GIs probed in 'premeditated' Iraq rape, killings

MSNBC ^ | July 1, 2006 | MSNBC

[libstripper]

BEIJI, Iraq - Investigators believe a group of U.S. soldiers suspected of raping an Iraqi woman, then killing her and three members of her family plotted the attack for nearly a week, a U.S. military official said Saturday.

Up to five soldiers are being investigated in the March killings, the fifth pending case involving alleged slayings of Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops.

The Americans entered the Sunni Arab’s family home, separated three males from the woman, raped her and burned her body using a flammable liquid in a cover-up attempt, a military official close to the investigation said. The three males were also slain.

[libstripper]

This is really disgusting. Leaking by a "military official close to the investigation" is inexcusable. If it's done by a rogue, hack prosecutor, like Nifong, at lest it's possible for the defense to refute it in public and the pool of potential jurors may not be too badly prejudiced against the defendant.

In the military it's very different. Military juries are composed mostly of career officers and enlisted personnel, the vast majority of whom are interested in advancing their careers. If the DOD officials in charge of an investigation like this allow the amount of highly prejudicial leaking of investigatory information that's occurred and is occurring in this case, it sends a powerful message to any potential jurors that they d**n better convict the defendants if they want to keep their careers, making a fair trial almost impossible. Equally important, if the defendants are actually guilty (absolutely NOT something I'm assuming), then guilty men would have a powerful ground for appeal that they otherwise wouldn't have.

The way this thing is being handled is a disgrace. Every one of the leakers should be disciplined to the fullest extent of military law.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Agreed on all points. However, if this ugly story is indeed true, then it's very interesting that the four suspects are from the same platoon as the two GIs who were captured, tortured, mutilated, and murdered two weeks ago. A correlation, perhaps, with the family's relatives in the insurgency exacting vengeance for the act????

[MonroeDNA]

The fifth column seems to have found a winning formula.

They've tried everything else.

[libstripper]

That's the intereting thing about this spate of charges against soldiers and Marines. They all seem to be coming right at the time we're getting a handle on this thing and are winning. Coincidence???

[USMCVet]

The central issue is whether the offense occurred or not, not that is has been revealed. If we are having incidents of alleged atrocities being committed by our troops then they have to be investigated and if found true, courts martial must be convened.

If there are atrocities being committed, then we have some real problems maintaining out mission in the face of an unrelenting insurgent enemy. We have to tighten up our leadership and ensure that we get our central values back into the way we fight or we won't win and we will have let our troops down.

You have a strange view of miltary justice: nobody worries about their career or chances of promotion when they are serving on a court martial board. Nobody will know which way you voted as part of the military jury, so you vote your conscience based on the evidence and the UCMJ. I have served on three General Courts Martial, so I know what I'm talking about.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

You make some excellent points. Such "leaks" can damage the accused rights to a fair trial. I have worked for the military for 26 years and found military justice to be quite good, probably as good or better than the average civilian court. Frankly, I think the military offers too many Article 15s (non judicial punishment) instead of court martial. It should be noted that there are people in the military that are criminals. Gangs have started penetrating the military. However, the vast majority of our military are super citizens and law abiding.

[samtheman]

Every one of the leakers should be disciplined to the fullest extent of military law.

I agree.

[wildcatf4f3]

Thanks for your level-headed responce. We are all accountable for our actions.

[libstripper]

What benefit does the military justice system derive from this massive leaking of highly prejudicial material against the potential defendants? How does this in any way promote a fair trial without a serious risk of reversal on appeal? Also, if a military jury votes unanimously to convict, it's pretty easy to know how each member voted. Just because somebody's wearing a uniform in a highly politicized case doesn't mean he's invulnerable to careerism.

[leadpenny]

From the piece:

"the official said on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing."

That's not leaking.

[johnny7]

Sooner or later, the commies had to go back to their tried'n'true method... the 'Kerry Way'...

"They raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

[driftdiver]

"The central issue is whether the offense occurred or not, not that is has been revealed. If we are having incidents of alleged atrocities being committed by our troops then they have to be investigated and if found true, courts martial must be convened."

There is more than on issue here.

We know its the enemies plan to make false accusations. We know they are highly intelligent and many have received the best educations that America can provide.

Each one of these accusations gives the enemy more recruiting material, takes fighters off the battle field, and hurts us politically.

Our military is made up of people and people do stupid things. We used to have the discipline to keep classified information classified. I'd wager there is one person in Washington who has been wined and dined by the traitors in the media.

