frequent basis in Iraq.
The question becomes not one of "is this happening?" but rather "how rampant?" Defenders want to say it's an isolated incident. Critics want to say it's part of the culture of the military. I'm not sure which is true (though, just to note, I'm pretty sure we have at least one or two people on Strut who've been IN the military so maybe they'd like to opine).
It's safe to say the social behavior of our military mirrors the general population.
But let's just say sexual assaults occur at half the rate of the civilian population. That is still completely unacceptable.
I don't think the social behavior of the military mirrors the general population - the military are trained to "break things and kill people" (as I heard a military sociologist describe the other day) and I'm not even saying this derisively. I'm echoing points made by people in the military itself: the main purpose for a military force is to defend, subjugate and kill if necessary. That kind of training is not some shit you're going to get from "the general population".
I agree w/ Fatback. Although we are trained to do our jobs one way, a soldier will live his/her life a certain way, even if it's contrary to what we're taught.
It's safe to say the social behavior of our military mirrors the general population.
But let's just say sexual assaults occur at half the rate of the civilian population. That is still completely unacceptable.
It's part of the national myth tho' - no country wants to think of its military as less than sancrosanct and evincing behavior of utmost integrity, especially nations that invest a lot of the identity of the country w/in a moral framework... Case in point about national myths - Britain would like to have you believe that she was responsible for victory in the European theater during WWII, the U.S. would like to have you believe the same about itself, the French and their stories of partisan resistance whereas if not for the eastern front and the cost incurred by the Russians against the Germans, effectively bogging them down and making their supply lines tenuous @ best, that particular conflict likely doesn't end on the date that it does - yes, the Russians...
And despite any action taken to police internally, it still doesn't modify the internal sentiments/desires held w/in...
It's safe to say the social behavior of our military mirrors the general population.
But let's just say sexual assaults occur at half the rate of the civilian population. That is still completely unacceptable.
It's part of the national myth tho' - no country wants to think of its military as less than sancrosanct and evincing behavior of utmost integrity, especially nations that invest a lot of the identity of the country w/in a moral framework... Case in point about national myths - Britain would like to have you believe that she was responsible for victory in the European theater during WWII, the U.S. would like to have you believe the same about itself, the French and their stories of partisan resistance whereas if not for the eastern front and the cost incurred by the Russians against the Germans, effectively bogging them down and making their supply lines tenuous @ best, that particular conflict likely doesn't end on the date that it does - yes, the Russians...
And despite any action taken to police internally, it still doesn't modify the internal sentiments/desires held w/in...
Did you say something? Took Fr*nk's lead a long time ago and ignored user in question... If a blowhard (admittedly w/ decent taste in Brazilian music) opines in an empty landscape, does anyone care?
2) Rape/military - American soldiers, stationed in very peaceful places (let alone Iraq) rape women. Therefore, it should not be difficult, at all, the believe that sexual assault is happening in Iraq - whether of American servicewomen or Iraqi women. The question becomes not one of "is this happening?" but rather "how rampant?" Defenders want to say it's an isolated incident. Critics want to say it's part of the culture of the military. I'm not sure which is true (though, just to note, I'm pretty sure we have at least one or two people on Strut who've been IN the military so maybe they'd like to opine).
When I was over there from '03-'04, I didn't see rape/sexual assualt within our unit (or against civilians). I can tell you that when we re-deployed back to the states, there was an incident (rape) in the barracks that I was living in.
I'm saying to make two points. (1) Soldiers aren't kicking in doors and raping women when they are going on missions. We're trained to accomplish our giving mission and that's it. We're also taught things like code of conduct and the Army values.
(2)Yes, there are some knuckleheads in uniform that have or will commit this crime (rape). Soldiers do tend to lose their military bearing once they return from a year (or longer) deployment. Let's take your average single, young troop. He/she probably partakes in things like drinking, clubbing, etc,. You are not doing that on a deployment. So that first chance you can let your hair down, you're gonna act a fool and unfortunately, this means some dumbass is going to rape someone.
