Honor killing of rape victims in Iraq
Apologists can get back to me when the Halliburton victim is murdered by her family.
Depraved barbarians indeed.
Could someone please explain what the topic of Muslim societies attitudes towards women has to do with the story in the OP? The OP was about the (alleged) rape of an American woman by American men in an American compound and (again, allegedly) covered up by an American company. What does Islam have to do with any of this? It’s a complete non-sequitor.
“Michael Vick was convicted of dog fighting.”
“Well, in France the snail is considered a delicacy. So there!”
Umm, you do realize that an honor killing is performed by someone who is related to the victim, right? So the idea that she was being protected by the armed guards from those evil Basra fundies is even more absurd than it was when you first posted it.
This thread had nothing to do with followers of any religion, vile or otherwise, until you came in here and started waving your willy about. Fucking hell, mate, find a new schtick.
Tagos may have tried to start the highjack, but his transparent dickishness was being ignored. It really started around post 14 with an offhand comment by Ghanima. It went like this:
And then Diogenes the Cynic, that bastion of perspective and good humor who always fights the good ultra-liberal fight kicked off the highjack by insisting that “flashing a little ankle” be taken literally and asked for a cite. How’s he going to find a cite for an exaggeration? And of course all Hell broke loose.
The sad thing is, Ghanima’s original comment was on topic and it was the apologists, who could find some form of discrimination or insensitivity in a 12 oz bag of Cheetos, who derailed the thing. I think we can add the Islamic treatment of women to the list of things guaranteed to highjack a thread.
It wasn’t my intent to be that literal. I just wanted a cite that women in Iraq were being executed by the state for alleged crimes of sexual iniquity, ala Saudi Arabia (my impression was that Ghanima was alleging that the stonings were state sanctioned). Of course I didn’t take the “flashing of the ankle,” phrase literally. Your statement that I “insisted on” taking it literally is a total falsehood.
There really should be a term for that. In this case, I can’t quite understand how keeping her under lock and key in the Green Zone could be ‘for her own good’ (and apologize for making it seem like the quarters, and not her treatment there e.g. no food or water, was the punishment. I have no idea how she was living prior to her brief incarceration). Were they expecting her to run naked all the way to Baghdad airport, or to simply contact family back home, international reporters and/or American soldiers?
And there’s the fact that the incidents took place in Basra. If there are muslim men in Basra hitting people in the Green Zone with stones, we need to get them out of there and signed with the Mets.
Half the university students were women when Saddam was around. Many women wore western style clothes and had jobs. You are thinking of Afghanistan . We are turning Iraq into that.
Neither can I, to be honest. Maybe to isolate her from her alleged Green Zone attackers, but the no food or water thing doesn’t jibe with that. Ghanima was just riffing. His main point still holds, though.
All we have to go on is her allegations. We don’t really know if she was locked up. The rape kit was “lost”. Obviously disturbing if true, but we don’t really know if there ever was a rape kit. We can’t, because all we have is her story. There was never an investigation. Which brings me to the reason why I’m supremely pissed off regarding this incident.
I don’t know if she was raped or is just making shit up. And I never will. Because of the God Damn immunity rules that KBR operates under, none of us will ever know what happened that day in the Green Zone. Like Ghanima, I hesitate to pick up the pitch forks before I have a few more facts, but I’m infuriated because precious few facts are going to surface in this case. There is no excuse for sticking with a policy that will prevent investigation of an allegation of this magnitude. Congress needs to address this issue NOW.
We can only hope something will shake loose in the civil case.
Yeah, but but but Clinton got a blowjob, I hear.
Sorry, you don’t get to add extra qualifiers to exclude examples that clearly fall within the initially stated assertion (“this is a country where you can be stoned to death for flashing a little ankle”).
IMO, it’s reasonable for the court of public opinion to presume guilt when an institution attempts (successfully or otherwise) to hold itself above the rule of law.
This is the part that kills me:
That was in the second paragraph in the CNN story too.
Is this an effective part of the threat?? Does she want to go on working for this company after this incident?? They only thing that makes sense out her staying there is that she would then be close enough to kill them.
Sorry if I spoil your fun by adding some facts. Contractors can be prosecuted under UCMJ.
That’s bullshit. Do I really have to explain why “presume guilt” is wrong?
I don’t know if you have some political ax to grind, but I’m presuming your guilty of being a radical that has fantasies of bombing the White House.
Is that a safe presumption?
Of course it’s not. Don’t assume or presume Jack Shit. Hasn’t this board taught you anything about critical thinking?
Yep no political ax to grind there.
I am probably the Doper who has most recently been briefed by Army JAG on the use of UCMJ overseas. It was two weeks ago. When was yours? Since nothing exists around here unless it is on the internet I picked the first cite which popped up. I assure you the US military is operating under the law that states contractors can be prosecuted under UCMJ. How the Supreme Court would rule on that, who knows. But that is the question with any law which has yet to be challenged.
I’m fine with seeing the cases tried wherever they can be tried. 
But I know a bit about constitutional law, and I think there are some issues with the amendment. Some of the links I posted upthread discuss some of the issues. I all for giving it the college try, if we actually do, but I’d hate for UCMJ jurisdiction to prevent attempts to extend jurisdiction by methods with better constitutional pedigrees.
The amendment came into force 1/1/2007, so let me ask some follow-up questions:
-
The case that the OP is about is from 2005. Are they planning on applying it to offenses committed before its effective date? Which ones?
-
How many contractors court-martialed since 1/1/07?
Here, btw, is the September 25, 2007 memo that was mentioned in the previous quote: http://www.aschq.army.mil/gc/files/DepSecDef%20Memo%20Mgt%20of%20Contractors%2025Sep07.pdf
-
Don’t know and
-
Don’t know
The briefings I got had more to do with what we need to know when we get there, not what might have been the rules in the past.
I agree there should be some place to try those who commited a crime while in the employ of the US in Iraq. There is a very good reason why there is immunity from local prosecution. Do you think it would be a good idea to give someone like Muqtada al-Sadr jurisdiction over those working for us? It would be used as a tool for those in power with an ax to grind. They can’t get at the soldiers under local laws so they would go after contractors. Trying someone under US civilian law would not be feasible due to the jusidictional problems. That and the fact that many of those hired by these companies are not US citizens. UCMJ is a good fit I think. Not sure if SCOTUS will agree.