CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,453
What do you make of this?
Source: http://www.denverpost.com
Sex-assault cases from Iraq often stall
"Army records show prosecution rare, reprimands from officers common."
U.S. soldiers accused of rape and other sex crimes while serving in Iraq routinely dodged prosecution during the past year with the help of commanders who gave them light punishments such as reprimands and pay cuts, according to military records released to The Denver Post.
Troops facing sex-offense accusations were given job-related punishments - which offer no prospect of prison time - nearly five times as often as criminal charges.
Such leniency also was granted to soldiers accused of serial crimes. Although investigators compiled evidence to prosecute a Fort Stewart, Ga., sergeant on claims he sexually assaulted three subordinate battalion members, he was given only a reprimand, records show.
And although evidence was gathered to prosecute a military police officer on one of two rape allegations, reports show his commanders merely dropped him in rank and discharged him at his request.
Those cases are among three dozen closed investigations involving alleged assaults on troops by other military personnel released to The Post under the Freedom of Information Act. The Army records offer the clearest picture yet into the military's handling of sexual assault reports during the Iraq war. The Navy and Air Force have not released similar data.
Many of the Army cases - 25 others are still sealed awaiting disciplinary action - confirm trends among reports from female GIs who said they were attacked by fellow soldiers during the Afghanistan and Iraq military operations: specifically, that their complaints were met with incomplete investigations and lenient treatment of offenders.
"I am very concerned about this information," Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said after reviewing several case details given to him by The Post. "I plan to bring it to the attention of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee for discussion and possible investigation."
Pentagon officials said they could not comment on the cases because they did not have enough time to review them. But a spokeswoman emphasized that the Defense Department is examining how sexual assault cases are managed by commands.
"The Army is aggressive in investigating all cases of reported sexual misconduct," said Maj. Kristen Carle, an Army spokeswoman. "The Army has established a task force to conduct an Army-wide review of the effectiveness of current policies on reporting and addressing allegations."
Congress has been investigating the armed forces' response to sexual assault since late last year after The Post found widespread leniency for accused sex offenders and punishment for victims, most recently in the war zone.
The Pentagon launched an internal inquiry in February. Defense Department officials declined to say Friday whether the newly released documents are being examined by the task force.
In the military, commanders, not prosecutors, decide whether soldiers face criminal proceedings - an issue that has drawn concern from Congress, legal experts and victim advocates. It also is common for commanders to weigh input from accused soldiers on what type of punishment they prefer.
Between February and December 2003, commanders in the battlefield gave 18 accused soldiers in the closed cases administrative punishments for sex-assault offenses. Four soldiers were court-martialed, leading to two convictions and two acquittals. Of the remaining 19 cases released by the Army, no punishment resulted because of a lack of evidence.
"These numbers startle me," said Eugene Fidell, director of the National Institute for Military Justice, referring to the administrative disciplines. The institute has repeatedly called for Congress to conduct a comprehensive study into commanders' authority over criminal matters. "The law currently gives commanders very broad discretion. I think there should be a call for some official explanation" from the Pentagon, Fidell said.
The newly released files were mostly truncated case files, containing blacked-out names of accused soldiers, investigators and commanders who issued disciplines.
Not all cases were soldier-on-soldier assaults.
In one investigation, three Fort Bragg, N.C., soldiers with the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion were accused of assaulting an Iraqi woman held in the Abu Ghraib prison. Although no details were provided, the report notes that the enlisted men were each fined at least $500 and demoted in rank.
Another case involving an assault on an Iraqi citizen led to a six-year prison sentence for a 4th Infantry Division soldier. He was found guilty by court-martial of repeatedly molesting an Iraqi boy in Kirkuk.
Such convictions were rare, even for those believed to have committed multiple offenses. Several soldiers who avoided prosecution faced more than one sex-assault allegation or were suspected of assaulting more than one victim.
In the case of the sergeant accused of assaulting three battalion soldiers - two incidents occurring in shower stalls - he even admitted to the crimes, documents show. And despite a prosecutor's note that "sufficient admissible evidence is available to prosecute the subject for the offenses," the commander chose only to reprimand the sergeant. No explanation was given, a trend in all the cases.
The Army's investigation into two rape accusations against an Army specialist serving at Camp Bucca led investigators to find evidence that he "committed the offenses of rape and forcible sodomy" in one of the crimes, according to documents.
