|
On April 17 2012 21:58 MooseMasher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:35 gugarutz wrote:On April 17 2012 19:23 MooseMasher wrote:
Also, I find it ironic to call for proper mental checking of people wanting to have as their job to kill other people...
it's not their job to kill other people but to protect the people of their country, i hope everyone protecting me has a healthy mind. I dont quite agree that is what western military forces is being used for, but let's not argue about that. I was just pointing out that killing another human being is a horrible act, and people training hard to do it (for any reason) are probably not entirely sane. By no means does that make them less responsible for rape and other (war) crimes they might commit. I was just bringing it up to show on how many levels this situation (women being raped being labeled as mentally ill) is fucked up.
You don't have much direct exposure to anyone in a military, do you? Statements like "people training hard to do it (for any reason) are probably not entirely sane" are offensively, provincially ignorant.
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up.
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/8/1024.abstract
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/russian-soldiers-sold-for-sex/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
http://news.yahoo.com/bai-ling-reveals-dark-memories-chinese-army-220710504.html
Your knee-jerk ignorant anti-Americanism is on display in almost every post you make.
|
On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex.
It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports.
+ Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
|
First of all, I'm sorry for the reply in the first thread. My sister is a victim of sexual abuse in Iraq where she was a nurse so it is difficult for me to be not emotional about it. Nonetheless, I think this is a good opportunity for discussion, especially between Americans who are on one end of the war, and Middle East Asians, who are in another. I am curios about something. I try to understand that war itself might be inevitable, but I think there should be conducts of war, especially if one country or military force is so much stronger than the other. So my question is, why is it that the military seems too easily deny abuses on its own rank. The sexual abuse cases on American soldiers (it might be any soldier, but since American military is the most prominent in foreign wars, I have to give that as an example) raping women of other country as well as from its own. But almost all of the time, the military denies this, rejects the complaints, and even try to be silent about it. Is there a code that when you are a soldier you are exempted from law? In the case of my sister, she filed a sexual abuse case to 3 soldiers in Iraq in 2007 when she and another nurse were on duty in a local hospital. Then these 3 American soldiers went it to do random inspection, while the rest of their team, was outside securing the area. This is where the soldiers tried to take advantage and touched my sister and her friend on their private parts. Luckily my sister and her friend thought fast enough and used the public broadcast system to call for emergency. The soldiers just left in a hurry and even looked at my sister and her friend threateningly, as if telling them something bad will happen to them if they reported it. You can also understand the gravity of this situation in a Muslim country where there are standards for women. But since there was no actual penetration, and just touching, my sister and her friend found the courage to report it. The military unit assigned responded to the summon that they will conduct an independent investigation. As you know, foreign countries have no soveriegnty over crimes commited on their land by US soldiers, and they are investigated and tried in a US court, or military court. Our only resort was the International Court, but that would be laborious for us. A few days later, the said 3 soldiers were no longer part of the unit, and were transfered to a different unit, location, country, whatever, we really don't know. As you can see, victims of sexual abuse are left with nothing, not even the dignity of being heard in the proper court of law. It is wasy to understand why it is the system in the US military why these abuses are common.
|
Thorough screening for personality disorders doesn't seem realistic - the military is somewhere where the dysfunctional people (mostly) function. These women might actually have personality disorders, but if there honestly wasn't a thorough psychiatric evaluation (done externally) before the ruling and expulsion then of course it's sexism/foul play.
More than anything this draws attention to the psychological state of an army. Wasn't there an article/interview with an ex-military contractor who said that the good soldiers were complete sociopaths? Would fit the trend (and stereotypes) if most female soldiers were borderline/histrionic/antisocial. I guess this is going with the 'blame the victim' mentality (which I hate), however.
Obviously this also highlights a basic rule: nothing can police itself. The idea that a soldier has to go through the chain of command to report harassment/rape by a colleague is fucking ridiculous and prone to failure; what if the rapist is senior or important? If military police don't operate independently of the basic chain of command, or if they aren't contacted to deal with such cases, this kind of terrible shit will happen.
|
If i was a woman that had been raped by an officer, I'd have taken my gun and shot the asshole.
|
Why do women need to be in the army, again? I'd like to hear some strong arguments for this, apart from the trendy platitudes on how we're exactly the same. I can give you some pretty hefty ones against it. Firstly, putting a small number of females within reach of a large group of testosterone-filled, sex starved young men who are trained to kill each other is asking for rape. If that sounds insulting to your worldview, you will at least have to admit it is disastrous to morale and the dynamic of relationships at an army base - and especially in combat. Secondly, I'd wager that period and the mental and physical changes that come with it present an inconvenience that cannot be justified in life-or-death situations. Most men can barely handle this when it is their girlfriend spazzing out. Thirdly, women fail at unarmed combat against men, period. I know this because I've been doing k-1 for years, and sparring a much more skilled woman close to your weight is laughable. The term "manhandled" wasn't invented by sexists. Consequently, they also fail at keeping up with male soldiers in any kind of exhausting physical situation, or one that requires strength.
