Just an update about the horrendous rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman, and the murder of her family--in which at least four U.S. soldiers are suspects. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the top American military commander there made an “unusual� statement apologizing to the people of Iraq for the crimes. This statement just-so-happened to be made hours after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said in a conference that he may request that the U.S. military to do away with immunity from Iraqi prosecution.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and General George W. Case made an official public apology last night, which the New York Times described as “strongly worded�:
"We understand this is painful, confusing and disturbing, not only to the family who lost a loved one, but to the Iraqi people as a whole. . . The loss of a family member can never be undone. The alleged events of that day are absolutely inexcusable and unacceptable behavior."
“The family who lost a loved one?� Wasn’t the whole family slain? The “alleged events� are “unacceptable behavior?� Yeah, real strong words. Maybe I’m just nitpicking, but they could have been referring to a kid stealing a Snickers from the candy store.
Prime Minister Maliki stated of the crime, “I’m about to talk to the multinational forces to reach solutions that will put an end to such practices. . . Our people cannot tolerate that every day there is an ugly crime such as that in Mahmudiya.�
While this is at least the fifth crime against Iraqi civilians under military investigation, it’s been said that Iraq is reacting so strongly to this particular case because the girl, who was as young as 15, was raped. According to the Times, "sexual assault is considered one of the most heinous and shameful crimes in Muslim society; even mentioning the subject is often considered taboo."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: U.S. apologizes for Iraqi rape and murders. Sort of..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3603
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Notice that they are only trying ONE soldier (I was under the impression that there were several involved in the rape/murder) and that's in federal court - not military court.
Could that be a dodge to prevent Iraqi litigation?
There were four involved, IIRC. The rapist/murderer, two direct accomplices, and one left behind to stay on the radios and cover them as they left.
Exactly what the others knew about the plan in advance has not been disclosed, which may be a reason they haven't been charged yet -- they may be trying the defense that they were "only" expecting sexual assault, not the murder/rape it turned into, and the radio operator may only have been aware that a few buddies wanted to sneak off of base.
That's still accessory-after-the-fact for in a civilian court, of course...
The decision to try in a civilian court was prior to the Iraqi response, and I suspect it has more to do with the fact that prosecutors felt they'd be more likely to get an appropriate sentence that way.
Military courts have a tendency to do slap-on-the-wrist whenever they can get away with it.
I had understood that, in military court, it was easier to get a conviction. (Which is why I've seen suggestions to "court martial" the folks at Gitmo - the burden of proof is less heavy in military trials.)
Further, they had to KNOW the Iraqis are going to want to have a crack at this guy. I mean, if Bush is going to say they are a sovereign nation, then we have an obligation to extradite this guy for trial...
EJ:
As I understand it, the conviction rates are very high in military courts (97%?), but that's often because the charges are minimized, and the penalties assigned tend to be substantially lower than in civilian courts.
Regardless, four others are now before the military equivalent of a grand jury, and if charged, will face a military court, as they are all on active duty, so the question is fairly moot at the moment.