Four U.S. soldiers charged with rape and murder

[Math Is Hard]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/soldiers.court/index.html

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (CNN) -- Four U.S. soldiers accused of raping and killing a 14-year-old girl and slaying her sister and their parents will face courts-martial on murder charges, military officials say.

The commander of the 101st Airborne Division has referred murder charges against the soldiers for the alleged crimes that occurred in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad, in March. Two of the soldiers could face the death penalty if convicted.

According to a written statement, Maj. Gen. Thomas Turner made the decision after reviewing a report of the investigation and receiving recommendations from the investigating officer, the appointing authority who directed the investigation and his staff judge advocate.

One of the soldiers, 23-year-old Army Spec. James P. Barker, told an Army criminal investigator that after the killings he poured kerosene on the girl's bullet-ridden body, according to testimony in August at a military hearing. The girl's father, mother and five-year-old sister were also killed, according to military officials.

Barker said in an interview that he held the girl down while she was raped by another soldier, Sgt. Paul Cortez, 23, according to Special Agent Benjamin Bierce of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division.

Barker said he then attempted to rape the girl himself, before she was shot to death by former Pfc. Steven D. Green, Bierce said. Green is no longer in the military and faces charges in civilian court.

What kind of nutballs are we (the U.S.) sending over to "protect" and "help" these people as "friends of their new democracy"? Do I get any say in the punishment? Because I have some ideas. This really makes me angry.

 

[edward]

"We're looking for high school graduates with no more than one felony on their record," one recruiter said.

The Army has even looked behind prison bars for fill-in recruits -- in one reported case, they went to a "youth prison" in Ogden, Utah. Although Steven Price had asked to see a recruiter while still incarcerated, he was "barely 17 when he enlisted last January" and his divorced parents say "recruiters used false promises and forged documents to enlist him."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL

 

[EL]

These things happen in war all the time, and shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[selfAdjoint]

These things happen in war all the time, and shouldn't come as a surprise.

Absolutely true. Raping women and murdering civilians is something done in all armies in all wars. You can't attribute it to some special flaw in the US, or the present generation, or anything.

What is special about the US, and the current generation is that these criminals are being brought before the bar of justice.

 

[Gokul43201]

What kind of nutballs are we (the U.S.) sending over to "protect" and "help" these people as "friends of their new democracy"?

Any kind we can get! You think it's easy meeting recruitment quotas?

A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
...
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."

Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. "They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military," he said, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/w...n=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserlan

 

[arildno]

Any kind we can get! You think it's easy meeting recruitment quotas?

Yes it would be, if there hadn't been an enlistment requirement to believe that all Iraqis are dangerous terrorists who need to be kept in check by all means.
Most sane soldiers with some moral qualms are not allowed participate.

That is, the usual selection preference of dumb soldiers is in force in the US (as in just about any other conflict throughout history).

 

[Cyrus]

Any kind we can get! You think it's easy meeting recruitment quotas?



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/w...n=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserlan

Give them a stick and use them as bomb dectectors, I say.

 

[EL]

What is special about the US, and the current generation is that these criminals are being brought before the bar of justice.

No it's not special for the US. For example we have swedish soldiers convicted for war crimes in Bosnia.
But maybe you ment that what is special is that US is now bringing their own soldiers to court, just as we have been doing here in Europe for a while?

 

[devil-fire]

what bugs me about this is that there are tons of alleged crimes like this, you can find them to some degree everywhere you look and the coalition (not just the us) officals will always say 'no one in this army is commiting any war crimes' and every now and then these things still pop up. there's no question that these officals' remarks are inaccurate, the question is to what degree are they inaccurate.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

These things happen in war all the time, and shouldn't come as a surprise.

So you would do the same? Seems to me cultural background and the individual are the main determining factors.
I do see that this has roots in our (primate) history of violence and that genocides actually have the same pattern - kill the men, rape the women.

