British soldiers accused of sickening sex assault on Iraqi boy, 14

Former Member · July 2008

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldiers-accused-of-sickening-sex-assault-on-iraqi-boy-14-866482.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/phil-shiner-the-mod-blames-a-few-bad-apples-i-blame-the-mod-866388.html

No particular question .. just after people's general thoughts?

I think if there is any wrong doing that the soldiers need to be sent down along with those that watched and didn't doing anything to stop it, report it, etc.

Also think they need to be put on the appropriate sex offenders / pedophile register for when they get out of prison.

Former Member · July 2008

Erm, what do you want to debate?

Put them on trial if there's evidence to do so. If they did it, put them in prison. If they didn't, let them go.

Former Member · July 2008

well perhaps your thoughts on how you weed out the bad apples?

how you break the code of silence, where other soldiers protect them?

Former Member · July 2008

It's a war crime, they should be tried for it on that basis. But the problem comes when trying to prove anything.

And on the other hand, you dehumanise someone enough to kill another on orders, can you be surprised if they fail in other areas of human rights?

Former Member · July 2008

I think Dr. Philip Zimbardo has some interesting insights in this. It's hardly conclusive, but he argues that it's wrong to focus on the individual in cases like this, and more important to focus on the social structure that allows such behaviour to occur. He argues that there are certain situations in which almost all of us would commit various atrocities, and it's the structure of power that allows it to happen, rather than anything unique in the individual (psychological problems, for example). And obviously in war and subsequent peacekeeping, you have a very complex power balance both within the army, and between the armed forces and the population. So it's possible that there is something in the innate in the army system that leads to such behaviour. Reproduced from this website:

• The Minneapolis Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center found that attempted or completed sexual assaults were 20 times higher than rates for other government workers.
• Navy spokesman Lieutenant Jeff Davis reported in 1998 that “Navy figures recorded nearly seven rapes and more than eight sexual assaults each month in the Pacific Fleet’s region since December 1997.”
• According to a 1995 Department of Defense study, in the previous 12 months, 86 percent of female Marines reported sexual harassment or assault, as did 82 percent in the Army; 77 percent in the Navy;
• 74 percent in the Air Force; and 75 percent in the Coast Guard. 39 percent of males in the Army reported sexual harassment in the past 12 months, as did 37 percent of men in all other branches of service.
• An Army survey obtained by Time magazine found spousal abuse to be twice as high in the Army than in civilian life and concluded, “Each week someone dies at the hands of a relative in uniform.”
• Women are discharged from the military for homosexuality three times more often than men, with accusations of lesbianism often coming after servicewomen refused sexual come-ons.

If military leaders won’t promote changes in the system of handling sexual crimes for the sake of the servicepersons involved, they might be persuaded to do something about stopping sexual criminals from victimizing civilians. In the two years from 1995 to 1997, U.S. servicemen stationed in Okinawa murdered 34 people, of which 23 were women and girls, in what amounts to more than one murder every month. Most of these men received light sentences considering the severity of their crimes. A constant theme throughout the victims’ anecdotes is rage and disbelief that men convicted of rape were given mere verbal reprimands and otherwise discharged from service without further punishment for their violent assaults against fellow workers.

But according to Philip Zimbardo, it's not simply a case of weeding out the bad apples, it's something fundamental in the whole power dynamic of the armed forces (and American prisons too, which is where his most famous research lies).

And if it looks like I'm picking on the US military here, it's just that that's where most of the research has been done.

Former Member · July 2008

Big Gay wrote: »

It's a war crime, they should be tried for it on that basis

How is it a war crime? They're peacekeeping forces, and the rape wasn't used as a tactic of war (something that I believe has just become a war crime). I think the most appropriate action would be to say that this is an attack on an Iraqi citizen on Iraqi soil, so let the Iraqi courts deal with it. Let's see how much faith they have in the "democracy" they've brought to Iraq.

Former Member · July 2008

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

I think Dr. Philip Zimbardo has some interesting insights in this. It's hardly conclusive, but he argues that it's wrong to focus on the individual in cases like this, and more important to focus on the social structure that allows such behaviour to occur. He argues that there are certain situations in which almost all of us would commit various atrocities, and it's the structure of power that allows it to happen, rather than anything unique in the individual (psychological problems, for example). And obviously in war and subsequent peacekeeping, you have a very complex power balance both within the army, and between the armed forces and the population. So it's possible that there is something in the innate in the army system that leads to such behaviour. Reproduced from this website:

But according to Philip Zimbardo, it's not simply a case of weeding out the bad apples, it's something fundamental in the whole power dynamic of the armed forces (and American prisons too, which is where his most famous research lies).