[Valin]

In the military it's very different. Military juries are composed mostly of career officers and enlisted personnel, the vast majority of whom are interested in advancing their careers.


Ping

[USMCVet]

Again you miss the point:

1. The nature of the alleged offence(s) is serious and could indicate that we have some major redirections to make if we are going to succeed in this war.

2. The "leaking" isn't the issue; the enemy already knew the allegations before we had them revealed to ourselves.

I get the impression that you haven't had any experience with military courts martial or officers - you don't seem to believe that professional military officers have the strength of moral courage and integrity to come to a fair and impartial verdict. The system works well - probably better than the comparable civilian system - because of those values.

[libstripper]

If the accused's rights to a fair trial are damaged it can devastate the working of the whole system. All we need to do is look at the child murder case in Florida where the defendant's confession was thrown out because the cops didn't get him a lawyer when he requested one. Now it's going to be a lot harder to convict a really horrible criminal. Another example is the Andrea Yates case where the conviction was reversed because a vital prosecution witness perjured himself.

For the military justice system to work properly it's essential that these leaks be stopped and the leakers punished. If that's not done, it sends a powerful message that the highest command levels want the accused convicted, a message that's likely to be heard by the military jurors, thereby prejudicing the rights of the accused and the government's ability to obtain sustainable convictions.

[Valin]

Leaking?

[Valin]

How are their rights to a fair trial being damaged?

[driftdiver]

"Nobody will know which way you voted as part of the military jury, so you vote your conscience based on the evidence and the UCMJ. I have served on three General Courts Martial, so I know what I'm talking about."

I've been involved with a General Court Martial as well (only 1). I think your experience depends a lot on the situation, people involved and personal integrity of the people on the board. There was a fair amount of Command attention on the Court Martial I viewed. They expected a guilty verdict and that was communicated through many non-verbals. Of course in this case the evidence was quite overwhelming.

[asp1]

I agree with everything that you have said. The military is a community. In any community there is good and bad. Just because a person puts on a uniform doesn't automatically make him/her a saint. Having said that though, I am very suspicious of the parade of charges being leveled by "persons close to the investigation," or "unnamed sources," etc. Until evidence of such crimes is presented my support stays with the troops. I have nothing but contempt for "leakers and anonymous sources" with obvious agendas.

Thank for your service.

[libstripper]

Why does this official need anonymity because there is an ongoing investigation unless he or she realizes he or she's committing a criminal offense by revealing this material now? What earthly good does this leaking do for the integrity of the investigation and the sustainability of any convictions that might come from it? Who benefits from these revelations of ongoing investigative material except our foreign and domestic enemies?

[leadpenny]

The person has been identified as an official because they have been authorized to talk to the press on background.

[Smokin' Joe]

Unofficial statement:

The Americans entered the Sunni Arab’s family home, separated three males from the woman, raped her and burned her body using a flammable liquid in a cover-up attempt, a military official close to the investigation said. The three males were also slain.

The soldiers had studied their victims for about a week and the attack was “totally premeditated,” the official said on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

Note the tone where everything is presented as accepted fact...

versus the official statement:

The U.S. military issued a terse statement about the killings Friday, saying only that Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged slaying of a family of four in Mahmoudiya.

U.S. officials said they knew of the deaths but thought the victims were killed in sectarian violence. But Mahmoudiya police Capt. Ihsan Abdul-Rahman said Iraqi officials received a report on March 13 alleging that American soldiers had killed the family in the Khasir Abyad area, about 6 miles north of Mahmoudiya.

Note that there are no prejudicail remarks in the 'official' version, and that things are under investigation.

Either the facts have been determined or they have not. If they have not, and the investigation has not reached its conclusion, then the media should not present allegations as fact, plain and simple.

Someone has diarhea of the mouth, imo.

No hint of prejudice by the media there, or the leaker. /sarc

[libstripper]

You're evading my questions. Once again I ask:

"What benefit does the military justice system derive from this massive leaking of highly prejudicial material against the potential defendants? How does this in any way promote a fair trial without a serious risk of reversal on appeal? Also, if a military jury votes unanimously to convict, it's pretty easy to know how each member voted. Just because somebody's wearing a uniform in a highly politicized case doesn't mean he's invulnerable to careerism."

[ikez78]

MSNBC ignores the WMD report and gets into hysterical hyperventilating at the chance to smear the U.S. military, no media bias here, move along....

[libstripper]

The person has been identified as an official because they have been authorized to talk to the press on background.

There's the problem. If the person has been authorized to talk to the press and is revealing this highly confidential, prejudicial information, then he or she is sending a powerful message to any potential jurors of what is likely to happen to their careers if they don't convict the defendants.

