[chucker]

Via reddit: "US soldier admits murdering girl"

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. [..] He said: "During the time me and Barker were raping Abeer, I heard five or six gunshots that came from the bedroom. "After Barker was done, Green came out of the bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were dead." Cortez added: "Green then placed himself between Abeer's legs to rape her. When Green was finished, he stood up and shot Abeer in the head two or three times." The entire crime took about five minutes and the girl knew her parents and sister had been shot while she was being raped, the hearing heard.

Now, just to get it out of the way: no, this is not representative of the US. This is not the place for "see? this is what the military is like" comments.

I think the most fitting (though costly) "punishment" is a life-long sentence. Death penalty, let alone handing them to the Iraqis, would only be misconstrued as sinking to these soldiers' level.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I agree. Life, and hard labor. Or death, I don't care. They dishonored...well, pretty much everything.

It's not typical or indicative of anything. Bad eggs everywhere, unfortunately.

They'll get theirs.

[specter]

Of course it's not a portrait of the US army - rather an exclusion. A black sheep, so to say.

[InactionMan]

Why shouldn't they be handed over to the Iraqis? They committed the crime on Iraqi soil on Iraqi citizens. Let the Iraqi courts handle them.

[drewprops]

Sickening.
Yes, I have a strong desire to hand them over to the Iraqis along with a Deluxe Junior Vivisectionists Field Kit.

[kretara]

It happened on Iraqi soil, but they are American servicemen.
They should be punished by the American military.

For something like this (murder of civilians while commiting a crime) I am all for death. The rape (I believe that one person raped but did not kill anyone) I am all for many years of hard labor.

Bring on the chain gangs.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by kretara It happened on Iraqi soil, but they are American servicemen. They should be punished by the American military.

If I go to Canada on a business trip, rape somebody and kill her and her family, should I be punished by my employer? No. I should be punished by the Canadian authorities.

Why should they get special treatment because of who they work for? Why should we shelter them? We sent them over there to protect Iraqis and they did the exact opposite. Let the Iraqis prosecute them.

[Bryson]

I disagree, Kretara. It doesn't matter who they are. They committed the crime on Iraqi soil against an Iraqi citizen. The Iraqi court should get them.

If an Iraqi soldier committed a crime in New York, who should try him? The US courts, obviously. The same applies here.

[kretara]

I think that the key here is that the criminals are military not civies.
If I went to canada and raped someone, Canada can try me.

If a US serviceman did the same then I believe that Canada would have the choice of trying the person or giving back to the US military.

If, in a time of war with Canada, the US serviceman raped a Canadian person then Canada (our 'enemy') would have no say in the matter. I believe that the same would occur in an occupation.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by fcgriz If I go to Canada on a business trip, rape somebody and kill her and her family, should I be punished by my employer? No. I should be punished by the Canadian authorities.

Except this isn't a "business trip"; it's a political/military strategy.

Why should they get special treatment because of who they work for? Why should we shelter them? We sent them over there to protect Iraqis and they did the exact opposite. Let the Iraqis prosecute them.

For one, because the Iraqis don't have a properly functioning government yet, which is the entire reason the US Army is still there to begin with.

Originally Posted by Bryson If an Iraqi soldier committed a crime in New York, who should try him? The US courts, obviously. The same applies here.

An Iraqi soldier may be in New York as a citizen. If he were there, however, as a soldier on a mission the US and Iraqi governments agree on, then he's there as a representative of the Iraqis, and therefore (at least partially) immune to US laws.

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by kretara If, in a time of war with Canada, the US serviceman raped a Canadian person then Canada (our 'enemy') would have no say in the matter. I believe that the same would occur in an occupation.

We're occupying Iraq as our enemy, are we? I'm not sure the Government would publicly agree with you.

Originally Posted by Chucker For one, because the Iraqis don't have a properly functioning government yet, which is the entire reason the US Army is still there to begin with.

They do have a functional court system though, do they not? They managed to try at least one high-profile defendant.

An Iraqi soldier may be in New York as a citizen. If he were there, however, as a soldier on a mission the US and Iraqi governments agree on, then he's there as a representative of the Iraqis, and therefore (at least partially) immune to US laws.

...at the US's discretion. It only works if the Iraqis don't want to try them. If they don't, fair enough, but it's their choice.


You know, if I was these guys, I don't know which option I would be more worried about.