So to answer you're question, O, I just don't think soldiers are doing this (rape/sexual assault) on a frequent basis in Iraq.
One of the post-Vietnam lessons well documented by military psychologists is that troops under multiple deployments in the midst of a guerilla civil war tend to loose the lessons associated with military code of conduct.
Another important lesson from that conflict is also worth a look:
The Powell Doctrine simply asserts that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy. This may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated.
After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers.
Is a vital US interest at stake? Will we commit sufficient resources to win? Are the objectives clearly defined? Will we sustain the commitment? Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation? Have we exhausted our other options? Do we have a clear exit strategy?
...
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?
the military are trained to "break things and kill people" (as I heard a military sociologist describe the other day)
What did this dude get a PhD from the University of Oliver Stone?
That's bullshit. Sure, they are trained to fight wars, but they are also trained, among other things, to stick together under any and all circumstances (e.g. you are only as strong as the weakest in your company).
People in the military are overwhelmingly just like you and me verses somehow having a fundamentally different moral framework as a result of training. Put any of us in these dire situations like Iraq2 or Mogadishu that are/were poorly planned and poorly managed and you'd see some slippage.
Another important lesson from that conflict is also worth a look:
The Powell Doctrine simply asserts that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy. This may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated.
After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers.
Is a vital US interest at stake? Will we commit sufficient resources to win? Are the objectives clearly defined? Will we sustain the commitment? Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation? Have we exhausted our other options? Do we have a clear exit strategy?
...
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support? I've been trying to say that here for years. But the people in charge (and their soulstrut supporters) hate the Powell Doctorine and have done the exact oppisite. The Powell Doctorine has been replaced by Rumsfelds light mechanized pipe dream.
the military are trained to "break things and kill people" (as I heard a military sociologist describe the other day)
What did this dude get a PhD from the University of Oliver Stone?
That's bullshit. Sure, they are trained to fight wars, but they are also trained to stick together under any and all circumstances among other things (e.g. you are only as strong as the weakest in your company).
People in the military overwhelmingly are just like you and me verses somehow having a fundamentally different moral framework as a result of training. Put any of us in these dire situations like Iraq2 or Mogadishu that are/were poorly planned and poorly managed[/b], you'd see some slippage.
thats some mighty fine slippage yourself, the way you slipped that in there. Im sure this type of thing happens in all wars regardless of planning or management.
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?
I wonder if the President stays up at night pondering these questions, and struggling with the moral and ethical dilemmas these questions raise.
But that would assume that the leader of the free world: (1) is capable of logical thinking, and (2) has a conscience. Let's not set the bar too high, folks.
i think the major point has been overlooked. haditha and any other attrocities that were allegedly committed by our troops is not the issue. the cover-up is the issue. individuals are capable of committing horrible acts...military and non-military. however, this incident happened in november of 05 and six months went by before we learned anything about it. sound familiar? this incident, combined with abu ghraib, give the us 2 huge blackeyes in the world's view. bush talks about making progress in iraq...
i think the major point has been overlooked. haditha and any other attrocities that were allegedly committed by our troops is not the issue. the cover-up is the issue. individuals are capable of committing horrible acts...military and non-military. however, this incident happened in november of 05 and six months went by before we learned anything about it. sound familiar? this incident, combined with abu ghraib, give the us 2 huge blackeyes in the world's view. bush talks about making progress in iraq...
i agree 100%.
we are talking about an incompetent administration.
the lag time between something happening and keithvanhorn hearing about it, doesn't equal a cover up. Did you expect the military to take out a full-page ad in the New York Times magazine to tell everyone the day after it happened.
we are talking about an incompetent administration.
what - was this on a talking points memo or something? I thought in light of their own disapproval ratings and scandals the dems shelved this bullet point. Or wait, that was "culture of corruption" wasn't it.
the lag time between something happening and keithvanhorn hearing about it, doesn't equal a cover up. Did you expect the military to take out a full-page ad in the New York Times magazine to tell everyone the day after it happened.
are u serious? stop speaking on topics you don't know shit about.
nov 19- incident happens in haditha after a car bomb kills a us marine.
nov 20- The Marines release a statement saying that insurgents attacked a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol with small-arms fire after the blast, TRIGGERING A GUNBATTLE that left eight insurgents and 15 Iraqi civilians dead.