[verity]

"Military juries are composed mostly of career officers and enlisted personnel, the vast majority of whom are interested in advancing their careers."

You are an arrogantly ignorant regarding this issue.

[Valin]

You are assuming that those on the Courts Martial board will be influenced by what's been reported (or "leaked"). At least that's what I get from your question.

[libstripper]

Then what are they composed of, Munchkins?

[SE Mom]

You're right- there is a world of difference between the official and the leaked versions.

Waiting for some facts...

[Non-Sequitur]

In the military it's very different. Military juries are composed mostly of career officers and enlisted personnel, the vast majority of whom are interested in advancing their careers.

In my 25 year military career I never had to serve on a court martial, but I've met a few officers who did. Every single one said it was the most difficult task of their entire career. It's an awsome responsibility and one they did not take lightly, and what it might do to their careers didn't even enter into the picture. I would go so far as to say that the military justice system is as fair and as impartial as any justice system staffed by human beings can be. If these men are charged with this crime and I was one of them, then I would probably want a military trial than a civilian trial made up of a bunch of people who can't wait to sell their story to "Dateline" or "48 Hours".

[Valin]

Now you're just being silly.

[Smokin' Joe]

Me, too. I just get so d@mned disgusted with the media presenting allegation as fact and fact as allegation, all as part of their wretched agitprop.

[USMCVet]

I have had to deal with "command attention" too but you can never go wrong if you stick to the evidence and the substance of the charges.

I did have one case where one of my Marines got a suspended sentence because of evidence that I brought to the attention of the court martial board. My battalion commander was really upset that this particluar Marine wasn't going to be discharged and he told me that "he is your responsibility now".

Turned out to be a good deal, since this Marine did just fine and was discharged honorably a few years later.

My experience with officers and the military justice system has been positive and from my experience, the real determinants were the exhaustive Article 32 investigations that developed the evidence for the cases. If the investigation was weak, the case was weak and if the investgation was strong, the case was strong. The court martial boards always had a mix of tough guys and nice guys - from different units - and that gave balance to the analysis of the evidence and their verdict. There was also a dynamic that arose from the board members that caused them to fuse together and independently arrive at their own conclusions.

If I were accused of a crime, I would prefer a military court martial to judge my innocence or guilt any day over a civilian trial.

[Valin]

Well said!
I think to many people get their view of what the military justice system is like of tv and the movies...and we all know just how accurate that is.

[USMCVet]

You're evading my answer: The most important point in this that we investigate fully and follow through with all of the appropriate actions as called for when the truth is known

The leaking of the case may annoy your sensibilities but it isn't the most important part of this alleged incident.

The leaking of parts of the investigation should not bear on the eventual disposition of this case, the evidence will.

You sound like you might be a civilian defense lawyer, where the most important part of a crime is defending your client, not whether a crime was actually committed, the effect that crime will have on the rest of your community, or whether justice is actually served.

[leadpenny]

Same here. In my 21 year (loosely, called a career) I never got close to a CM, but, the thing folks also need to remember is that there can be appeals which could go all the way to the highest Military Appeals Court and even to the USSC.

[Reactionary]

I think I get it...

Military courts violate the "rights" of the fascist bastards who lop off heads, but are just fine and dandy for GIs who've been accused of the latest liberal outrage.

[q_an_a]

thanks for your service and the first post that looks at the facts vs. a newspapers report. It is possilbe that the accuser is the one at fault and that there was no crime.

[norwaypinesavage]

"The way this thing is being handled is a disgrace. Every one of the leakers should be disciplined to the fullest extent of military law."

I agree with this statement, if the story is true. Remember, the story is from MSNBC. I would doubt the author long before I would doubt any one in the military. A vast majority of the military is trustworthy. That cannot be said for the media.

[leadpenny]

If this was all about "leaking" I doubt "The Washington Times" would have published the story on the front page and above the fold this morning.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060630-112511-1042r.htm

[rodeocowboy]

Also, who is to say that the female animal, who happened to be surrounded by three male animals, wasn't being raped and when the US heroes arrived and surround the place, then the three male animals killed her and tried burning her in an attempt to cover up the evidence before they tried shooting their way out? Sounds very likely to me.

Also, I am tired of slime like the New York Slimes and these leakers getting away with this leaking. Where is the leadership in our overly bureaucratic government?! Every close person to this story, beginning at the top should be issued a polygraphed interrogation until they work their way down to whomever leaked this information. Then that person should be held to life in prison just like a spy is when caught, if not given death (if they have more valuable information).