 

[EL]

So you would do the same? Seems to me cultural background and the individual are the main determining factors.
I do see that this has roots in our (primate) history of violence and that genocides actually have the same pattern - kill the men, rape the women.

No, of course I wouldn't do the same. What I ment is that when you start a war, things like this will always happen. There are no "clean" wars, even though some pro-war people naively seems to think so.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

What I ment is that when you start a war, things like this will always happen.

If you let them continue as "normal" actions, then yes they will.

 

[EL]

If you let them continue as "normal" actions, then yes they will.

You make it sound like I'm defending war crimes, and I don't see where you got that from?

"Clean" wars are an utopia. The only way to get rid of war crimes is to not go to war.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I see what you're saying. True we shouldn't be surprised given past evidence, but that doesn't mean that people won't be outraged by it. It sounded like an excuse someone might give to not do anything about it and hence let it continue as an acceptable loss.

 

[EL]

I see what you're saying. True we shouldn't be surprised given past evidence, but that doesn't mean that people won't be outraged by it. It sounded like an excuse someone might give to not do anything about it and hence let it continue as an acceptable loss.

That the war criminals should be punished is obvious. It's great that US finally seems to go in that direction. What would be even better is if US stopped starting unnecessary wars. Indirect it's the warlords who are responsible for all those crimes.

 

[siddharth]

This war crime was in the news again

A second US soldier's plea of guilty to the gang rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her and her family has been accepted by a judge.

Sgt Paul Cortez admitted four murders, rape and conspiracy to rape. His plea means he will avoid the death penalty

In court, Cortez admitted the plan was hatched as they played cards and that the girl had been targeted because there was only one male in her house, making it an easy target.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6384781.stm

 

[radou]

If you let them continue as "normal" actions, then yes they will.

Any ideas on how to make them stop? I doubt.

 

[verty]

I think it's obvious that the psychology/sociology of the soldiers is wrong. They are either nutjobs or the nature of the situation turns ordinary people into monsters. We shouldn't say "oh well, it happens", we should do something about it. I have a suspicion that private forces would better withstand such behaviour.

In that recent friendly fire video, we hear one of the pilots say "Go get him!". If that is evident of the mentality of the soldiers, you know something is seriously wrong higher up.

 

[Yonoz]

In that recent friendly fire video, we hear one of the pilots say "Go get him!". If that is evident of the mentality of the soldiers, you know something is seriously wrong higher up.

What is wrong with that mentality? The pilot obviously thought he was shooting at an enemy convoy.

 

[radou]

They are either nutjobs or the nature of the situation turns ordinary people into monsters.

...or both.

 

[verty]

What is wrong with that mentality? The pilot obviously thought he was shooting at an enemy convoy.

It was said with glee, like a child might, like it's a game.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I once met someone who'd served in the first Gulf War at a train station, he told me the best part about the war was running into a trench and gunning down Iraqis, he said he loved it, a lot of the time he said they'd be unarmed, but he said he shot them anyway, and if he could he'd of stayed on in the army, but he had a non related injury that forced him out.

There are nut jobs in every profession, if your a bit sociopathic in the army, who's going to notice that easilly? Since you spend your days killing and trying not to be killed? I'm sure psyche evalutations can catch the truly nutty, but every man is capable of the most barbaric acts given the right circumstances. I wouldn't expect war to bring out the best without the worst in equal measure from people. I just hope the real psycopaths are picked up early, so they can't do any real damage, those guys are needed for upper management or to run large corporations.

 

[radou]

I just hope the real psycopaths are picked up early, so they can't do any real damage, those guys are needed for upper management or to run large corporations.

Exactly.