- Feb. 14: Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, orders a preliminary investigation.
- March 9: Chiarelli directs further review of the incident by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.
- March 20: The U.S. military says it's investigating possible misconduct by the Marines and confirms there is a videotape, which Time Magazine says shows the aftermath of the Marines' assault.
Haditha residents tell The Associated Press that American troops entered homes and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.
- March 21: The video taken by an Iraqi is aired repeatedly by Arab television stations showing bodies of women and children in plastic bags on the floor of what appeared to be a morgue. Men were seen standing in the middle of bodies, some of which were covered with blankets before being placed in a pickup truck.
- April 10: The military says Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, Capt.
James S. Kimber and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell have been relieved of their commands in connection with problems in Iraq, including their battalion's actions during a firefight that left 15 Iraqi civilians dead.
- May 17: U.S. Rep. John Murtha says a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed more than a dozen innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in the town of Haditha.
- May 18: Military officials say the criminal investigation into the firefight in Haditha is not complete, but they don't dispute a congressman's charges that the attack by Marines was far worse than originally reported.
the lag time between something happening and keithvanhorn hearing about it, doesn't equal a cover up. Did you expect the military to take out a full-page ad in the New York Times magazine to tell everyone the day after it happened.
are u serious? stop speaking on topics you don't know shit about.
nov 19- incident happens in haditha after a car bomb kills a us marine.
nov 20- The Marines release a statement saying that insurgents attacked a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol with small-arms fire after the blast, TRIGGERING A GUNBATTLE that left eight insurgents and 15 Iraqi civilians dead.
- Feb. 14: Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, orders a preliminary investigation.
- March 9: Chiarelli directs further review of the incident by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.
- March 20: The U.S. military says it's investigating possible misconduct by the Marines and confirms there is a videotape, which Time Magazine says shows the aftermath of the Marines' assault.
Haditha residents tell The Associated Press that American troops entered homes and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.
- March 21: The video taken by an Iraqi is aired repeatedly by Arab television stations showing bodies of women and children in plastic bags on the floor of what appeared to be a morgue. Men were seen standing in the middle of bodies, some of which were covered with blankets before being placed in a pickup truck.
- April 10: The military says Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, Capt.
James S. Kimber and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell have been relieved of their commands in connection with problems in Iraq, including their battalion's actions during a firefight that left 15 Iraqi civilians dead.
- May 17: U.S. Rep. John Murtha says a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed more than a dozen innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in the town of Haditha.
- May 18: Military officials say the criminal investigation into the firefight in Haditha is not complete, but they don't dispute a congressman's charges that the attack by Marines was far worse than originally reported.
So, where is the cover-up? What do you suppose happened between Nov 19 and February 14, do you think that the General just woke up one morning and pulled a preliminary investigation out of his ass? If anything it looks like the individuals involved and maybe some of their immediate officers tried to cover it up.
So, where is the cover-up? What do you suppose happened between Nov 19 and February 14, do you think that the General just woke up one morning and pulled a preliminary investigation out of his ass? If anything it looks like the individuals involved and maybe some of their immediate officers tried to cover it up.
25 people got murdered in cold blood and a few marines and their superiors were able to cover it up for 3 1/2 months? i forgot about this piece of the timeline:
December/January- Families of some dead paid $2,500 for each by U.S. military, Iraqi human rights activist says. U.S. officer says in May he paid out $38,000 in total compensation.
By the way, it just so happens that the official investigation started in february, and Time magazine obtained the videotape in January. The govt was gonna keep this entire thing a secret if Time didn't discover what was going on.