[MizSterious]

Is it a leaker, or is it something else? Like "totally made up for media circulation"? I ask because so far, the source is anonymous and won't own up to saying it. That makes it suspicious to me. We saw the same thing in SEVERAL other cases of atrocity accusations.

[rodeocowboy]

If there are atrocities being committed, then we have some real problems maintaining out mission in the face of an unrelenting insurgent enemy. We have to tighten up our leadership and ensure that we get our central values back into the way we fight or we won't win and we will have let our troops down.

I disagree slightly with you on this. We need to stop fighting in a civilized way with an uncivilized people. Does that mean that we should be singling out civilians and having our way with them (which I don't believe happened here)? No, but we do need to quit worrying so much about general civilian casualties and realize that if we had wiped the insurgency clean in the start, less civilian lives would have been lost than what we've seen so far by using civil rules against an uncivilized people. The British lost the revolutionary war because of this very reason!

[MizSterious]

I think the reason a lot of us are suspicious about this accusation is that several others have fallen apart under more scrutiny. This seems to be the enemy's latest battleground tactic: accuse our side of atrocities, and it leaves our military with a black eye--and the country (they assume) will demand that we get out of Iraq.

I note that this time they've amped it up a little--now they're claiming "confessions"--well, let's see about that, and hopefully let's see a named source, not some so-called anonymous soure--which, as my tagline says, could just as easily be the "voices in their heads."

[HawaiianGecko]

"Me, too. I just get so d@mned disgusted with the media presenting allegation as fact and fact as allegation, all as part of their wretched agitprop."

While I agree with you, it needs to be stated that this is nothing new. William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were masters of BS on newsprint.  In fact Adolph Hitler was once a columnist of Hearst (of course it was probably really Doctor Joseph Goebbels) and he said something like: "No one will ever ask the victors if they told the truth."

Hearst himself told his reporters in Cuba (who were saying there was no war to be had there)... "You provide the pictures and I'll provide the war."

I've never had trouble separating truth from fiction as long as the truth is eventually told. I tend to listen to the government position on all items of interest and keep Occum's Razor in the back of my mind at all times. Just because something if possible doesn't mean it happened that way.

It amazes me that so many people complain about writers doing what writers do best and it insults me for people to assume that I (or anyone else) cannot spot hype.

Here is the only thing we know to date for sure about this incident:

WASHINGTON, June 30, 2006 – The Army's Criminal Investigation Command is looking into allegations that coalition soldiers killed an Iraqi family of four in their home near Mahmudiyah, Iraq, military officials here announced today.

A written statement issued by Multinational Division Baghdad said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman, the division's commanding general, requested a criminal probe into the allegations after the division's own preliminary investigation found sufficient information existed to recommend a criminal investigation.

The incident that led to the allegations reportedly occurred in March, but the military's written statement did not provide a time frame. The statement said two soldiers on June 23 reported alleged coalition force involvement in the family's deaths. The criminal investigation began the next day, and is ongoing, officials said.

Officials did not provide the identity or nationality of the accused soldiers or those who came forward with the allegations. A command spokesman told American Forces Press Service he was not yet releasing any information beyond that contained in today's written statement.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060630_5552.html

 

 

 

 

[MizSterious]

What would you call it? If the source had to remain anonymous, it's because they shouldn't have been blabbing to the media and knew it would get them in trouble. People who are on the up and up (ongoing investigation or not) have no need to remain anonymous.

[USMCVet]

"We need to stop fighting in a civilized way with an uncivilized people"

No. No offense, but it's very clear that you aren't somebody who has experience in counterinsurgency operations. Our objective in Iraq, as with previous counterinsurgency wars, is to win over the people to our value system - or something close to it, anyway - and defeat the enemy's vision for the future.

The fastest track to losing this fight and the ones that will follow is to lose our moral compass and start acting like the enemy.

Don't you believe that we can win using American values for morality and ethics? We certainly kicked the snot out of the nazis while maintaining our values..

[MizSterious]

Nonsense. If they'd been authorized, they'd have use a name.

[new yorker 77]

The hate-filled anti-American press and bitter liberals are reposting this headline during the fourth of July weekend because they hate America and hope for dead troops that they can then pretend to care about.

[Strategerist]

The British lost the revolutionary war because of this very reason!

Nope. I think it's pretty clear the British would have done better had they been LESS brutal; only half the country wanted independence in the first place. Less use of Hessians, quartering of troops, looting likely would have tipped the balance in favor of Loyalists.