And if it looks like I'm picking on the US military here, it's just that that's where most of the research has been done.

he has a point that people involved in war don't act in civilised ways, but he's getting the reasons and the way to stop it the wrong way round. The training soldiers recieve is designed to stop them acting on normal human instincts and instead revert to be disciplined (ie not to murder the person who's just killed your mates, not to slap around an enemy in your power). If you look at the list of atrocites committed in wars most of them tend to be committed by militias or other groups outside the normal chain of military discipline and to a lesser extent by conscript armies, who don't have the same bonds of discipline.

There are always going to be atrocities, because soldiers like all human beings, can be flawed. But in the British Army there is attempts to deal with them.

Even things like bayonet training, often cited as an attempt to increase aggression, are misunderstood. It's role is to train soldiers in controlled aggression and condition them into being able to turn it on and off (harder to do than people think).

Former Member · July 2008

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

he has a point that people involved in war don't act in civilised ways, but he's getting the reasons and the way to stop it the wrong way round. The training soldiers recieve is designed to stop them acting on normal human instincts and instead revert to be disciplined (ie not to murder the person who's just killed your mates, not to slap around an enemy in your power). If you look at the list of atrocites committed in wars most of them tend to be committed by militias or other groups outside the normal chain of military discipline and to a lesser extent by conscript armies, who don't have the same bonds of discipline.

There are always going to be atrocities, because soldiers like all human beings, can be flawed. But in the British Army there is attempts to deal with them.

Of course the army recognises this and is attempting to address it (which is why Zimbardo is working closely with the US Army). But the basic power dynamic of the army will always encourage this sort of behaviour in its very nature. Normal people will act horrifically when given unquestioning power over others, which is why the structures and checks need to be absolutely watertight. These aren't wartime atrocities we're talking about. The troops stationed in Okinawa aren't in a warzone. Troops in the American navy aren't suffering the stresses of war (bear in mind that those stats are from the mid to late 90's), and yet rape and sexual assault was at ridiculous levels. Female troops being kicked out for being "lesbians" because they rejected the come-ons of their superiors aren't a consequence of wars. They are all a consequence of the power dynamic that exists in the military. And this is exactly what happened in Abu Ghraib too. Professional armies might do it better than random militias, but it's still the root cause of the number of rapes and sexual assaults that are committed by military personnel. If companies operated in the same way as the armed forces with regards to power of superiors, then I would put a huge amount of money on the prediction that rape incidences would go through the roof.

Former Member · July 2008

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Of course the army recognises this and is attempting to address it (which is why Zimbardo is working closely with the US Army). But the basic power dynamic of the army will always encourage this sort of behaviour in its very nature. Normal people will act horrifically when given unquestioning power over others, which is why the structures and checks need to be absolutely watertight. These aren't wartime atrocities we're talking about. The troops stationed in Okinawa aren't in a warzone. Troops in the American navy aren't suffering the stresses of war (bear in mind that those stats are from the mid to late 90's), and yet rape and sexual assault was at ridiculous levels. Female troops being kicked out for being "lesbians" because they rejected the come-ons of their superiors aren't a consequence of wars. They are all a consequence of the power dynamic that exists in the military. And this is exactly what happened in Abu Ghraib too. Professional armies might do it better than random militias, but it's still the root cause of the number of rapes and sexual assaults that are committed by military personnel. If companies operated in the same way as the armed forces with regards to power of superiors, then I would put a huge amount of money on the prediction that rape incidences would go through the roof.

I haven't seen the figures since the mid-90's, but I wouldn't think they've changed, but rape investigated by the RMP and then dealt with by court-martial tended to result in around a 30% conviction rate. It's about 5% in civilian courts.

It should also be noted that armies, as a whole, tend to be made up of young men. Most of the comparisons people make are to the population as whole - instead they should be comparing it to the same demographic outside the army (and to be realy accurate young men from the same social background and from the same areas). I suspect that they wouldn't find it much different.

Now, its obvious the US has some problems, but I wouldn't extrapolate from that there is something intrinsic in armies, rather there is something within certain branches of the US armed forces

Nor does it mean that every soldier is a paragon of virtue and we should't investigate and then jail the guilty. However, at the same time I wouldn't read into this story that rape and sexual assault is endemic in the British Army, just that like every organisation it has its bad apples.

