Heads should roll on this horrendous issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Afghan child rape thing has been percolating in that indiginous culture for centuries... Did all of you gloss over the Colonial British accounts of the practice from over 100 years ago that were mentioned several times by various posters to this thread? It was a known issue during Bush's Administration, it was a known issue when Reagan was arming Afghan mujahideen, t's been an issue for a very very long time. Reagan wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it during the years that we were using those rapist Afghan commanders to fight a proxy war against the Soviets, Bush wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it in the 7 years that he was in charge of the occupying force in Afghanistan, yet somehow you think Obama could end it overnight with a snap of the finger.... SMH.

Yes unrealistic to end it. But unfair to prosecute a green beret who did the minimum anyone would do to someone laughing their head off over it - push them. Its not legal here, hasn't gone on for centuries here, and the green beret is from here. Or are we ending his career in the name.of cultural sensitivity? And then we do what we can, whatever we can, to not aid abet and partner in it.

He didn't "push" the Afghan. He beat him up. That's assault and stateside, that can also be a career ending felony. The ends don't always justify the means.

Frankly? There would be outrage from the public if a company let go an individual who assaulted a child rapist and a woman-beater. For every corporation that would let him go, there would be five offering him a job. Guaranteed. That's what separates us from the rest of the world.

Actually in America he would be arrested and convicted of assault. Perhaps a jury would have given him a lenient sentence but that's about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Afghan child rape thing has been percolating in that indiginous culture for centuries... Did all of you gloss over the Colonial British accounts of the practice from over 100 years ago that were mentioned several times by various posters to this thread? It was a known issue during Bush's Administration, it was a known issue when Reagan was arming Afghan mujahideen, t's been an issue for a very very long time. Reagan wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it during the years that we were using those rapist Afghan commanders to fight a proxy war against the Soviets, Bush wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it in the 7 years that he was in charge of the occupying force in Afghanistan, yet somehow you think Obama could end it overnight with a snap of the finger.... SMH.

Yes unrealistic to end it. But unfair to prosecute a green beret who did the minimum anyone would do to someone laughing their head off over it - push them. Its not legal here, hasn't gone on for centuries here, and the green beret is from here. Or are we ending his career in the name.of cultural sensitivity? And then we do what we can, whatever we can, to not aid abet and partner in it.

He didn't "push" the Afghan. He beat him up. That's assault and stateside, that can also be a career ending felony. The ends don't always justify the means.

Frankly? There would be outrage from the public if a company let go an individual who assaulted a child rapist and a woman-beater. For every corporation that would let him go, there would be five offering him a job. Guaranteed. That's what separates us from the rest of the world.

Actually in America he would be arrested and convicted of assault. Perhaps a jury would have given him a lenient sentence but that's about it.

Highly unlikely. I remember a case of relatives finding other people raping their kids and beating he perpetrator to a pulp. They rarely get charged

[Anonymous]

In those instances they don't get charged. The whole of America views child rape with revulsion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Afghan child rape thing has been percolating in that indiginous culture for centuries... Did all of you gloss over the Colonial British accounts of the practice from over 100 years ago that were mentioned several times by various posters to this thread? It was a known issue during Bush's Administration, it was a known issue when Reagan was arming Afghan mujahideen, t's been an issue for a very very long time. Reagan wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it during the years that we were using those rapist Afghan commanders to fight a proxy war against the Soviets, Bush wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it in the 7 years that he was in charge of the occupying force in Afghanistan, yet somehow you think Obama could end it overnight with a snap of the finger.... SMH.

Yes unrealistic to end it. But unfair to prosecute a green beret who did the minimum anyone would do to someone laughing their head off over it - push them. Its not legal here, hasn't gone on for centuries here, and the green beret is from here. Or are we ending his career in the name.of cultural sensitivity? And then we do what we can, whatever we can, to not aid abet and partner in it.

He didn't "push" the Afghan. He beat him up. That's assault and stateside, that can also be a career ending felony. The ends don't always justify the means.

