Heads should roll on this horrendous issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been sickened by this story all day. Suck for the little boys and ANGRY that our military is allowing this to happen on our bases. I'm pissed that our military who tried to protect these poor children have been dismissed.

I want to do something about it. Who can I call, write, yell at? What can we do to fight this issue?

This is the most unacceptable thing I've heard in awhile.

If there is any way to draw this to the attention of one of the Republican presidential candidates who have high profile and would be willing to take it up even if it is to further his/her campaign, you'd see it get publicity on a large scale immediately and you'd see some sort of action.

Although I am not a supporter of his, Trump is someone who would likely take it up.

It is cynical but even though the article was given prominence in the NYT, there has been remarkably little outrage expressed over it that I have seen.

This practice has been reported on Fox News. The reporting started back when a Green Beret was kicked out for pushing an Afghan police officer who raped a boy.
I do not understand why more media have not picked up this story. Seems as if our nation gets more outraged at a “fake rape” on the campus of UVA than the welfare of children.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/defense-department-under-fire-for-handling-child-abuse-claims-in-afghanistan/?intcmp=hpbt2
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/21/army-kicking-out-decorated-green-beret-who-stood-up-for-afghan-rape-victim/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:basically the obama administration is covering up sex crimes against children.

Yes, this Pentagon has done everything the president asked. They have gone out of their way to serve his vision in all matters as they are constitutionally bound to do - including expediency in Afghanistan (which is what this is). And by the way, this stuff gets 'reported'. The soldiers doing the reporting are told "thank you very much" and nothing is done. But I want to emphasize the tone is set from the top-the very top- the generals and the president. The irony being this all is going down at the same time we had a massive campus rape initiative spearheaded by this administration.

Imagine a general who has worked all his life in military having the threat of dishonorable discharge hanging over his head f he does not comply. He has his whole future - and his family's future - at stake.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about "Obama" or "Democrats" or "PC crap" or any of the other frothing nonsense that various posters have spouted here.

The problem is that a soldier took the matter into his own hands, rather than following military protocols and due process. He violated longstanding rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which precede Obama. Our Armed Forces are not supposed to be a band of vigilantes, where anything goes.

"Excuse me little boy. I'm sorry you are being brutally raped, but I must go up the chain of command to free you from this animal"

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

These men stop this shit out of HUMAN DECENCY. Where is Obama's?

This stuff was going on when Bush was Commander In Chief overseeing our troops in Afghanistan. But somehow we are to understand that this is about Obama.

Riiiiiiiight. Partisan bullshit.

Yep, it was indeed going on. The difference? Bush did not dishonorably discharge those who sought to stop it. In fact, he had a 'have at it' policy when it came to these rapists. He let the commanders on those bases handle it and they damn well put a stop to it. Any commander that didn't? That was on him. But Bush would not have thrown these men out of the military for stopping the rape of little children.

PP, how do you know this?

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.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about "Obama" or "Democrats" or "PC crap" or any of the other frothing nonsense that various posters have spouted here.

The problem is that a soldier took the matter into his own hands, rather than following military protocols and due process. He violated longstanding rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which precede Obama. Our Armed Forces are not supposed to be a band of vigilantes, where anything goes.

"Excuse me little boy. I'm sorry you are being brutally raped, but I must go up the chain of command to free you from this animal"

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

These men stop this shit out of HUMAN DECENCY. Where is Obama's?

This stuff was going on when Bush was Commander In Chief overseeing our troops in Afghanistan. But somehow we are to understand that this is about Obama.

Riiiiiiiight. Partisan bullshit.

Yep, it was indeed going on. The difference? Bush did not dishonorably discharge those who sought to stop it. In fact, he had a 'have at it' policy when it came to these rapists. He let the commanders on those bases handle it and they damn well put a stop to it. Any commander that didn't? That was on him. But Bush would not have thrown these men out of the military for stopping the rape of little children.

PP, how do you know this?

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.

[Anonymous]

Here is another article describing Special Forces frustration with the ROE:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/army-special-forces-enraged-over-obama-attacks/

[Anonymous]

All that effort to pursue fake Campus rape hysteria while this is actually sanctioned. Obama lost my goodwill during the 529 debacle but this had lost my support for good. He is a terrible presidents hat pays lip service to human rights and should be stripped of his Nobel peace prize.

[jsteele]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

Uh if you read the last source posted by the pp it specifically says due to obamas new rules of engagement the guy who beat up the afghan commander raping the child was sanctioned and punished by the military and that it has sapped the morale of the green berets

[Anonymous]

Notice how they cherry pick the data in talking about the "spike" - as their supposed "baseline" they took the one year with the lowest relative number of casualties out of all 14 years that we have been in Afghanistan.

Lack of honest data and honest reporting going on.

[Anonymous]

We are referring to that one specific incident that was raised in the New York Times. I can't see how it is cherry picking data. That one incident is what is causing controversy and is a direct result.

[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?

Uh if you read the last source posted by the pp it specifically says due to obamas new rules of engagement the guy who beat up the afghan commander raping the child was sanctioned and punished by the military and that it has sapped the morale of the green berets

I just went back and reread the articles and do not see what you claim to have read. Can you please quote the sentence?

[Anonymous]

The most highly publicized case in recent weeks centers on Sgt. Charles Martland, who is being expelled from the Army for roughing up an Afghan local police commander after a mother and son told troops the police official raped the 12-year-old boy and assaulted the mother.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/army-special-forces-enraged-over-obama-attacks/#RLoQGpoVEBbFJmgj.99

That is from the last article

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The most highly publicized case in recent weeks centers on Sgt. Charles Martland, who is being expelled from the Army for roughing up an Afghan local police commander after a mother and son told troops the police official raped the 12-year-old boy and assaulted the mother.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/army-special-forces-enraged-over-obama-attacks/#RLoQGpoVEBbFJmgj.99

That is from the last article

Where does it say that this is a result of changes Obama made to the rules of engagement? Certainly the article attempts to give that impression, but that's the sort of "journalism" you expect from WND. WND is reporting on what was in this Washington Times article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/30/green-berets-have-growing-doubts-of-duties-with-sk/

That article doesn't mention the Rule of Engagement at all.

This is very typical of the right wing puke funnel. One source lists cases of soldiers being punished. Another source discusses changes in the rules of engagement. A third source takes elements from both articles and juxtaposes them without explicitly saying they are linked. Then, our resident Obama-hater comes here and posts about the implied but nonexistent linking as if it is fact. She will then either change the subject or tell me it is "opinion" which for some reason means that it can't be subject to questioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been sickened by this story all day. Suck for the little boys and ANGRY that our military is allowing this to happen on our bases. I'm pissed that our military who tried to protect these poor children have been dismissed.

I want to do something about it. Who can I call, write, yell at? What can we do to fight this issue?

This is the most unacceptable thing I've heard in awhile.

If there is any way to draw this to the attention of one of the Republican presidential candidates who have high profile and would be willing to take it up even if it is to further his/her campaign, you'd see it get publicity on a large scale immediately and you'd see some sort of action.

Although I am not a supporter of his, Trump is someone who would likely take it up.

It is cynical but even though the article was given prominence in the NYT, there has been remarkably little outrage expressed over it that I have seen.

Cruz is on it

[Anonymous]

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?

Uh if you read the last source posted by the pp it specifically says due to obamas new rules of engagement the guy who beat up the afghan commander raping the child was sanctioned and punished by the military and that it has sapped the morale of the green berets

Uh, NO - the reason he was punished is due to violating provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which long predate Obama. Here, I suggest you familiarize yourself: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#ucmj