Heads should roll on this horrendous issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html

A report of another decorated marine who tried to intervene and got punished for it.

Jan also was alleged to be what Brezler’s lawyer would later call “a systematic child rapist” who allegedly ran a child kidnapping ring and acquired “chai boys” with the help of U.S. taxpayer job development money.

I work in international development and typically find the funds used responsibly (with a few notable exceptions), but this is insane. It's also, frankly, probably not unrelated to outsourcing international development to military contractors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that people who report it are being instructed to IGNORE it. Your defense of paedophilia and child rape facilitated by the US military leadership and in turn the commander in chief is getting more and more pathetic.

You're arguing that child rape in this situation is okay. full stop.

Crimes happening off base should be reported to the authorities off base. Shouldn't they? If it's the authorities who are committing those crimes, well, the country is pretty awful.

What do you not understand that THESE CRIMES ARE HAPPENING ON MILITARY BASES.

THESE CRIMES ARE HAPPENED ON MILITARY BASES LOCATED WITHIN SOVEREIGN AFGHAN TERRITORY.

Then the pedophiles should do it off the military base because the military walls are protecting them from villagers.

[Anonymous]

The order to ignore or cover it up is not coming from Pentagon or the commanding general, so the issue is in the field, not with the brass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The order to ignore or cover it up is not coming from Pentagon or the commanding general, so the issue is in the field, not with the brass.

right. Because this is an isolated event and not epidemic across military bases in Afghanistan and the Pentagon has no clue at all. I truly believe that.

[Anonymous]

Apparently the Canadians were in on this too.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Former+soldier+still+fights+protect+Afghan+boys+from+abuse/2014418/story.html

Although reports in a Toronto newspaper noted that Schouten saw the aftermath of the attack on a young boy, he says that is not accurate. He actually entered the headquarters and witnessed two Afghan security personnel sodomizing the child. “I walked in and they were raping a kid,” he recalls. “The kid was bleeding. They guy with the camo fatigues had a knife in his hand.”

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because the men on the ground knew they had the power to stop it without fear of prosecution. And many did. Obama put in new rules of engagement and apparently punishes for 'cultural insensitivity'.

Can you point to a source supporting this allegation? I know, useless to ask. I'll be told to do my own research.

There are many - I'll provide one that shows how the rules of engagement have changed and put our soldiers in danger and restricted their ability to fight:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/?page=all

Regarding the sex issue, you can see the dodge here:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-dodges-on-child-rape-in-afghanistan/article/2572538

"We continue to urge the Afghan and civil society to protect and support victims and their families, while also strongly encouraging justice and accountability under Afghan law for offenders," Earnest said.

The difference is, when it's happening on OUR bases using OUR taxpayer dollars to pay the rapists, we should be acting.

As usual, your "sources" do not support your claim. Can you quote the specific text from either article that says that Obama changed the ROE in such a way as to make punishment for reporting child sex abuse more likely?

Isn't the best proof the prosecution of the green beret? Thats under Obama and he's the commander in chief...

Given that this is happening while Obama is in charge, he does bear responsibility. But, that is a separate issue as to whether this is happening as a result of a policy change made by Obama. As this post in this thread shows:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/501037.page#7615420

This same sort of thing (with soldiers being told to ignore it) was happening under Bush.

Obama is simply continuing a policy that existed under Bush. The suggestion above that Obama changed the policy is simply not supported.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, can you find me military personnel dishonorably discharged by Bush for intervening? Military I know said it was happening culturally, but they were free to stop it without fear of US backlash. They were not told to stand down because of cultural sensitivities

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, can you find me military personnel dishonorably discharged by Bush for intervening? Military I know said it was happening culturally, but they were free to stop it without fear of US backlash. They were not told to stand down because of cultural sensitivities

I don't have a list of every dishonorable discharge under Bush, but the quote I posted above shows that soldiers were told to ignore it. When soldiers disobey what they are told, they normally get in trouble. I am pretty sure that was the case under Bush.

[Anonymous]

Official action through dishonorable discharge is condoning the behavior - even approving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, can you find me military personnel dishonorably discharged by Bush for intervening? Military I know said it was happening culturally, but they were free to stop it without fear of US backlash. They were not told to stand down because of cultural sensitivities

Told to stand down because of cultural sensitivities BY WHOM? The Pentagon gave no such order, the commanding general gave no such order.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Official action through dishonorable discharge is condoning the behavior - even approving

I agree. I just asked that you support your allegation that this is a result of an Obama policy change. So far, you can't support it. I think what is happening to these children is terrible. I don't understand your desire to make it part of an anti-Obama crusade.

[Anonymous]

This happened with ethnic Pashtuns when the British were there over 100 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/21/world/kandahar-journal-shh-it-s-an-open-secret-warlords-and-pedophilia.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324024004578171561230647852
apparently there was to be a change in a manual and I can't read the article but the Blaze has excerpts:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/12/draft-army-manual-tells-soldiers-to-avoid-criticizing-taliban-pedophilia-or-advocating-for-womens-rights/

The FBI removed training references for radical Islam and Ft Hood was classified as "work place violence."

[Anonymous]

I'm able to access the WSJ journal article. Policy changes were made under Obama.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324024004578171561230647852

American soldiers should brace for a "social-cultural shock" when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women's rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member," according to the draft handbook prepared by Army researchers.

But it has drawn criticism from U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who aides said hasn't—and wouldn't—endorse the manual as written. Gen. Allen also rejected a proposed foreword that Army officials drafted in his name.

"Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword," said Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. "He does not approve of its contents."

The draft handbook offers a list of "taboo conversation topics" that soldiers should avoid, including "making derogatory comments about the Taliban," "advocating women's rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "directing any criticism towards Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam."[u]

"Bottom line: Troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with" Afghan security forces, the handbook states. "Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm able to access the WSJ journal article. Policy changes were made under Obama.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324024004578171561230647852

American soldiers should brace for a "social-cultural shock" when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women's rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member," according to the draft handbook prepared by Army researchers.

But it has drawn criticism from U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who aides said hasn't—and wouldn't—endorse the manual as written. Gen. Allen also rejected a proposed foreword that Army officials drafted in his name.

"Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword," said Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. "He does not approve of its contents."

The draft handbook offers a list of "taboo conversation topics" that soldiers should avoid, including "making derogatory comments about the Taliban," "advocating women's rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "directing any criticism towards Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam."[u]

"Bottom line: Troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with" Afghan security forces, the handbook states. "Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence."

OK. That doesn't say, if you walk in on something, turn around and walk out. It says, watch your language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm able to access the WSJ journal article. Policy changes were made under Obama.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324024004578171561230647852

American soldiers should brace for a "social-cultural shock" when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women's rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member," according to the draft handbook prepared by Army researchers.

But it has drawn criticism from U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who aides said hasn't—and wouldn't—endorse the manual as written. Gen. Allen also rejected a proposed foreword that Army officials drafted in his name.

"Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword," said Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. "He does not approve of its contents."

The draft handbook offers a list of "taboo conversation topics" that soldiers should avoid, including "making derogatory comments about the Taliban," "advocating women's rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "directing any criticism towards Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam."[u]

"Bottom line: Troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with" Afghan security forces, the handbook states. "Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence."

OK. That doesn't say, if you walk in on something, turn around and walk out. It says, watch your language.

The meaning is quite implicit not to engage when you see something like child rape taking place on a US military base. You're quite eager to disavow this.