His punishment: demotion and a discharge from the military - without a criminal record.
Pentagon officials said in a statement to The Post that decisions behind administrative punishments often involve a variety of factors, sometimes including a lack of evidence to pursue prosecution.
In the case of the Iraqi prisoner who reported being assaulted, the case file notes that "investigation did not establish sufficient evidence to prove or disprove (the soldiers) committed the offenses."
However, the case file notes that the investigation, which still had "leads remaining," was terminated because the subjects had been given administrative punishments by their commander.
Among other cases released to The Post:
A specialist who, records show, admitted having sexually assaulted another soldier was demoted, ordered to perform extra duty and given a $575 fine - even though prosecutors advised the commander of ample evidence to prosecute him on sexual assault charges and giving false statements to try to cover up the crime.
A master sergeant with a Fort Stewart unit was administratively rebuked in response to two separate assaults on one woman. The investigative report found "probable cause to believe he committed the offense of indecent assault." Instead of being charged, his commander reprimanded him.
A specialist was accused of raping a private at Camp Dogwood; however, the report said the woman delayed reporting the incident and an "untimely" response from investigators failed to collect enough evidence. The investigation was "terminated ... in that the subject's commander has indicated his intent to take action amounting to less than court proceedings and no further investigative assistance by CID (Criminal Investigation Command) is required."
Military investigators recommended prosecuting a soldier with a Walter Reed Medical Center unit on counts of sexually assaulting a private while she slept in her tent in Kuwait. Commanders instead gave him an administrative penalty. The case file did not disclose the specific action.
Investigators believed a Fort Stewart soldier should be prosecuted on charges of sodomizing and attempting to rape another soldier while she was sleeping. His commanders opted to halt the investigation despite remaining leads and to "administer punishment amounting less than a court proceeding." That action also was not disclosed.
Anyone wish to try and explain away this data?
It is not a an anti-US bash, before that particular whine is brought to bear as a defence.
Bu this underlines the old adage, that the military is a law unto itself.
Feel free to discuss...
Source: http://www.denverpost.com
Sex-assault cases from Iraq often stall
"Army records show prosecution rare, reprimands from officers common."
U.S. soldiers accused of rape and other sex crimes while serving in Iraq routinely dodged prosecution during the past year with the help of commanders who gave them light punishments such as reprimands and pay cuts, according to military records released to The Denver Post.
Troops facing sex-offense accusations were given job-related punishments - which offer no prospect of prison time - nearly five times as often as criminal charges.
Such leniency also was granted to soldiers accused of serial crimes. Although investigators compiled evidence to prosecute a Fort Stewart, Ga., sergeant on claims he sexually assaulted three subordinate battalion members, he was given only a reprimand, records show.
And although evidence was gathered to prosecute a military police officer on one of two rape allegations, reports show his commanders merely dropped him in rank and discharged him at his request.
Those cases are among three dozen closed investigations involving alleged assaults on troops by other military personnel released to The Post under the Freedom of Information Act. The Army records offer the clearest picture yet into the military's handling of sexual assault reports during the Iraq war. The Navy and Air Force have not released similar data.
Many of the Army cases - 25 others are still sealed awaiting disciplinary action - confirm trends among reports from female GIs who said they were attacked by fellow soldiers during the Afghanistan and Iraq military operations: specifically, that their complaints were met with incomplete investigations and lenient treatment of offenders.
"I am very concerned about this information," Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said after reviewing several case details given to him by The Post. "I plan to bring it to the attention of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee for discussion and possible investigation."
Pentagon officials said they could not comment on the cases because they did not have enough time to review them. But a spokeswoman emphasized that the Defense Department is examining how sexual assault cases are managed by commands.
"The Army is aggressive in investigating all cases of reported sexual misconduct," said Maj. Kristen Carle, an Army spokeswoman. "The Army has established a task force to conduct an Army-wide review of the effectiveness of current policies on reporting and addressing allegations."
Congress has been investigating the armed forces' response to sexual assault since late last year after The Post found widespread leniency for accused sex offenders and punishment for victims, most recently in the war zone.
The Pentagon launched an internal inquiry in February. Defense Department officials declined to say Friday whether the newly released documents are being examined by the task force.
