[Iraq]Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR

[MobBoss]

I see your point Eco, but this is civil and not criminal because of Bremner's order 17 granting immunity to contractors. That wouldn't be such a problem if Bush hadn't relied so heavily on them.

Overstated. Afaik, there is no document that grants immunity to prosecution to civilian contractors. There was a loophole in a law congress passed that left out state department contractors from prosecution, but most assuredly, Department of Defense contractors are not immune to the law. Contractors providing support to military bases like these mentioned in the story would most likely be DoD contractors and subject to prosecution.

 

[Patroklos]

Okay, bearing in mind I'm currently doing a bachelor’s course training me to be a Scene of Crime Officer

Wow, that just makes your character that much more sad

So what does ineffective British law have to do with this thread again?

Drugging through, say, Rohypnol or GHB creates lucidity in the body, not vaginal lubrication.

So? Regardless of the effects such drugs have on mental capacity, and you know damn well the dosage would matter, there is nothing in there effects that keep a woman from being aroused for sex when she normally would not have been.

I note you skipped over the drunken example, as is shreds your theory thoroughly. You Fail.

The point is moot, in any case, as the victim says she wasn't drugged.

Oh, you want to return to the topic now eh? Getting a little hot in here?

Err...rape with a condom will provide minimal lubrication, as the majority during sex is secreted by the woman, hence why rape usually causes abrasions.

That depends on a whole host of other circumstances. So FACT condoms have lubrication and FACT not all rape with a condom would cause any more trauma than normal sex. You Fail.

By "arcane" I assume you mean the "Sexual Offences Act 2003"...turgid irrelevant crap that you think makes you look smart…she was unlawfully detained at the time [was she?]...under British law [the only thing relevant to the OP you have said in three posts now]...any consent.

Did I miss something? You convict people on hearsay and zero evidence, correct? Arcane and a thousand other adjectives that describe your legal code as a laughing stock are more than appropriate in this case.

Primo, the rape kit disappeared.

What rape kit. Oh yeah, you didn't read the thread, I forgot. There is no rape kit, no doctor saying that conducted one, and no records/records keeper proving a chain of custody. Being a big, bad "Scene of Crime Officer" wanna be, please explain how we can a.) use claimed evidence nobody has seen b.) use evidence that has no record of existing c.) assuming it did exist how the impossible task of erasing a chain of custody that had to involve at least a dozen people can be accomplished?

Secundo, the victim gave evidence [she just made a claim, she provided no evidence] identifying the perps, which is enough.

Mods, nonconformists raped me, permaban him please. No? YOU MEAN YOU WANT EVIDENCE!?!?!?

Tertio, the same cannot be done in a murder trial for very obvious reasons.

Do car jackings require evidence in Britain? Assault? Burglery? Illegal gambing? Weapons possesion? Treason? Insurance fraud? Anything at all?

I aplaud Britain enlightened no nonsense anti paperwork approach to law enforcement. Very efficient.

By definition, you cannot prove a negative [yeah, thats what I said], which is a pretty important tenet of science. Secondly, yes a doctor's examination *can* prove rape, or at least injuries consistent with rape.

Ah, so you are not all bad. Does circumstantial evidence = proof in Britain?

It is nice to know that in Britain the Duke kids, completely innocent people, would be sitting behind bars.

 

[nonconformist]

Wow, that just makes your character that much more sad

Thx baby, but you forgot your lube over my house again

So what does ineffective British law have to do with this thread again?

Jurisprudence, I guess.

So? Regardless of the effects such drugs have on mental capacity, and you know damn well the dosage would matter, there is nothing in there effects that keep a woman from being aroused for sex when she normally would not have been.

Sexual arousal generally requires consent; even if it doesn't, it doesn't make it rape any the less.

I note you skipped over the drunken example, as is shreds your theory thoroughly. You Fail.

Not really, having sex with someone who is intoxicated and has not given explicit consent is generally considered rape in most jurisdictions.