25 people got murdered in cold blood and a few marines and their superiors were able to cover it up for 3 1/2 months? i forgot about this piece of the timeline:
December/January- Families of some dead paid $2,500 for each by U.S. military, Iraqi human rights activist says. U.S. officer says in May he paid out $38,000 in total compensation.
By the way, it just so happens that the official investigation started in february, and Time magazine obtained the videotape in January. The govt was gonna keep this entire thing a secret if Time didn't discover what was going on.
Dude, I just used that 'ignore this user' function on that guy and I'm loving it! I know longer have to read that know-it-all's bullshit posts. Try it, k.v.h, you'll love it.
So, where is the cover-up? What do you suppose happened between Nov 19 and February 14, do you think that the General just woke up one morning and pulled a preliminary investigation out of his ass? If anything it looks like the individuals involved and maybe some of their immediate officers tried to cover it up.
25 people got murdered in cold blood and a few marines and their superiors were able to cover it up for 3 1/2 months? i forgot about this piece of the timeline:
December/January- Families of some dead paid $2,500 for each by U.S. military, Iraqi human rights activist says. U.S. officer says in May he paid out $38,000 in total compensation.
By the way, it just so happens that the official investigation started in february, and Time magazine obtained the videotape in January. The govt was gonna keep this entire thing a secret if Time didn't discover what was going on.
is it possible that the military pays out money for individuals killed by accident? Obviously, if this is hush money than you are right, but I think they probably pay people for accidental "collateral damage" as a matter of policy. And with respect to the Timing of the investigation and Time magazine you of all people here should know "post hoc ergo propter hoc."
Comments
SO are you saying Haditha is fake? Or are you saying it was a good thing? Or are you just trying to change the subject?
lol - clever!
not sure how close your work environment is to that of being in combat, but that's a good track record (as long as we are assuming everyone who is assaulted reports it).
whaddya know? i'm not saying that there is no sexual harrassment in the armed forces either! i'm also not saying that is there is no sexual assault or abuse.
i think the website is a good one. i think it is preventative and i think it is there as an acknowledgement of a problem. that is a good thing.
and i think you will write a snappy comeback disagreeing with something i've written.
No, Im comfortable with what you've written.
Ok, let me try this again:
1) Keith - Haditha is a big, big story. Sure, it was underreported when the first accusations started filtering out, but in the last few weeks, I think it's safe to say it's been the biggest story coming out of Iraqi with a lot of attention being paid to it by the mainstream media (MSM). The idea that Bush has been able to convince the MSM to look elsewhere and forget about Haditha simply isn't a reality at all. This story has been front-page magazine and newspaper news.
In fact, it's such a major story that even the National fucking Review thinks it might be "the story of the year" though of course, for them, that's just another sign that the leftist MSM is taking any bad news about Iraq and blowing it out of proportion. Nonetheless, they seem to think this story has been getting TOO much attention if anything.
2) Rape/military - American soldiers, stationed in very peaceful places (let alone Iraq) rape women. Therefore, it should not be difficult, at all, the believe that sexual assault is happening in Iraq - whether of American servicewomen or Iraqi women. The question becomes not one of "is this happening?" but rather "how rampant?" Defenders want to say it's an isolated incident. Critics want to say it's part of the culture of the military. I'm not sure which is true (though, just to note, I'm pretty sure we have at least one or two people on Strut who've been IN the military so maybe they'd like to opine).
I did find this story - from 60 Minutes no less:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/17/60minutes/main674791.shtml
Army Rape Accuser Speaks Out
Feb. 20, 2005(CBS) Few problems have been more persistent or produced more bad news for the military than the issue of rape within its own ranks.
Allegations that not enough is being done to help victims or prosecute offenders have been raised from the service academies to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan -- where hundreds of cases of sexual assault have been reported by women in uniform.
It was that revelation, plus pressure from Congress, that???s forced the Pentagon to once again examine sexual misconduct in the military ??? which has been done 18 times in the last 16 years. The result has been more recommendations and sweeping policy changes.