Frankly? There would be outrage from the public if a company let go an individual who assaulted a child rapist and a woman-beater. For every corporation that would let him go, there would be five offering him a job. Guaranteed. That's what separates us from the rest of the world.

Actually in America he would be arrested and convicted of assault. Perhaps a jury would have given him a lenient sentence but that's about it.

Absolutely correct. Under the law, there are two separate crimes that were committed: 1. the child rape and 2. the assault - the rape is revolting and illegal but does not justify the assault which is also illegal. The law is what it is and law enforcement and prosecutors still have a duty to uphold the law regardless of the circumstances. Where that may shift is with those who preside over the trial. In the case of civilian government, that is a peer jury, and they would likely show significant leniency. Military disciplinary proceedings tend to be very rigid, in following with longstanding historic doctrine and discipline, none of which is new.

[Anonymous]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-texas-father-beat-death-daughters-molester/story?id=16612071

No charges

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2700872/My-son-saved-attackers-life-Father-pounded-admitted-child-molester-bloody-puddle-claims-son-stopped-stabbing-admitted-pedophile-death.html
no charges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F this administration for not doing more to support our men that we put in harms way in hell holes and bind them so they can't do their jobs and then punish them for being in impossible situations.

I am really mad, will write to my congress person.!

I don't think we should have sent an occupation force to Afghanistan in the first place. THANKS BUSH. THANKS REPUBLICAN NEOCONS.

Early in the thread I posted that bush has responsibility for getting us into this quagmire and I don't know how he sleeps at night. The current administration holds responsibility for enabling afghan warlords and continuing to jeopardize the effectiveness of our soldiers there and being morally wayward institutionally.

Finding warlords who do not participate in child rape may be impossible, which means it would be impossible for the US to be in Afghanistan or to work with the government or people of Afghanistan without enabling them. Which leads to two options: leaving Afghanistan 100% or working with the people there. I would support the administration pulling out entirely, having absolutely no contact with the country or people in it, but it's quite possible that that would directly harm the security of our country. Would you support pulling out of the country, never working with any of the people there ever again, if it meant directly increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our country?

I don't support pulling out of the country. We need to finish what we started.
We obviously can't stop this barbaric practice, but we can draw a line at having these commanders actually commit these atrocities on OUR own bases.

We can also send a message by pardoning these men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Afghan child rape thing has been percolating in that indiginous culture for centuries... Did all of you gloss over the Colonial British accounts of the practice from over 100 years ago that were mentioned several times by various posters to this thread? It was a known issue during Bush's Administration, it was a known issue when Reagan was arming Afghan mujahideen, t's been an issue for a very very long time. Reagan wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it during the years that we were using those rapist Afghan commanders to fight a proxy war against the Soviets, Bush wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it in the 7 years that he was in charge of the occupying force in Afghanistan, yet somehow you think Obama could end it overnight with a snap of the finger.... SMH.

Yes unrealistic to end it. But unfair to prosecute a green beret who did the minimum anyone would do to someone laughing their head off over it - push them. Its not legal here, hasn't gone on for centuries here, and the green beret is from here. Or are we ending his career in the name.of cultural sensitivity? And then we do what we can, whatever we can, to not aid abet and partner in it.

He didn't "push" the Afghan. He beat him up. That's assault and stateside, that can also be a career ending felony. The ends don't always justify the means.

Frankly? There would be outrage from the public if a company let go an individual who assaulted a child rapist and a woman-beater. For every corporation that would let him go, there would be five offering him a job. Guaranteed. That's what separates us from the rest of the world.

Actually in America he would be arrested and convicted of assault. Perhaps a jury would have given him a lenient sentence but that's about it.