I will never, ever understand why women lobby for such things. You don't see men fighting for their right to give birth to children or breast-feed them. Some roles were simply meant for one sex or the other. I think we can all guess which sex was built for combat...
These women willingly put themselves in a situation where they are surrounded by young males who are trained to be violent and aggressive, and who are absolutely deprived of sex, the strongest urge produced by the male brain. Then, they are unable to fend them off in a physical confrontation although fighting is supposed to be their job. Well, doh.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 17 2012 22:40 Muki wrote:
So if they cannot defend 1vs1 in a bathroom how are they supposed to do in real combat? If I enlisted in the military and deployed into a warzone where physical strength is of critical importance then I'd make sure first that I am at least in the same condition as my fellow soldiers are. Gender doesn't matter. They were unfit for duty.
I have a friend who's really freaking good at submission wrestling. Imagine all the guys who would have to leave the military due to risk of being raped if he joined!
|
On April 17 2012 22:32 aTnClouD wrote:
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up.
Its because as a country we actually report on half the stuff that goes on in there, most other countries just let it slide and say nothing, but it happens a lot everywhere else. Its not an isolated incident by any means.
On subject of the OP: I think its time for an FBI investigation, but it will only occur after a girl dies unfortuantely.
|
On April 18 2012 00:04 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:32 aTnClouD wrote:
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up. Its because as a country we actually report on half the stuff that goes on in there, most other countries just let it slide and say nothing, but it happens a lot everywhere else. Its not an isolated incident by any means. On subject of the OP: I think its time for an FBI investigation, but it will only occur after a girl dies unfortuantely.
While you are right that some country (including mines) are letting thing slips under the carpet, the real reason is that the US is still the biggest army of the western world. Thus events like this are statistically bound to happen more. Furthermore the US Army acting as the policeman of the world is putting themselves under scrutiny.
The same thing happened in the french railroad company a while ago but nobody talked about it.
|
On April 17 2012 23:34 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports. + Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
You do realise I only objected to the fact that 3% should be concidered "very low", right? In all other regards I agreed with you, making your anecdote rather weird to include in a post, but okay I guess?
I guess it's my background in the field of medicine that makes a 3% risk of ruining a persons life seem anything but "very low". Or to put it in another way: It means that every time we arrest 100 people on the charge of rape, 3 of them will have been innocent and run the risk of being social stigmatized despite their names being cleared during the investigation. I'm surprised how we as a society dare convict people if the percentage of false claims are truely that high for most crimes.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 17 2012 23:48 Kickboxer wrote:
Why do women need to be in the army, again? I'd like to hear some strong arguments for this, apart from the trendy platitudes on how we're exactly the same. I can give you some pretty hefty ones against it. Firstly, putting a small number of females within reach of a large group of testosterone-filled, sex starved young men who are trained to kill each other is asking for rape. If that sounds insulting to your worldview, you will at least have to admit it is disastrous to morale and the dynamic of relationships at an army base - and especially in combat. Secondly, I'd wager that period and the mental and physical changes that come with it present an inconvenience that cannot be justified in life-or-death situations. Most men can barely handle this when it is their girlfriend spazzing out. Thirdly, women fail at unarmed combat against men, period. I know this because I've been doing k-1 for years, and sparring a much more skilled woman close to your weight is laughable. The term "manhandled" wasn't invented by sexists. Consequently, they also fail at keeping up with male soldiers in any kind of exhausting physical situation, or one that requires strength.
I will never, ever understand why women lobby for such things. You don't see men fighting for their right to give birth to children or breast-feed them. Some roles were simply meant for one sex or the other. I think we can all guess which sex was built for combat...
These women willingly put themselves in a situation where they are surrounded by young males who are trained to be violent and aggressive, and who are absolutely deprived of sex, the strongest urge produced by the male brain. Then, they are unable to fend them off in a physical confrontation although fighting is supposed to be their job. Well, doh.
What the hell man? It is the womans fault? By that standard any male that could whoop your ass is free to have at you? You willingly put yourself in that situation and after all they are just following their base urges.
Women don't even occupy combat arms positions: my unit for instance, entirely male. It is this kind of sexism that allows shit like this to occur.
|
Seems like typical TL jumping on something and causing a sensation without hearing two sides of the story. In those three cases how many were prosecuted? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
|
On April 18 2012 00:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:34 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports. + Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
You do realise I only objected to the fact that 3% should be concidered "very low", right? In all other regards I agreed with you, making your anecdote rather weird to include in a post, but okay I guess? I guess it's my background in the field of medicine that makes a 3% risk of ruining a persons life seem anything but "very low". Or to put it in another way: It means that every time we arrest 100 people on the charge of rape, 3 of them will have been innocent and run the risk of being social stigmatized despite their names being cleared during the investigation. I'm surprised how we as a society dare convict people if the percentage of false claims are truely that high for most crimes.
The number is actually higher if you understand the definitions being used.
False rape accusation ≠ unfounded rape accusation. Unfounded accusations, which run at 8% according to FBI statistics (compared to 2% for most crimes), include accusations where the victim merely thinks it was rape (but technically no laws were violated) or if there's no evidence of rape. False accusations only include situations where it's more or less proven that the accusation was a deliberate lie.