But there are plenty of skeptics, and one of them is Lt. Jennifer Dyer, who talks to Correspondent Steve Kroft in her first interview after accusing a fellow officer of rape.
"They???ve done nothing but lie to me and treat me like a criminal," says Dyer.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that he will have zero tolerance when it comes to sexual assault in the military.
To that, Dyer says, "I don???t believe it. Zero tolerance would mean that I would not have been treated the way I???ve been treated."
When 60 Minutes first met Dyer, the Army was treating her like a criminal, threatening to arrest her for desertion. The eight-year veteran of the New Jersey National Guard had been AWOL for two months after refusing to return to Camp Shelby, Miss., where she says she was sexually assaulted by another lieutenant after a night of drinking with friends at the Officers Club.
"He raped you," asks Kroft.
"Yes," says Dyer.
"Is there any way he could have misinterpreted your intentions?" asks Kroft.
"I don't feel it's possible to misinterpret, 'No, don???t do this. Or stop.' Those are the words that I used again and again,??? says Dyer.
Dyer says she reported the rape "within 10 to 15 minutes," and after she was taken to the emergency room to be examined, she was then sequestered for three days without access to a telephone.
She says her story was greeted with disbelief by military investigators and indifference from her command, which gave her only a two-week convalescent leave, then refused to extend it.
"They stated that two weeks was enough time to recover from such an incident," says Dyer. "I was told that if I didn't return on time, they would send MPs to my door and have me arrested."
Dyer, who was a law enforcement officer in civilian life, says she was willing to risk criminal charges rather than return to the place where her alleged assailant was still walking around.
She says she didn't want to return to Camp Shelby because she "was fearful for my health and safety and sanity."
All this happened just a few months after a Pentagon Task Force found that some commands showed ???insensitivity??? to rape victims and failed to appreciate "the need for long-term supportive care.???
"The military as a whole has wished this issue would go away," says Scott Berkowitz, founder and president of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network ??? which runs the largest rape hotline in the country. He also worked with the Pentagon task force on sexual assault, a crime he believes is much more prevalent in the military than in civilian life.
"Three out of every 100 military women say that they were sexually assaulted. That compares to ??? the equivalent civilian rate for women that age ??? it???s about 3 in a thousand," says Berkowitz. "So if the defense department numbers are right, the problem in the military could be as much as 10 times the civilian problem."
Part of the problem has to do with relatively small numbers of women living and working with much larger numbers of men, often far from home and family. It is a young population and alcohol is a factor in 70 percent of the cases, which usually involve people who are at least acquainted with each other.
Often, the cases are hard to prove. And in a military culture still dominated by men, the decision on whether or not to prosecute almost always rests with the male commander.
Berkowitz says that the chances of actually going to prison, if you're accused of rape in the military, is "pretty slim."
What does Berkowitz think is the biggest problem with the way the military has been handling rape cases?
"I think the crux of the problem is confidentiality," says Berkowitz. "The fact that immediately everyone you know will know what happened to you is a huge disincentive to come forward."
"Before I returned from the hospital the next morning, I found out that my entire command had been told in formation by the company commander what had happened," says Lance Cpl. Sally Griffiths.
What happened to Griffiths and other female veterans that Kroft talked to are typical of the complaints leveled against the military for more than a decade.
"There???s a survey that found that 30 percent of female veterans said that they had either been victims of rape or attempted rape. Do you think the problem is that prevalent," asks Kroft.
The group responded: "Definitely. Absolutely, if not more."
"I think when they see what happens, they fear the retribution," says Griffiths.
Griffiths was stationed on Okinawa in 1993 when she reported she was raped by a fellow Marine, yet she was the one accused of making false statements. As the investigation unfolded, she happened to stumble across her own case file.
It included a polygraph statement in which the suspect "...admitted that victim had made the statement, 'But, I don't want to,' prior to ... penetration..."