Absolutely correct. Under the law, there are two separate crimes that were committed: 1. the child rape and 2. the assault - the rape is revolting and illegal but does not justify the assault which is also illegal. The law is what it is and law enforcement and prosecutors still have a duty to uphold the law regardless of the circumstances. Where that may shift is with those who preside over the trial. In the case of civilian government, that is a peer jury, and they would likely show significant leniency. Military disciplinary proceedings tend to be very rigid, in following with longstanding historic doctrine and discipline, none of which is new.

Wouldn't the soldier assaulting the pedophile come under defending a minor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F this administration for not doing more to support our men that we put in harms way in hell holes and bind them so they can't do their jobs and then punish them for being in impossible situations.

I am really mad, will write to my congress person.!

I don't think we should have sent an occupation force to Afghanistan in the first place. THANKS BUSH. THANKS REPUBLICAN NEOCONS.

Early in the thread I posted that bush has responsibility for getting us into this quagmire and I don't know how he sleeps at night. The current administration holds responsibility for enabling afghan warlords and continuing to jeopardize the effectiveness of our soldiers there and being morally wayward institutionally.

Finding warlords who do not participate in child rape may be impossible, which means it would be impossible for the US to be in Afghanistan or to work with the government or people of Afghanistan without enabling them. Which leads to two options: leaving Afghanistan 100% or working with the people there. I would support the administration pulling out entirely, having absolutely no contact with the country or people in it, but it's quite possible that that would directly harm the security of our country. Would you support pulling out of the country, never working with any of the people there ever again, if it meant directly increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our country?

I don't support pulling out of the country. We need to finish what we started.
We obviously can't stop this barbaric practice, but we can draw a line at having these commanders actually commit these atrocities on OUR own bases.

We can also send a message by pardoning these men.

I don't think we or anybody else will finish anything in Assholes-stan. The goals post would have to be lowered considerably to be able to state, " Mussion accomplished"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F this administration for not doing more to support our men that we put in harms way in hell holes and bind them so they can't do their jobs and then punish them for being in impossible situations.

I am really mad, will write to my congress person.!

I don't think we should have sent an occupation force to Afghanistan in the first place. THANKS BUSH. THANKS REPUBLICAN NEOCONS.

Early in the thread I posted that bush has responsibility for getting us into this quagmire and I don't know how he sleeps at night. The current administration holds responsibility for enabling afghan warlords and continuing to jeopardize the effectiveness of our soldiers there and being morally wayward institutionally.

Finding warlords who do not participate in child rape may be impossible, which means it would be impossible for the US to be in Afghanistan or to work with the government or people of Afghanistan without enabling them. Which leads to two options: leaving Afghanistan 100% or working with the people there. I would support the administration pulling out entirely, having absolutely no contact with the country or people in it, but it's quite possible that that would directly harm the security of our country. Would you support pulling out of the country, never working with any of the people there ever again, if it meant directly increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our country?

I don't support pulling out of the country. We need to finish what we started.
We obviously can't stop this barbaric practice, but we can draw a line at having these commanders actually commit these atrocities on OUR own bases.

We can also send a message by pardoning these men.

I don't think we or anybody else will finish anything in Assholes-stan. The goals post would have to be lowered considerably to be able to state, " Mussion accomplished"

We can discuss whether it abets American interests to stay or not. However while we're still there, we don't have to let child rape occur on our bases. Full stop. Obviously we can't squash the practice but we can take a small stand by not allowing these afghan commanders to bring the boys to our base and not dishonorably discharging this soldier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F this administration for not doing more to support our men that we put in harms way in hell holes and bind them so they can't do their jobs and then punish them for being in impossible situations.

I am really mad, will write to my congress person.!

I don't think we should have sent an occupation force to Afghanistan in the first place. THANKS BUSH. THANKS REPUBLICAN NEOCONS.

Early in the thread I posted that bush has responsibility for getting us into this quagmire and I don't know how he sleeps at night. The current administration holds responsibility for enabling afghan warlords and continuing to jeopardize the effectiveness of our soldiers there and being morally wayward institutionally.