Oh, you want to return to the topic now eh? Getting a little hot in here?

Only cos you're here

That depends on a whole host of other circumstances. So FACT condoms have lubrication and FACT not all rape with a condom would cause any more trauma than normal sex. You Fail.

FACT: typing FACT in huge letters does not make it so.

Did I miss something? You convict people on hearsay and zero evidence, correct? Arcane and a thousand other adjectives that describe your legal code as a laughing stock are more than appropriate in this case.

Hearsay is inadmissible in British courts unless it is a result of "Recent Complaint", i.e the victim having reported the crime to a friend or family member in the immediate aftermath of the crime.
Also, zero evidence is really stretchign it, as in the UK, evidence can be given in the forms of witnesses, lack of alibis, inferrences from the general state and composure of the victim, and inferrences from the defendents.

And the British legal system, while somewhat arcane, seeing as a great deal of it is based on Common Law (for example, in Britain the crime of Murder does not have a legal definiton, nor is it on the statute books), the fact is we take rape very, very seriously, which is what worries me, looking at the fact that most of the people here scorning the victim seem to be American.

What rape kit. Oh yeah, you didn't read the thread, I forgot. There is no rape kit, no doctor saying that conducted one, and no records/records keeper proving a chain of custody. Being a big, bad "Scene of Crime Officer" wanna be, please explain how we can a.) use claimed evidence nobody has seen b.) use evidence that has no record of existing c.) assuming it did exist how the impossible task of erasing a chain of custody that had to involve at least a dozen people can be accomplished?

Once again, the presumption of innocence.

Mods, nonconformists raped me, permaban him please. No? YOU MEAN YOU WANT EVIDENCE!?!?!?

You're american and in america, soI'm triable under American law, and seeing as you have no proof, I ge toff scot free

Do car jackings require evidence in Britain? Assault? Burglery? Illegal gambing? Weapons possesion? Treason? Insurance fraud? Anything at all?

Most non-sexual crimes do, except for Terrorism which carries a barbaric custodial sentenc eof I think 60 days.

I aplaud Britain enlightened no nonsense anti paperwork approach to law enforcement. Very efficient.

Well, you know, we like not having the world's larget prison population

Ah, so you are not all bad. Does circumstantial evidence = proof in Britain?

It is evidence.

It is nice to know that in Britain the Duke kids, completely innocent people, would be sitting behind bars.

IO have no idea who the hell they are.

 

[Ecofarm]

the fact is we take rape very, very seriously, which is what worries me, looking at the fact that most of the people here scorning the victim seem to be American.

Are you insinuating that I, or anyone else, does not take rape seriously? Wtf is that?

Look here:

I respect the law, and expect actual evidence to be used when bringing accusations against people - it does not make me soft on rape. Just because I have a critical mind (not a purely emotional one that convicts based on the repulsivness of the allegations), and I can examine a situation for what it is, does not make me soft on rape.

I gaurentee: someone rapes someone I know, or in my presence, and I'll rip their freakn head off. That's right. I'll go to prison. I'll be the vigilante.

Now, if you can avoid slandering people, you can continue your half-butted, under-educated, emotional response to this story.

 

[Patroklos]

Sexual arousal generally requires consent; even if it doesn't, it doesn't make it rape any the less.

Where did I say that didn't make it rape? The point is, drugged up, they are perfectly capable of still consenting in that diminished state of mind (something the rapist is hoping for in most cases) thus being aroused, it is just that that it is in contrast with what they would have done if they were not drugged, hence rape.

Not really, having sex with someone who is intoxicated and has not given explicit consent is generally considered rape in most jurisdictions.

Where did I say that didn't make it rape. The point is, smashed, they are perfectly capable of still consenting in that diminished state of mind (something the rapist is hoping for in most cases) thus being aroused, it is just that that it is in contrast with what they would have done if they were not smashed, hence rape.

Once again, the presumption of innocence.

Correct, the accused are pressumed innocent.