"I noticed a filing cabinet with my name on it and the case files. And I began to look through there because they had accused me of lying," says Griffiths. "And I found in the case file that the suspect had confessed. I made photocopies, sent it home to my parents, who took it to a local senator -- a t which point, he was instrumental in helping me get out of the military."
What happened to the soldier? "Nothing," says Griffiths. "He served six more years and was promoted several times."
Sharon Mixon was a staff sergeant, and a highly decorated combat medic during Operation Desert Storm. She was in Saudi Arabia, and about to come home, when she says she was drugged and gang-raped.
"I woke up face down on a cot. I was being held down. And there were six men taking turns raping me," recalls Mixon. "They were U.S. soldiers, and they told me that if I told anybody that they would kill me. But I went and told the MPs anyway. And they told me the same thing."
"They kind of laughed and said, 'Well, what did you expect, being a female in combat? And we will always know where to find you. And if you open your mouth, you know what???s gonna happen,'??? adds Mixon, who kept quiet for more than 10 years.
Mixon continued her military career until she said she began having flashbacks and was hospitalized for post-traumatic stress disorder. She has actively lobbied Congress on behalf of military rape victims.
"I had been awarded for valor in combat," says Mixon. "I went from being a standard-setting soldier to being something that they wanted to hide in a closet."
"They want to brush it under a rug. They want it to go away," says Marine Lt. Tara Burkhart, who comes from a military family. She was serving with distinction as a public affairs officer in Kuwait during Operation Iraqi Freedom, escorting reporters in and out of the combat zone. She and several enlisted men from her unit were invited to a party thrown by Kuwaiti nationals to thank them for all they had done.
"During the course of that evening, the sergeant who was under my command raped me," says Burkhart, who didn't initially report it. "I was afraid. I had seen what other people had gone through when they had tried to report sexual assault or rape."
She didn???t say anything, until allegations surfaced that she and her men had violated orders by drinking at the party, and that she had sex with a subordinate.
"I got my attorney. And he immediately contacted the command," says Burkhart. "'This is crazy, my client was raped.' And my command said, 'No, she???s lying. We don???t believe her. You shouldn???t either. And we???re gonna prosecute her. She???s gonna go to a court-martial.'???
Lt. Burkhart was charged with 19 counts, including sexual misconduct, providing alcohol to enlisted men, making false statements and disobeying orders ??? charges that could have sent her to prison for 26 years.
The soldier who Burkhart says raped her was later accused in another rape. "He was accused during my investigation," says Burkhart. "The other victim came out and claimed that he raped her in Kuwait, too."
Burkhart says the soldier was never prosecuted: "There has never been any charges brought against him. He was given a grant immunity to testify against me."
Burkhart was eventually acquitted of the most serious charges, including sexual misconduct, but served 30 days for violating alcohol policies and disobeying orders.
As for her career, Burkhart says, "It's over. It's over."
"I think most of these women will tell you, 'The rape was bad enough. How the military treated me was worse,'" says Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California. She is the ranking female on the House Armed Services Committee, and one of the strongest Congressional advocates for military victims of sexual assault.
"If you talk to a lot of them, they???ll tell you, 'I???m the one that was, you know, drummed out of the military. I???m the one that suffered from this. All they did was move him to a different unit. He???s still out there.' In case after case."
Sanchez tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to update what she calls "archaic" military statutes on sexual assault that were written more than 50 years ago. She says they need to be brought in line with current civilian laws and changing attitudes.
"We have a society that???s very tough on the victim," says Sanchez. "And in the military, it???s even worse because some commanding officers say, 'You know, you should be tough enough to take it. You know, I don???t want you impacting the morale of my unit by accusing someone of being a rapist. Can???t you be one of the boys?'"
But Sanchez, who was a rape victim herself while she was in college, is not giving up: "They want it to go away. They want me to go away. They want the subject to go away. It???s not going to go away."
The Pentagon declined a request from 60 Minutes for an interview. But last month, under pressure from Congress, Undersecretary of Defense David Chu announced sweeping policy changes recommended by the Pentagon Task Force.