Finding warlords who do not participate in child rape may be impossible, which means it would be impossible for the US to be in Afghanistan or to work with the government or people of Afghanistan without enabling them. Which leads to two options: leaving Afghanistan 100% or working with the people there. I would support the administration pulling out entirely, having absolutely no contact with the country or people in it, but it's quite possible that that would directly harm the security of our country. Would you support pulling out of the country, never working with any of the people there ever again, if it meant directly increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our country?

I don't support pulling out of the country. We need to finish what we started.
We obviously can't stop this barbaric practice, but we can draw a line at having these commanders actually commit these atrocities on OUR own bases.

We can also send a message by pardoning these men.

Finish what? And pardon for what? If I'm not mistaken, there was neither a court martial nor conviction. There was a discharge. Presidents who insert themselves into military command and discipline issues do so at their own peril. Obama would be criticized for undermining the command structure and politicizing internal military affairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Afghan child rape thing has been percolating in that indiginous culture for centuries... Did all of you gloss over the Colonial British accounts of the practice from over 100 years ago that were mentioned several times by various posters to this thread? It was a known issue during Bush's Administration, it was a known issue when Reagan was arming Afghan mujahideen, t's been an issue for a very very long time. Reagan wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it during the years that we were using those rapist Afghan commanders to fight a proxy war against the Soviets, Bush wasn't able to deal with it or put an end to it in the 7 years that he was in charge of the occupying force in Afghanistan, yet somehow you think Obama could end it overnight with a snap of the finger.... SMH.

Yes unrealistic to end it. But unfair to prosecute a green beret who did the minimum anyone would do to someone laughing their head off over it - push them. Its not legal here, hasn't gone on for centuries here, and the green beret is from here. Or are we ending his career in the name.of cultural sensitivity? And then we do what we can, whatever we can, to not aid abet and partner in it.

He didn't "push" the Afghan. He beat him up. That's assault and stateside, that can also be a career ending felony. The ends don't always justify the means.

Frankly? There would be outrage from the public if a company let go an individual who assaulted a child rapist and a woman-beater. For every corporation that would let him go, there would be five offering him a job. Guaranteed. That's what separates us from the rest of the world.

Actually in America he would be arrested and convicted of assault. Perhaps a jury would have given him a lenient sentence but that's about it.

Absolutely correct. Under the law, there are two separate crimes that were committed: 1. the child rape and 2. the assault - the rape is revolting and illegal but does not justify the assault which is also illegal. The law is what it is and law enforcement and prosecutors still have a duty to uphold the law regardless of the circumstances. Where that may shift is with those who preside over the trial. In the case of civilian government, that is a peer jury, and they would likely show significant leniency. Military disciplinary proceedings tend to be very rigid, in following with longstanding historic doctrine and discipline, none of which is new.

Wouldn't the soldier assaulting the pedophile come under defending a minor?

It would come under the right of self defense - which includes defense of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F this administration for not doing more to support our men that we put in harms way in hell holes and bind them so they can't do their jobs and then punish them for being in impossible situations.

I am really mad, will write to my congress person.!

I don't think we should have sent an occupation force to Afghanistan in the first place. THANKS BUSH. THANKS REPUBLICAN NEOCONS.

Early in the thread I posted that bush has responsibility for getting us into this quagmire and I don't know how he sleeps at night. The current administration holds responsibility for enabling afghan warlords and continuing to jeopardize the effectiveness of our soldiers there and being morally wayward institutionally.

Finding warlords who do not participate in child rape may be impossible, which means it would be impossible for the US to be in Afghanistan or to work with the government or people of Afghanistan without enabling them. Which leads to two options: leaving Afghanistan 100% or working with the people there. I would support the administration pulling out entirely, having absolutely no contact with the country or people in it, but it's quite possible that that would directly harm the security of our country. Would you support pulling out of the country, never working with any of the people there ever again, if it meant directly increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our country?

I don't support pulling out of the country. We need to finish what we started.
We obviously can't stop this barbaric practice, but we can draw a line at having these commanders actually commit these atrocities on OUR own bases.