In the military, commanders, not prosecutors, decide whether soldiers face criminal proceedings - an issue that has drawn concern from Congress, legal experts and victim advocates. It also is common for commanders to weigh input from accused soldiers on what type of punishment they prefer.
Between February and December 2003, commanders in the battlefield gave 18 accused soldiers in the closed cases administrative punishments for sex-assault offenses. Four soldiers were court-martialed, leading to two convictions and two acquittals. Of the remaining 19 cases released by the Army, no punishment resulted because of a lack of evidence.
"These numbers startle me," said Eugene Fidell, director of the National Institute for Military Justice, referring to the administrative disciplines. The institute has repeatedly called for Congress to conduct a comprehensive study into commanders' authority over criminal matters. "The law currently gives commanders very broad discretion. I think there should be a call for some official explanation" from the Pentagon, Fidell said.
The newly released files were mostly truncated case files, containing blacked-out names of accused soldiers, investigators and commanders who issued disciplines.
Not all cases were soldier-on-soldier assaults.
In one investigation, three Fort Bragg, N.C., soldiers with the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion were accused of assaulting an Iraqi woman held in the Abu Ghraib prison. Although no details were provided, the report notes that the enlisted men were each fined at least $500 and demoted in rank.
Another case involving an assault on an Iraqi citizen led to a six-year prison sentence for a 4th Infantry Division soldier. He was found guilty by court-martial of repeatedly molesting an Iraqi boy in Kirkuk.
Such convictions were rare, even for those believed to have committed multiple offenses. Several soldiers who avoided prosecution faced more than one sex-assault allegation or were suspected of assaulting more than one victim.
In the case of the sergeant accused of assaulting three battalion soldiers - two incidents occurring in shower stalls - he even admitted to the crimes, documents show. And despite a prosecutor's note that "sufficient admissible evidence is available to prosecute the subject for the offenses," the commander chose only to reprimand the sergeant. No explanation was given, a trend in all the cases.
The Army's investigation into two rape accusations against an Army specialist serving at Camp Bucca led investigators to find evidence that he "committed the offenses of rape and forcible sodomy" in one of the crimes, according to documents.
His punishment: demotion and a discharge from the military - without a criminal record.
Pentagon officials said in a statement to The Post that decisions behind administrative punishments often involve a variety of factors, sometimes including a lack of evidence to pursue prosecution.
In the case of the Iraqi prisoner who reported being assaulted, the case file notes that "investigation did not establish sufficient evidence to prove or disprove (the soldiers) committed the offenses."
However, the case file notes that the investigation, which still had "leads remaining," was terminated because the subjects had been given administrative punishments by their commander.
Among other cases released to The Post:
A specialist who, records show, admitted having sexually assaulted another soldier was demoted, ordered to perform extra duty and given a $575 fine - even though prosecutors advised the commander of ample evidence to prosecute him on sexual assault charges and giving false statements to try to cover up the crime.
A master sergeant with a Fort Stewart unit was administratively rebuked in response to two separate assaults on one woman. The investigative report found "probable cause to believe he committed the offense of indecent assault." Instead of being charged, his commander reprimanded him.
A specialist was accused of raping a private at Camp Dogwood; however, the report said the woman delayed reporting the incident and an "untimely" response from investigators failed to collect enough evidence. The investigation was "terminated ... in that the subject's commander has indicated his intent to take action amounting to less than court proceedings and no further investigative assistance by CID (Criminal Investigation Command) is required."
Military investigators recommended prosecuting a soldier with a Walter Reed Medical Center unit on counts of sexually assaulting a private while she slept in her tent in Kuwait. Commanders instead gave him an administrative penalty. The case file did not disclose the specific action.
Investigators believed a Fort Stewart soldier should be prosecuted on charges of sodomizing and attempting to rape another soldier while she was sleeping. His commanders opted to halt the investigation despite remaining leads and to "administer punishment amounting less than a court proceeding." That action also was not disclosed.
Anyone wish to try and explain away this data?
It is not a an anti-US bash, before that particular whine is brought to bear as a defence.
Bu this underlines the old adage, that the military is a law unto itself.
Feel free to discuss...
So raping is, well, not too bad, as long as it is done to 'them', and not by 'them'.....
But I thought the point of this was that it was american soldiers raping their compatriots....