"The department understands that our traditional system does not afford sexual assault victims the care and support they need across the board," says Chu. "And we are moving aggressively to put new systems in place to address this shortcoming."
The changes include mandatory education on sexual assault for everyone in the armed services, the designation of a victim advocate for every military command, the promise of confidentiality for rape victims until a formal investigation begins, and the appointment of Brig. Gen. KC McClain to oversee the entire process.
"This is not a silver bullet. There is no overnight solution," says McClain. "And to do this right, it is going to take time."
Berkowitz wants to believe it???s progress.
"There was a task force the year before that came out with some great recommendations. Which is good. The problem is, there was a task force before that and there were 10 task forces before that," says Berkowitz.
"And every time, as soon as the public interest and the media attention died down, the reports of the task force were quickly filed and forgotten. The good news is that this time they seem a lot more serious about fixing the problem."
This time, Congress is demanding more than promises. It wants to see the Pentagon's plan for implementing the new policies and proposed changes to military law within the next two weeks.
The glare of publicity may have already affected one case. Shortly after 60 Minutes interviewed Lt. Dyer, the Army dropped its threat to prosecute her for desertion and granted her request for an honorable discharge.
The officer she accused of assaulting her is now being court-martialed for rape. He maintains the sex was consensual.
??MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Statement
It's safe to say the social behavior of our military mirrors the general population.
But let's just say sexual assaults occur at half the rate of the civilian population. That is still completely unacceptable.
The 4 to the left w/ nominal/little (does ROTC for Rumsfeld count?) to no military service/actual combat experience - coincidence? Praxis doesn't always jibe w/ theory... And anticipated behavior in a combat zone?
"Reservior Dogs wanna be's hit summer sale at the Gap."
That's one pathetic looking leader line up.
I don't think the social behavior of the military mirrors the general population - the military are trained to "break things and kill people" (as I heard a military sociologist describe the other day) and I'm not even saying this derisively. I'm echoing points made by people in the military itself: the main purpose for a military force is to defend, subjugate and kill if necessary. That kind of training is not some shit you're going to get from "the general population".
I'm saying to make two points.
(1) Soldiers aren't kicking in doors and raping women when they are going on missions. We're trained to accomplish our giving mission and that's it. We're also taught things like code of conduct and the Army values.
(2)Yes, there are some knuckleheads in uniform that have or will commit this crime (rape). Soldiers do tend to lose their military bearing once they return from a year (or longer) deployment. Let's take your average single, young troop. He/she probably partakes in things like drinking, clubbing, etc,. You are not doing that on a deployment. So that first chance you can let your hair down, you're gonna act a fool and unfortunately, this means some dumbass is going to rape someone.
So to answer you're question, O, I just don't think soldiers are doing this (rape/sexual assault) on a frequent basis in Iraq.
It's part of the national myth tho' - no country wants to think of its military as less than sancrosanct and evincing behavior of utmost integrity, especially nations that invest a lot of the identity of the country w/in a moral framework... Case in point about national myths - Britain would like to have you believe that she was responsible for victory in the European theater during WWII, the U.S. would like to have you believe the same about itself, the French and their stories of partisan resistance whereas if not for the eastern front and the cost incurred by the Russians against the Germans, effectively bogging them down and making their supply lines tenuous @ best, that particular conflict likely doesn't end on the date that it does - yes, the Russians...
And despite any action taken to police internally, it still doesn't modify the internal sentiments/desires held w/in...
Case "off point" is more like it.
One of the post-Vietnam lessons well documented by military psychologists is that troops under multiple deployments in the midst of a guerilla civil war tend to loose the lessons associated with military code of conduct.
Another important lesson from that conflict is also worth a look:
The Powell Doctrine simply asserts that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy. This may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated.
After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers.
Is a vital US interest at stake?
Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
Are the objectives clearly defined?
Will we sustain the commitment?
Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
Have we exhausted our other options?
Do we have a clear exit strategy?
...
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
What did this dude get a PhD from the University of Oliver Stone?