[psmith2.0]

Here's a quick, easy solution (and one that will work every time, and might actually deter further incidents): you rape - regardless of country, occupation, who you work for, military or not, etc. - you get a bullet to the temple.

Or, at best, a rousing kick to the 'nads and 50 years breaking big rocks into little ones.

Sorry...one strike and you're out. Screw you. Bye bye.

All those in favor...

[kretara]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Here's a quick, easy solution (and one that will work every time, and might actually deter further incidents): you rape - regardless of country, occupation, who you work for, military or not, etc. - you get a bullet to the temple. Or, at best, a rousing kick to the 'nads and 50 years breaking big rocks into little ones. Sorry...one strike and you're out. Screw you. Bye bye. All those in favor...

Nice thought, but is a bit more complicated.
What if the guy is 18 and the girl is 17 (age of consent is 18) and sex is consensual. This would be considered a form of 'rape' by the law. Should the guy be killed or put to hard labor?

What if we are in the same situation above, but the girl lies about her age (as in one night stand or hooker). Say the girl is 15 but says that she is 19 (I've known some who could get away with this easially), regardless the sex is consensual. Does the guy still get shot or put to breaking rocks?

I do see where you are coming from and I agree with you...within limits.

[psmith2.0]

Then you just shoot everyone.

Next question?



j/k

[Moogs]

Actually, if we hand them over, it would be a strong signal to the Iraqi people that we deeply regret this, that we respect their right to pursue justice in their own way, that we're not invaders bent on pillaging their country. It would also send a signal to other Muslim countries that we see the victims as human beings, the same as us, and that we think the perpetrators deserve the same fate they would get over here if they broke into someone's house, raped a girl and shot everyone for sport.

If we do it our way, it will just make things worse. No one in Iraq will believe they're actually being punished.

Dishonorably discharge all involved and hand them over to the Iraqi courts. They deserve whatever they get and worse. And one other key benefit: you can bet your ass any scumbag POS who might consider doing this sort of thing, will think twice if he knows he's getting handed over to the Iraqis if/when he gets caught.

We don't have to hand wartime criminals over for every offense, only the most sickening and egregious ones. Make an example out of these low-lifes.

[Schnauzer]

Wars a bitch

[murbot]

Right on Moogs. Turning over these guys would be GREAT. Doubt it'll happen, but a guy can hope.

[thuh Freak]

Damn, I thought all they did was kill, I didn't know they get to do rape too. Sign me up!

[AWR]

There are a number of very good reasons why typically military personnel are tried by the military. But it certainly is not always the case: service members have been tried and convicted of rape in Japanese courts very recently.

As this is a war zone, I think that technically the military court has jurisdiction. That said, as cruel as it may sound, these guys would get their just desserts at the gallows like Saddam (creepy cell phone video optional but effective). A message like that would do a lot more for US PR than anything else we've undertaken to address the (tone deaf) general Arab population.

[BenP]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Here's a quick, easy solution (and one that will work every time, and might actually deter further incidents): you rape - regardless of country, occupation, who you work for, military or not, etc. - you get a bullet to the temple.

Problem with this is that it encourages the rapist to murder the victim afterwards, so there are no witnesses. After all, the punishment can't get worse, so the rapist has nothing to lose.

[SpecMode]

100 years in prison, says CNN. While I personally think he deserves a bullet to the head, I suppose it's fair enough...though he is apparently eligible for parole after ten.

[alcimedes]

Isn't it the same thing as with foreign diplomats?

The entire reason this is the case is so that you can't trump up false charges to lock up your enemy.

Unfortunately it means that assholes like this don't get the full punishment they deserve.

Price of the world we live in.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Isn't it the same thing as with foreign diplomats? The entire reason this is the case is so that you can't trump up false charges to lock up your enemy. Unfortunately it means that assholes like this don't get the full punishment they deserve. Price of the world we live in.

When they are under military orders they are considered diplomats and fall under the same kind of rule and protection. There are some cases where the military can't help them though. While in a port visit to Turkey our ship had to provide a liaison to help return some shipmates to their ship. Seems the got drunk in town and caused a whole bunch of crap. They got arrested and the Turkish government wasn't planning to let them go until they had been tried. They were never released while we were in port and I have no idea what happened to them. I do know that the local authorities had no plans of giving them up because of what they did in their drunken state of mind. That's one case where sometimes we just can't do anything about it. I'm sure something happened to prevent it from becoming an "international incident" though.

This said, I wouldn't be upset if this group was sent to Iraq for trial. They really should have to pay for their actions.