Sexual assaults by US military in Japan unlikely to end in prison

[VCheng]

And what exactly is open information? I think the debate is on the miscarriage of justice when it comes to dealing with such cases. There is a brilliant documentary, "The Invisible War" that shines a light on such frequent miscarriages when it comes to the US armed forces and institutionalized rape within its ranks:
.................

What miscarriage of justice? The laws and rules are followed strictly, so there is no question of any widespread systemic errors. Even all those reports of sexual violence in the US military are in the open and never brushed under the carpet. What is exposed is also fixed, and thus open information is encouraged.

 

[cyphercide]

What miscarriage of justice? The laws and rules are followed strictly, so there is no question of any widespread systemic errors. Even all those reports of sexual violence in the US military are in the open and never brushed under the carpet. What is exposed is also fixed, and thus open information is encouraged.

Really? If you did go through the whole documentary, it does expound the multiple ways such assaults were attempted to be swept under the carpet. Not too different from the way the US military tried to draw a curtain on its torture program overseas and have American courts have "extraordinary rendition" of individuals dismissed(successfully) under the pretext of national security.

And somehow the rest of the planet, let alone any American citizen, needs to view this system as morally right?

 

[VCheng]

Really? If you did go through the whole documentary, it does expound the multiple ways such assaults were attempted to be swept under the carpet. Not too different from the way the US military tried to draw a curtain on its torture program overseas and have American courts have "extraordinary rendition" of individuals dismissed(successfully) under the pretext of national security.

And somehow the rest of the planet, let alone any American citizen, needs to view this system as morally right?

You should note that any attempts to sweep any offences under the carpet DID NOT WORK, and the news was publicized. That is the end result: things do NOT remain hidden and are RECTIFIED.

 

[EagleEyes]

Avoid personal attacks, discuss the message not the messenger. @VCheng @gambit

 

[cyphercide]

You should note that any attempts to sweep any offences under the carpet DID NOT WORK, and the news was publicized. That is the end result: things do NOT remain hidden and are RECTIFIED.

It actually did. The point I was trying to make with illegal renditions is that the American courts have earlier erroneously ruled in favor of the state merely on the pretext of national security. Torture and individual rights be damned !!!

You know as well as I that nothing has been rectified!!!

 

[VCheng]

It actually did. The point I was trying to make with illegal renditions is that the American courts have earlier erroneously ruled in favor of the state merely on the pretext of national security. Torture and individual rights be damned !!!

Now that is taking the thread off topic.

Courts have to determine points of law, pure and simple. There were no illegal renditions done within the courts' areas of jurisdiction that would be subject to US law..

Avoid personal attacks, discuss the message not the messenger. @VCheng @gambit

Fair enough, as long as all sides respect that advice.

 

[cyphercide]

Now that is taking the thread off topic.

Courts have to determine points of law, pure and simple. There were no illegal renditions done within the courts' areas of jurisdiction that would be subject to US law.

Not really. The official excuse as stated by the US administration was "national security."

 

[VCheng]

Not really. The official excuse as stated by the US administration was "national security."

No, the matters that were brought up before the courts were not within their jurisdictions. The fact remains that no renditions were done on US soil where the courts had jurisdiction.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Mr. cheng I was going to reply last night but than I stopped you replies are disgusting...You should stop going offtopic/ruining Threads..

This is not Pakistan related Thread so discuss this particular thread don't remind certain member of looking into Pakistan's problems...

The section where thread posted is Americas Section, perhaps you should open a Thread in a different Section and target Pakistan and its laws.

People can post links/dig up stories from any press it should not always come from biased US media.

Things I can understand from your posts are why question america, look into Pakistan rather, going offtopics, insulting/attacking, not agreeing to any press except for US press, trying to portray others are being hateful to US...Not!

 

[gambit]

Right...So providing contrasting arguments qualified as a 'personal attack'? Guess some people really are overly sensitive.

 

[Mighty Caty]

People got blown out of proportion by saying the US military rape (both in country or amongst rank) are a problem, but they fail to put into effect that rape crime is statistically proven hard to convict

According to USDOJ record, in 2012 of the reported case, only 25% of case result in an arrest and then only 55% of those case resulting in a conviction

A typical rape case is a "he said, she said" argument, problem with that is the US justices system would confer judgment on any reasonable doubt to the defendent, that alone contributed to numerous case quashed due to lack of concert evidence

Most rape case convict on physical evidence, such as injury to the victim and witness testimony, without either injury or someone who overheard the whole ordeal, criminal conviction is far from certain, even if there are criminated evidence present (such as semen on victim)

Unless you can proof you said no and some one can back up the story, or you have an obvious case of beating, you are most likely looking at a not guilty verdict

This topic have nothing to do with Military, rather general trance on convicting rapist

 

[VCheng]

Right...So providing contrasting arguments qualified as a 'personal attack'? Guess some people really are overly sensitive.

The best thing to do is to keep on responding, point by point, on topic.

 

[Fukuoka]

Raped women gonna be mad after, but if the westerners are happy it's good. Are the japanese scared of the westerners or what?

Not protecting your own women = shame

I hope that japanese won't make protests 50 years later, it's now that they must react.

Definitely too much oppression in JEW USA, we must help them make a revolt.

 

[cyphercide]

No, the matters that were brought up before the courts were not within their jurisdictions. The fact remains that no renditions were done on US soil where the courts had jurisdiction.

That isn't the official narrative offered by the current administration(and the one before it) or the US supreme court:

Five foreign men lose 'extraordinary rendition' case
U.S. Supreme Court lets stand a ruling against five men who sued a CIA contractor for its alleged role in abducting them abroad and spiriting them to secret interrogation sites. The court says the president has the power to scuttle their lawsuit because of national security.

'Extraordinary rendition': U.S. Supreme Court lets stand appeals court ruling against five foreign men in 'extraordinary rendition' case - Los Angeles Times


So your point on jurisdictional relevance is inaccurate but we may discuss it in the interest of furthering the debate. If one were to concede on the argument on jurisdiction, one would also have to concede that this particular argument isn't really about ascertaining guilt or holding people accountable. It is rather about a bullshit technicality that the Americans have devised an entire system to get around. Everything from Gitmo to a CIA black site runs on the same principle that any and all crimes committed by American authorities in the name of the American people will not see the light of day in an American court as long as it takes place in some foreign location.

That much is understood. But how exactly does that give Americans the moral upper hand to lecture anyone? How can this charade be seen as some sort of betterment when you are clearly hiding behind a willful interpretation of the law?