Also, zero evidence is really stretchign it, as in the UK, evidence can be given in the forms of witnesses, lack of alibis, inferrences from the general state and composure of the victim, and inferrences from the defendents.

If any of that completely unconvinsing and non relevent in US courts stuff happens, let me know. As of right now, in this case, the accuser doesn't evey have those things let alone real evidence.

looking at the fact that most of the people here scorning the victim seem to be American.

Again, please provide one quote of anyone here scorning her, blaiming her, or even claiming she wasn't raped.

Most non-sexual crimes do, except for Terrorism which carries a barbaric custodial sentenc eof I think 60 days.

What is special about sex crimes that makes them not require evidence? What could possibly be so special about ANY crime that it would not require evidence?

It is evidence.

Does the concept of circumstantial evidence not exist in Britian?

 

[Ecofarm]

There's not even circumstantial evidence here. Sorry, but "Marines" finding her in a living quarters (aka, container), with AC, food access, water access, and phone access does not exactly make circumstantial evidence.

She hasn't proved she was denied any of that stuff. KBR employees (more than one person) says she is lying about that. Where is the guy who "gave her his phone"? Can he confirm that she was "imprisoned"? Can anyone?? No whistle blowers?? 100s of people involved?? C'mon. There are no proven "circumstances" to be noted, legally.

There's nothing.

How you could go through this event and come out with nothing. Not one witness. Not one person who might have seen something. Not one whistle blower. Not one doctor or nurse, or hospital technition, who remembers her - at all. Not one shred of physical evidence.

If you are seriously ready to convict multiple people of gang rape based on nothing, well, I just don't know what to say. Except, I hope you're never on a jury. There really should be qualifications for jury duty. Questions like: "would you need evidence to convict?". If someone answers "no", they get exported to England for life.

 

[sourboy]

If this happened in Iraq, let them put these men to trial... and hang them.

 

[JollyRoger]

I respect the law, and expect actual evidence to be used when bringing accusations against people.

That's why I suggest a Gitmo-style detainment of the contractors until the war is over. Since you won't be making formal charges, you don't need any actual evidence.

 

[nonconformist]

Correct, the accused are pressumed innocent.

Not under British law; crimes falling under the jurisdictyion of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act suspends this right.

What is special about sex crimes that makes them not require evidence? What could possibly be so special about ANY crime that it would not require evidence?

Again, for sexual crimes in the UK, the primary evidence comes from the victim themselves, and it is the duty of the accused to prove that they did not commit the crime by proving consent.

Does the concept of circumstantial evidence not exist in Britian?

Of course, but in sexual offences, since there is already evidence present, circumstancial evidence is considered corroborative.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Umm . . . circumstantial evidence comes up all the time in rape cases. In the U.S., there are all kinds of special evidence rules for rape cases, since they frequently come down to "he said, she said." The legal system, applied mechanically, simply doesn't work with rape. The options are: (i) change some of the rules to deal with special kinds of evidence, or (ii) let lots of women get raped without consequence. Courts and legislatures have necessarily struck a balance.

sourboy,

If they tried this case according to Iraqi law, the woman would probably be hanged.

Cleo

 

[FriendlyFire]

Seeking Justice for Green Zone Rape Victim;

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, thank you.
Tonight neither former Halliburton subsidiary nor the U.S. State Department has brought justice to a young woman who says she was gang raped in Baghdad's green zone by workers of a former Halliburton subsidiary. We'll be talking with a congressman seeking justice for her.

DOBBS: An American woman charges she was gang-raped in Baghdad by American contractors working for former Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root. Today Congressman Ted Poe of Texas announced a congressional investigation into those charges of rape. Jamie Lee Jones says she was held captive in a shipping container after the rape and the U.S. government is involved in a cover up. The congressman helped arranged her escape from Iraq and joins us tonight from Capitol Hill, Congressman Ted Poe. Congressman, good to have you with us. This is a remarkable case in that we're two years after the events and nothing is resolved.