(I also don't think companies could act as the military. As a civilian my company can't order me to move forward to clear trenches at the risk of my life. Nor do I live cheek in jowl with other civil servants, in civil service estates, supplied by the civil sevice. Though after being both a civilian and a soldier, i think as a whole it civilian organisations which could do with learning about leadership and management from the army, not the other way round).

Former Member · July 2008

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

It should also be noted that armies, as a whole, tend to be made up of young men. Most of the comparisons people make are to the population as whole - instead they should be comparing it to the same demographic outside the army (and to be realy accurate young men from the same social background and from the same areas). I suspect that they wouldn't find it much different.

Well the figures don't seem to compare favourably to college campuses, which have a similar demographic, but I'm going to do a bit of reading before I respond properly. Just throwing round ideas, I don't really know enough to have an opinion myself.

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

Nor does it mean that every soldier is a paragon of virtue and we should't investigate and then jail the guilty. However, at the same time I wouldn't read into this story that rape and sexual assault is endemic in the British Army, just that like every organisation it has its bad apples.

Oh, I'm not trying to do that. It was just that the question was about what we're doing to stop it, rather than the individual case, so I guess we need to first find out the causes of rape in the military. It's really hard to get non-American figures though, but I suspect the causes and solutions are the same everywhere, whether the British military is doing a better job of it than the Americans or not. A lot of it might be exactly the same issues that are a problem in wider society (poor reporting rates, etc), but I guess we first need to establish whether there is something of a problem in the military specifically, and a lot of groups seem to think there is (specifically the American military's processes for dealing with rape - an honorable discharge with no criminal record - I hope the British are better than this). Like I said though, I'm gonna read a bit first.

Former Member · July 2008

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Well the figures don't seem to compare favourably to college campuses, which have a similar demographic, but I'm going to do a bit of reading before I respond properly. Just throwing round ideas, I don't really know enough to have an opinion myself.

But how does it compare to rapes by football players? (who are both the same age and often from the same social groups). Whilst rape can be done by anyone, my gut feeling is that it is more prevalent by groups with lower educational attainment and from working class backgrounds, ie the same social grouping as where soldiers are mostly recruited from

Oh, I'm not trying to do that.

I didn't think you were. the trouble is that all these discussions tend to eventually focus on the armed forces either being the problem or that they attract rapists and thugs. I've never seen discussion, following a Doctor sexually assaulting a patient, around whether there is something in medical training which makes sexual assault more prevalent.

It was just that the question was about what we're doing to stop it, rather than the individual case, so I guess we need to first find out the causes of rape in the military. It's really hard to get non-American figures though, but I suspect the causes and solutions are the same everywhere, whether the British military is doing a better job of it than the Americans or not. A lot of it might be exactly the same issues that are a problem in wider society (poor reporting rates, etc), but I guess we first need to establish whether there is something of a problem in the military specifically, and a lot of groups seem to think there is (specifically the American military's processes for dealing with rape - an honorable discharge with no criminal record - I hope the British are better than this). Like I said though, I'm gonna read a bit first

I'm biased, but I'd say the British Army is doing a better job. I've never heard of anyone being found guilty of rape not being chucked out (after being busted, jail time and loosing pension rights). I'd be suprised if that wasn't the case for the US as well to be honest.

However, in cases where rape isn't proven, I've also heard of people being thrown out (services no longer required or asked to put in a resignation). If during the course of the investigation it becomes obvious you're innocent you're probably OK, but if there is enough to strongly suspect, but not enough to convict you'll be out. I suspect this is what has also happened in US cases.

Generally sexual offences are regarded more seriously than non-sexual. There's plenty of crimes which won't stop you joining the army or even staying on if you are convicted. Normally minor theft or assault. But sexual crimes are regarded as a no-no and will almost certainly result in you being out.

I also suspect that some of the issues that plague civilian rape cases are less so in the military. The short skirt argument will hold less sway in a society which says that you are responsible for your actions, not the fact the victim was showing a bit of leg. There's also much greater supervision of where soldiers, especially young single soldiers live, than with civilians.

Former Member · July 2008

they should be tried the same as they would for asault on a UK child plus the military consequences for breaking their army vows what ever they are but i'm sure something like helping troubles peoples comes in somewhere

British soldiers accused of sickening sex assault on Iraqi boy, 14

Comments