That's bullshit. Sure, they are trained to fight wars, but they are also trained, among other things, to stick together under any and all circumstances (e.g. you are only as strong as the weakest in your company).
People in the military are overwhelmingly just like you and me verses somehow having a fundamentally different moral framework as a result of training. Put any of us in these dire situations like Iraq2 or Mogadishu that are/were poorly planned and poorly managed and you'd see some slippage.
Another important lesson from that conflict is also worth a look:
The Powell Doctrine simply asserts that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy. This may oppose the principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated.
After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers.
Is a vital US interest at stake?
Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
Are the objectives clearly defined?
Will we sustain the commitment?
Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
Have we exhausted our other options?
Do we have a clear exit strategy?
...
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
I've been trying to say that here for years. But the people in charge (and their soulstrut supporters) hate the Powell Doctorine and have done the exact oppisite. The Powell Doctorine has been replaced by Rumsfelds light mechanized pipe dream.
thats some mighty fine slippage yourself, the way you slipped that in there. Im sure this type of thing happens in all wars regardless of planning or management.
I wonder if the President stays up at night pondering these questions, and struggling with the moral and ethical dilemmas these questions raise.
But that would assume that the leader of the free world: (1) is capable of logical thinking, and (2) has a conscience. Let's not set the bar too high, folks.
i agree 100%.
we are talking about an incompetent administration.
what - was this on a talking points memo or something? I thought in light of their own disapproval ratings and scandals the dems shelved this bullet point. Or wait, that was "culture of corruption" wasn't it.
are u serious? stop speaking on topics you don't know shit about.
nov 19- incident happens in haditha after a car bomb kills a us marine.
nov 20- The Marines release a statement saying that insurgents attacked a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol with small-arms fire after the blast, TRIGGERING A GUNBATTLE that left eight insurgents and 15 Iraqi civilians dead.
- Feb. 14: Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, orders a preliminary investigation.
- March 9: Chiarelli directs further review of the incident by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.
- March 20: The U.S. military says it's investigating possible misconduct by the Marines and confirms there is a videotape, which Time Magazine says shows the aftermath of the Marines' assault.
Haditha residents tell The Associated Press that American troops entered homes and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.
- March 21: The video taken by an Iraqi is aired repeatedly by Arab television stations showing bodies of women and children in plastic bags on the floor of what appeared to be a morgue. Men were seen standing in the middle of bodies, some of which were covered with blankets before being placed in a pickup truck.
- April 10: The military says Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, Capt.
James S. Kimber and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell have been relieved of their commands in connection with problems in Iraq, including their battalion's actions during a firefight that left 15 Iraqi civilians dead.
- May 17: U.S. Rep. John Murtha says a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed more than a dozen innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in the town of Haditha.
- May 18: Military officials say the criminal investigation into the firefight in Haditha is not complete, but they don't dispute a congressman's charges that the attack by Marines was far worse than originally reported.
So, where is the cover-up? What do you suppose happened between Nov 19 and February 14, do you think that the General just woke up one morning and pulled a preliminary investigation out of his ass? If anything it looks like the individuals involved and maybe some of their immediate officers tried to cover it up.
25 people got murdered in cold blood and a few marines and their superiors were able to cover it up for 3 1/2 months? i forgot about this piece of the timeline:
December/January- Families of some dead paid $2,500 for each by U.S. military, Iraqi human rights activist says. U.S. officer says in May he paid out $38,000 in total compensation.
By the way, it just so happens that the official investigation started in february, and Time magazine obtained the videotape in January. The govt was gonna keep this entire thing a secret if Time didn't discover what was going on.
why do you waste your time?
I know longer have to read that know-it-all's bullshit posts.
Try it, k.v.h, you'll love it.
is it possible that the military pays out money for individuals killed by accident? Obviously, if this is hush money than you are right, but I think they probably pay people for accidental "collateral damage" as a matter of policy. And with respect to the Timing of the investigation and Time magazine you of all people here should know "post hoc ergo propter hoc."