REP. TED POE (R), TEXAS: That's correct. After she was rescued by State Department officials in Baghdad, found in a sea going cargo container where she had been held hostage. Medical injuries were treated, brought back to the United States, we have been trying to find out for two years who the people were that assaulted her, where are they and why they haven't been prosecuted and we haven't received answers to that as of this date.

DOBBS: You questions are going to the State Department, to Kellogg, Brown & Root, they're now at the time a subsidiary of Halliburton, correct?

POE: Correct and the Justice Department as well.

DOBBS: None of these agencies will respond to the charges by a U.S. citizen?

POE: That's correct.

DOBBS: Represented by a U.S. congressman?

POE: We haven't gotten any answers. They won't tell us in an investigation is taking place. That is going change now that Jamie has made her case public. There's going be a hearing.

DOBBS: I think all of us want to get this straight. She has not had nor has your office or any attorney representing her an explanation and response from the U.S. government, under whose jurisdiction she was at the time?

POE: That's correct. You said it exactly as it is. We're not getting any response as to what is being done about the criminals who did this against her.

DOBBS: And we understand further, as we've reported, this Halliburton subsidiary carried out an investigation. The State Department supposedly carried out some sort of investigation but for some reason the investigations were broken off. Do we have any indication as to why?

POE: No, we don't know the truth yet as to why they stopped the investigation. The State Department made some inquiries. They stopped. They were not passed on to me or the victim of the crime. We haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to this date.

DOBBS: Now I know you've written a letter to the U.S. attorney general, Michael Mukasey, seeking his intervention in this case. Is there anything the audience of this broadcast can do so assist you?

POE: Yes, exactly. There's something you can do. We do not think this is an isolated case of sexual assault against American citizens in Baghdad by coworkers. We want the other victims to notify my office immediately. Because now Congress is getting involved, there will be hearings. What happens to American workers working overseas working for American contractors and the crimes committed against them?

DOBBS: Well Congressman Ted Poe, you can go to the congressional website. We'll put up your website and direct e-mail on our website, at LouDobbs.com. And Congressman Poe's website, the idea that these agencies and the -- a private corporation working in the green zone in Baghdad would not be responsive to a U.S. Congressman is mid boggling.

POE: We feel the same way. We don't understand why we're not getting a response. Citizens have rights in Baghdad. That area is controlled under the United States government. There's jurisdiction. We want answers.

DOBBS: Thank you for being with us. Coming up next and a reminder, please send the information. We'll have his address on our website. Congressman Ted Poe.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/12/ldt.01.html

We have Congressmen Poes explaination compared with the Halliburton explaination (last transcript). At least we have the congressman calling for any rape victims to come forward for a class action (which noted previously they have stated others have comeforward) but he seems to be in little doudt the validity of Jones rape and convinced that KBR is deliberately covering-up the matter.

I know its a sensative issue and it has recieved a lot of polorised comments not just here either. Keep it clean guys

 

[woody60707]

Not under British law; crimes falling under the jurisdictyion of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act suspends this right.

Again, for sexual crimes in the UK, the primary evidence comes from the victim themselves, and it is the duty of the accused to prove that they did not commit the crime by proving consent.

WHOA WHAT! I wish I could put this more intelligently, but that sucks!

I hope you brits enjoy your Guilty until proven innocent law system.

Really, that does suck, lol.

Edit: really, it's really not like this,....right?

 

[nonconformist]

WHOA WHAT! I wish I could put this more intelligently, but that sucks!

I hope you brits enjoy your Guilty until proven innocent law system.

Really, that does suck, lol.

Edit: really, it's really not like this,....right?

We have an Innocent until Proven Guilty system, more so, IMO, than in the US, but post 2003, for sexual offences, as it often comes down to a "he said, she said" attitute, special dispensation is taken, and it is generally assumed that the complainant is telling the truth, and that it is the burden of the defendant to prove that either intercourse never took place, that the other party gave consent, or that he had reasonable belief of consent.