Ultimately, false rape accusations are unusually high compared to other crimes, but the vast majority of rape accusations are still probably legitimate. The main problem is, as you alluded to, the fact that society and the media presume that men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.
|
On April 18 2012 00:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:34 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports. + Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
You do realise I only objected to the fact that 3% should be concidered "very low", right? In all other regards I agreed with you, making your anecdote rather weird to include in a post, but okay I guess? I guess it's my background in the field of medicine that makes a 3% risk of ruining a persons life seem anything but "very low". Or to put it in another way: It means that every time we arrest 100 people on the charge of rape, 3 of them will have been innocent and run the risk of being social stigmatized despite their names being cleared during the investigation. I'm surprised how we as a society dare convict people if the percentage of false claims are truely that high for most crimes.
Sorry for the confusion, the anecdote wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at Psychobabas, who the original quote was from.
The 3% is not the percentage of wrongful convictions, it is the percentage of total reports which are found to be false. The vast majority of false reports are found to be false without having resulted in a conviction - that's what investigation is for.
In rape cases, it would probably be a good idea to delay publishing names/details until after the verdict due to the stigma associated with the accusation.
Edit:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 18 2012 00:28 sunprince wrote:
The number is actually higher if you understand the definitions being used.
False rape accusation ≠ unfounded rape accusation. Unfounded accusations, which run at 8% according to FBI statistics (compared to 2% for most crimes), include accusations where the victim merely thinks it was rape (but technically no laws were violated) or if there's no evidence of rape. False accusations only include situations where it's more or less proven that the accusation was a deliberate lie.
Ultimately, false rape accusations are unusually high compared to other crimes, but the vast majority of rape accusations are still probably legitimate. The main problem is, as you alluded to, the fact that society and the media presume that men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion. I was using the British Home Office study for the 3% figure, as it discarded classifications reached improperly.
|
On April 17 2012 23:49 Gigaudas wrote:
I have a friend who's really freaking good at submission wrestling. Imagine all the guys who would have to leave the military due to risk of being raped if he joined!
You don't need to be physically superior to everyone to deter rape. Simply being a reasonably tough target serves as an effective determent even if you might lose to someone in a fight, because it increases the risk of the rapist failing (often with severe consequences).
This can be seen in prisons; the toughest guy in the prison doesn't rape everyone else, and no one can defend themselves all the time, but all of the guys who are unusually tough go unmolested.
There's simply too much risk to attempt raping someone unless you're sure you can outclass them physically. The thing is, we shouldn't allow female soldiers who are outclassed by average male soldiers, but we do allow them due to double standards in military fitness.
|
just from the OP it is pretty hard to tell if this is a significant problem. i mean yeah its a shame for the 3 girls mentioned, but there are fucked up people in every phase of life. my problem is that there aren't really any statistics or accounts given besides the three listed in the OP, so just from that it doesn't seem like it's something that happens to a high degree.
|
On April 18 2012 00:37 FrankWalls wrote:
just from the OP it is pretty hard to tell if this is a significant problem. i mean yeah its a shame for the 3 girls mentioned, but there are fucked up people in every phase of life. my problem is that there aren't really any statistics or accounts given besides the three listed in the OP, so just from that it doesn't seem like it's something that happens to a high degree.
probably because, like the 3 women in the OP, raped female soldiers know nothing will get done even if they did report it. and most will be too embarrassed to report it anyways
|
I think this is not something new. If you see what kind of people join the army you almost expect something like this happen.
|
On April 18 2012 00:42 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 00:37 FrankWalls wrote:
just from the OP it is pretty hard to tell if this is a significant problem. i mean yeah its a shame for the 3 girls mentioned, but there are fucked up people in every phase of life. my problem is that there aren't really any statistics or accounts given besides the three listed in the OP, so just from that it doesn't seem like it's something that happens to a high degree. probably because, like the 3 women in the OP, raped female soldiers know nothing will get done even if they did report it. and most will be too embarrassed to report it anyways
that's very possible, but if there's no other stories or stats, then it's hard to make a case for something. of course rape is wrong, but idk im not gonna jump the gun on it being a problem just by 3 women's testimonies that cover a full decade of military service
On April 18 2012 00:45 Heouf wrote:
I think this is not something new. If you see what kind of people join the army you almost expect something like this happen.
yeah the creepiest kid from my high school joined the military so i get where you're coming from haha
|
i remember when i was in basic training one of the E6 drill sergeants of another platoon got demoted to an E1 because of sexual abuse allegations towards the end of our training cycle.
as a previous poster stated, it's definitely an issue that the military takes seriously. I'm pretty sure each of the service branches have systems set up where reporting doesn't have to necessarily go through the direct chain of command in the case that the chain of command is compromised in that the offending party is in the chain of command or defended by the chain-- There's a stigma attached to female service-members that do make the reports, because of the possibility that the accusations might be false, but in all the training classes on the issue of sexual abuse victims are still instructed to make the report.
system isn't perfect, and justice isn't always going to be meted out in every case unfortunately =\
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