 

[sara_87]

i read that this morning on the bbc...that was one way to start the day

not only are the innocent Iraqi's suffering for no reason, but the American and the British troops are suffering too.
Iraqi's die coz of a damn lie and a few crazed monsters, and the troops are dying...and for what? for what?! a lie?! i heard a lady explaining how she became a widow, after losing her husband in Iraq, and a single parent raising her two children (i wish i had paid more attention to what she was saying and stopped crying, it was very moving), this lady was answering another proud mum boasting about the fact that her son is signing up for the army to help bring peace in Iraq...if the situation in Iraq is bringing peace then i hope to never live peacefully.

war is bad for everyone, the troops need to come out of Iraq, and the British and American leaders need to be taken to court for starting a war without good enough evidence, ruining an entire country, encouraging young men and women to sign up for the army and fight for no reason and going against the UN...but instead, Blair is going to retire into a lifestyle that most of us can only dream of and what a few Iraqi's lost

 

[verty]

Sara, your post reads like an emotional appeal. Emotions don't lead to wise decisions.

 

[devil-fire]

What is wrong with that mentality? The pilot obviously thought he was shooting at an enemy convoy.

to me it shows an eagerness to kill instead of only a willingness to defend. if a leader of a country (or soldier) makes the choice to go to war because his countrymen are in grave danger, then that is acceptable. if however people are sent off to war because they like to see their declared enemies be bombed, shot, killed and disabled then that is morbid. obviously there are people who enjoy destroying things and killing people and there is a much higher percentage of these people in the army then anywhere else in society except maybe prisons (depending on the unit and prison) and these are the people that represent us in terrorist breeding grounds like iraq.

there will be international terrorists who will have developed in iraq, i believe this is inevitable. when they attack, we could say they are simply jealous of a higher standard of living, or they have a murderous phobia of democracy. instead, i think it could be they are trying to get revenge from a people (westerners) who enjoyed seeing their countrymen being bombed/shot/killed.

 

[denverdoc]

I once met someone who'd served in the first Gulf War at a train station, he told me the best part about the war was running into a trench and gunning down Iraqis, he said he loved it, a lot of the time he said they'd be unarmed, but he said he shot them anyway, and if he could he'd of stayed on in the army, but he had a non related injury that forced him out.

There are nut jobs in every profession, if your a bit sociopathic in the army, who's going to notice that easilly? Since you spend your days killing and trying not to be killed? I'm sure psyche evalutations can catch the truly nutty, but every man is capable of the most barbaric acts given the right circumstances. I wouldn't expect war to bring out the best without the worst in equal measure from people. I just hope the real psycopaths are picked up early, so they can't do any real damage, those guys are needed for upper management or to run large corporations.

Remember the song Alice's Restaurant? The shrink guys clears him only after he goes on a tirade about I" want to kill".

As in are you kidding, the armed forces are looking for sociopaths and working overtime to convert the remainder. And with good reason, you want to win a war, you need killers of every stripe and persuasion. Now these are the guys on the line; presumably there is supposed to be some offsetting frontal lobe guidance provided by the leaders. But in a totally gorilla war situation like Iraq, its a thin veil against the worst. But personally a boys will be boys attitude in an obviously premeditated situation situation sends the wrong message. I'm not pro-death so I had no problem with the plea, but the message accompanying it needs to be one of zero tolerance. Both with the soldiers who perpetrated the act and the command up to GWB that seems to condone any activity as moral if it's for the right cause.

 

[Yonoz]

to me it shows an eagerness to kill instead of only a willingness to defend. if a leader of a country (or soldier) makes the choice to go to war because his countrymen are in grave danger, then that is acceptable. if however people are sent off to war because they like to see their declared enemies be bombed, shot, killed and disabled then that is morbid.

No one in the military should decide when to go to war - that's up to the policy makers.

obviously there are people who enjoy destroying things and killing people and there is a much higher percentage of these people in the army then anywhere else in society except maybe prisons (depending on the unit and prison) and these are the people that represent us in terrorist breeding grounds like iraq.

That is irrelevant to the said incident, which was at a time of war, and where the animosity was directed at what was thought to be an enemy column. In this case it was only natural for that pilot to urge his friend to accomplish their mission.

there will be international terrorists who will have developed in iraq, i believe this is inevitable. when they attack, we could say they are simply jealous of a higher standard of living, or they have a murderous phobia of democracy. instead, i think it could be they are trying to get revenge from a people (westerners) who enjoyed seeing their countrymen being bombed/shot/killed.