However, the British system is different to the American system in that *all* evidence must be disclosed by the defence and prosecution, even that harming the case of either party, so that the judiciary has access to absolutely all the evidence existing.

To quote a commentary article 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
"Where the prosecution proves that the defendant did a relevant act (as defined in section 77), that the circumstances described in subsection (2) existed and that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed, the complainant will be presumed not to have consented to the relevant act and the defendant will be presumed not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented. In order for these presumptions not to apply, the defendant will need to satisfy the judge from the evidence that there is a real issue about consent that is worth putting to the jury. In practice (although this is not mentioned in the Act) the evidence produced may be from evidence that the defendant himself gives in the witness box, or from evidence given on his behalf by a defence witness, or resulting from evidence given by the complainant during cross-examination. If the judge is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify putting the issue of consent to the jury, he will so direct; if not, he will direct the jury to find the defendant guilty"

 

[Ecofarm]

To quote a commentary article 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
"Where the prosecution proves that the defendant did a relevant act (as defined in section 77), that the circumstances described in subsection (2) existed and that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed...

I'm pretty sure that a relevant act (as defined in section 77) does not include doing nothing.

I'm also pretty sure that circumstances described in subsection (2) do not include "nothing".

Obviously, some things must be proven (presumably with evidence) before the law even moves to article 75.

You can't just have proof of nothing and convict. According to article 75, 3 things must be proven before the article takes affect (relevent act, circumstances, and defendant knowledge of circumstances).


Until the prosecution in this case proves at least ONE of those things, I am not inclined to convict.

At this point in the case, in England, article 75 would not be relevant, as none of the 3 prerequisites have been met.

 

[Patroklos]

We have Congressmen Poes explaination compared with the Halliburton explaination

You do realize, of course, that Poes explaination is nothing more than the accusors explaination, right? All the congressmen is asking for is a proper investigation, just like we here are doing. His involvement does not in any way validate to the accusors account.

 

[nonconformist]

I'm pretty sure that a relevant act (as defined in section 77) does not include doing nothing.

I'm also pretty sure that circumstances described in subsection (2) do not include "nothing".

Obviously, some things must be proven (presumably with evidence) before the law even moves to article 75.

You can't just have proof of nothing and convict. According to article 75, 3 things must be proven before the article takes affect (relevent act, circumstances, and defendant knowledge of circumstances).


Until the prosecution in this case proves at least ONE of those things, I am not inclined to convict.

At this point in the case, in England, article 75 would not be relevant, as none of the 3 prerequisites have been met.

Yes, evidently sex must have taken place, but in the vast of majority of rape cases, this is not disputed, it is the existance of consent or not that is the crux of the matter, and in these cases the complainant is presumed to have not given consent.

 

[Patroklos]

The moral of the story here is, if you live in Britain, never, NEVER, have a bad breakup with your girlfreind. Or at least don't get that "goodbye" sex in before doing so.

And you might as well just stop picking up chicks at bars.

 

[nonconformist]

The moral of the story here is, if you live in Britain, never, NEVER, have a bad breakup with your girlfreind. Or at least don't get that "goodbye" sex in before doing so.

And you might as well just stop picking up chicks at bars.

Unless, of course, the prosecution decides to disclose evidence exonerating the defendant?

EDIT: and this change comes from trying to get the number of rapists convicted up from about the 5% it is at the moment....we just take rape very seriously here.

 

[Patroklos]

Unless, of course, the prosecution decides to disclose evidence exonerating the defendant?

Well, since the evidence they have is whatever the accuser wants it to be, what is the chances of that?

EDIT: and this change comes from trying to get the number of rapists convicted up from about the 5% it is at the moment....we just take rape very seriously here.

I have nothing against taking rape seriously, I think it is one of the worst crimes out there. I would be happy to castrate eveyone convicted of it.

That being said, there is nothing about that crime that should alow for the suspension of proper judicial procedure. You have basically turned the thing into a witch hunt, and it is disgusting.