We can also send a message by pardoning these men.

Finish what? And pardon for what? If I'm not mistaken, there was neither a court martial nor conviction. There was a discharge. Presidents who insert themselves into military command and discipline issues do so at their own peril. Obama would be criticized for undermining the command structure and politicizing internal military affairs.

He was railroaded. Green berets are allowed to use their own judgment a lot. This should not have been career ending.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure that Green Berets do not get to beat the crap out of commanders of allied troops. Even if said commanders are disgusting scum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F this administration for not doing more to support our men that we put in harms way in hell holes and bind them so they can't do their jobs and then punish them for being in impossible situations.

I am really mad, will write to my congress person.!

I don't think we should have sent an occupation force to Afghanistan in the first place. THANKS BUSH. THANKS REPUBLICAN NEOCONS.

Early in the thread I posted that bush has responsibility for getting us into this quagmire and I don't know how he sleeps at night. The current administration holds responsibility for enabling afghan warlords and continuing to jeopardize the effectiveness of our soldiers there and being morally wayward institutionally.

Finding warlords who do not participate in child rape may be impossible, which means it would be impossible for the US to be in Afghanistan or to work with the government or people of Afghanistan without enabling them. Which leads to two options: leaving Afghanistan 100% or working with the people there. I would support the administration pulling out entirely, having absolutely no contact with the country or people in it, but it's quite possible that that would directly harm the security of our country. Would you support pulling out of the country, never working with any of the people there ever again, if it meant directly increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our country?

I don't support pulling out of the country. We need to finish what we started.
We obviously can't stop this barbaric practice, but we can draw a line at having these commanders actually commit these atrocities on OUR own bases.

We can also send a message by pardoning these men.

I don't think we or anybody else will finish anything in Assholes-stan. The goals post would have to be lowered considerably to be able to state, " Mussion accomplished"

We can discuss whether it abets American interests to stay or not. However while we're still there, we don't have to let child rape occur on our bases. Full stop. Obviously we can't squash the practice but we can take a small stand by not allowing these afghan commanders to bring the boys to our base and not dishonorably discharging this soldier.

Pp, yes, I'm on your side. At minimum, it should not happen on the US military bases. It sends the wrong message to the local population, like the Americans are also participating on this heinous crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F this administration for not doing more to support our men that we put in harms way in hell holes and bind them so they can't do their jobs and then punish them for being in impossible situations.

I am really mad, will write to my congress person.!

I don't think we should have sent an occupation force to Afghanistan in the first place. THANKS BUSH. THANKS REPUBLICAN NEOCONS.

Early in the thread I posted that bush has responsibility for getting us into this quagmire and I don't know how he sleeps at night. The current administration holds responsibility for enabling afghan warlords and continuing to jeopardize the effectiveness of our soldiers there and being morally wayward institutionally.

Finding warlords who do not participate in child rape may be impossible, which means it would be impossible for the US to be in Afghanistan or to work with the government or people of Afghanistan without enabling them. Which leads to two options: leaving Afghanistan 100% or working with the people there. I would support the administration pulling out entirely, having absolutely no contact with the country or people in it, but it's quite possible that that would directly harm the security of our country. Would you support pulling out of the country, never working with any of the people there ever again, if it meant directly increasing the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our country?

I don't support pulling out of the country. We need to finish what we started.
We obviously can't stop this barbaric practice, but we can draw a line at having these commanders actually commit these atrocities on OUR own bases.

We can also send a message by pardoning these men.

Finish what? And pardon for what? If I'm not mistaken, there was neither a court martial nor conviction. There was a discharge. Presidents who insert themselves into military command and discipline issues do so at their own peril. Obama would be criticized for undermining the command structure and politicizing internal military affairs.

Loss of benefits. Loss of voting rights. Loss of the second amendment. Yep, JUST a discharge. Obama is the commander-in-chief. He is the big Kahuna. It is his responsibility to set the proper tone. Period.