Though I'm sure the vast majority of American troops are capable of sound moral judgment and have left for Iraq believing they were going to help its people achieve a better life, this is one problem with occupations. Militaries are not meant to be occupying forces.

 

[Gokul43201]

No one in the military should decide when to go to war - that's up to the policy makers.
That is irrelevant to the said incident, which was at a time of war, and where the animosity was directed at what was thought to be an enemy column. In this case it was only natural for that pilot to urge his friend to accomplish their mission.

Though I'm sure the vast majority of American troops are capable of sound moral judgment and have left for Iraq believing they were going to help its people achieve a better life...

This may also be true, but polls (conducted over this last year or so) show that the vast majority of troops believed that the operation in Iraq was meant to exact revenge against Saddam Hussein for the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

 

[Evo]

This may also be true, but polls (conducted over this last year or so) show that the vast majority of troops believed that the operation in Iraq was meant to exact revenge against Saddam Hussein for the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

What?

58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds

42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure.

85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,”

77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

That's 192%. What's wrong here? Are these different polls?

 

[vanesch]

These things happen in war all the time, and shouldn't come as a surprise.

It's one of the advantages of the job of being a soldier. It's a hell of a job, being a soldier, you risk your life, you're far from home, there's a lot of noise, the working hours are crazy, people are rude, and so on, but, but... now and then you get to shoot some guy or to rape some juicy young girls. These are the pleasures of the profession. Every profession has its pros and cons.

 

[Gokul43201]

What?

58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds

42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure.

85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,”

77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

That's 192%. What's wrong here? Are these different polls?

No, they aren't. How did you get 192%?

It's theoretically possible that 100% of the troops polled could have fallen under #1, #3 and #4 above. That doesn't mean there's a total of 300% - the questions are not mutually exclusive (well #1 and #2 are, so those numbers should add to 100%).

 

[Astronuc]

No, they aren't. How did you get 192%?

It's theoretically possible that 100% of the troops polled could have fallen under #1, #3 and #4 above. That doesn't mean there's a total of 300% - the questions are not mutually exclusive (well #1 and #2 are, so those numbers should add to 100%).

Certainly 58% and 42% add to 100%. Of those 85% believe . . . and 77% also believe. Certainly, not additive. Also, I think the 192 was supposed to be 162 = 85 + 77, or 262 if all percentages stated were added.

I don't really see the value of the poll regarding what soldiers believe is their mission. The military tells them what to believe!

I heard an interview with one of the soldiers stationed at Abu Ghraib. He could not get a straight answer from superiors about rules of engagement! He was basically told, if they look like the enemy (which do him 'they all' did) then shoot them. He then related the physical and psychological abuse and torture which was visited upon many innocent Iraqis. The documentary, also discussed a number of Iraqis who died as a result of injuries inflicted during torture. In essence, members of the US government (e.g CIA or Military Intelligence) or agents under contract with the US government have committed murder and those acts are being covered up.

See - the HBO documentary film "http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/ghostsofabughraib/index.html"

Contrary to Bush's assertion, the Iraqi people are not free. They are under occupation by the US and in some or many cases, they are being brutalized by either the US military or those under contract with the US government.

 

[Gokul43201]

Cortez's sentence was handed out a couple days ago:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1593040,00.html

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky — A U.S. soldier was sentenced to 100 years in prison Thursday for the gang rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the killing of her family last year.

Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, also was given a dishonorable discharge. He will be eligible for parole in 10 years under the terms of his plea agreement.

Cortez, of Barstow, Calif., pleaded guilty this week to four counts of felony murder, rape and conspiracy to rape in a case considered among the worst atrocities by U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

In his plea agreement, he said he conspired with three other soldiers from the Fort Campbell-based 101st Airborne Division to rape 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi. The girl, her parents and a younger sister were all killed.