Rape fears lead women soldiers to suicide, death

[snyper]

If the circumstances were to blame, there would be an epidemic of rape. I believe these are still isolated cases?

Yes, rape is rape - no excuses, nobody is to blame only the usless sick cnt that perpatrates this sick crime.

Off with the balls upon conviction.

[Aaron Veteran]

Off with the balls upon conviction.

That would be a pretty awful system in light of cases like these:

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfu...ry.asp?ID=86425

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

So he was put away on eye witness testimony only? Wow.... I hope that can't be done these days, it's got to be one of the most unreliable forms of evidence.

[n3wt]

That would be a pretty awful system in light of cases like these:

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfu...ry.asp?ID=86425

Those wrongful conviction cases are scary.

[Aaron Veteran]

Those wrongful conviction cases are scary.

They are, and its the primary reason I oppose the death penalty as well. I fully believe that a punishment must lend itself to compensation in the case of an error.

[phot0nic]

Wow, I considered posting an intelligent response to this article until I read the replies. The fact that some of you are actually justifying the soldiers' actions tells me that Neowin is NOT the place for intelligent discussion of world issues. Just... wow.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Wow, I considered posting an intelligent response to this article until I read the replies. The fact that some of you are actually justifying the soldiers' actions tells me that Neowin is NOT the place for intelligent discussion of world issues. Just... wow.

The soldiers actions need not be justified or unjustified. The real cause for alarm in that article was that, instead of dealing with the problem, they were told to sweep it under th rug.

[Fresh]

Major Mistakes in New York Times Story About Rape in Military

We all make mistakes, right? And when we do, we have several options: we can hope no one notices; try and fix it before anyone notices; or apologize, and do our best to make it right.

When you're a journalist, the stakes are higher. All we have is our credibility. If we make an error on-air, or on a page, it's out there for the world to see. We have to correct it, or our reputation (personally, and that of our organization) suffers.

I've certainly made mistakes. One memorable gaffe occurred at my first on-air job in Columbia, S.C. ? I was filling in for the anchorman, and someone called our newsroom minutes before the 6:00 hour, to report that a local radio personality had been killed in a car crash. I told the producer about it, and instead of calling the hospital (or anyone else) to check, she told me to "go with it." So I did.

Minutes later, the DJ called to tell us he was, in fact, alive. There was no accident. We were the victims of a cruel joke.

On Sunday, The New York Times admitted it made a mistake. Actually, there were multiple "corrections" on page A2, including a pet food recall that was not expanded, and providing the right telephone number for a cabaret that was reviewed.

But the biggest correction, under the heading "Editor's Note," wasn't your garden variety misprint.

The Times admitted it distributed an article in the March 18 edition of its Sunday Magazine, while knowing the story contained some glaring inaccuracies. The article was about women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse some say they endured, and their struggles in reclaiming their pre-war lives. But one of the women profiled, who said she'd been raped twice and suffered brain damage when a roadside bomb exploded next to her Humvee, was never actually IN Iraq. She lied. And, there was no roadside bomb. Readers were left to wonder if there'd been any sexual assaults.

The newspaper knew about the mistakes on March 12, six days before the magazine was distributed, and 13 days before it published the correction. The magazine was printed on March 9 ? three days before the lies were discovered ? but there was still plenty of time to reprint it. The cost might've been huge, but wouldn't it be worth it for a paper whose masthead proclaims "All the News That's Fit to Print?"

If the cost was prohibitive, why not run a correction the same day the magazine appeared? Why not let readers know that the newspaper had discovered one of the women profiled in the article lied to them? They did the best they could in confirming her story, found out too late for the printers, but in time for readers to know the truth. Why wait another week?

We asked The Times these questions, but they haven't given us any answers.

Their "Editor's Note" explains the woman in question, Amorita Randall, "... did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did." It also says, "If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article."

If this were true, why not set the record straight in a more timely fashion?

Viewers would certainly demand the same of us.

* After my story aired, I received a call from one of the other women quoted in the article. "Ann" wanted to be sure people know sex abuse exists in the military, and plenty of servicewomen are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Military Sexual Trauma (MST). She also says the military has some excellent programs to help women (and men) deal with these kinds of issues, and says the treatment has helped her and many others. She suggests contacting the Veteran's Administration, and/or the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Source

[kevbo]

much like FOX news not correcting or apologizing for labeling Mark Foley a Democrat

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Major Mistakes in New York Times Story About Rape in Military

So they admitted that they learned that one of the interviewees had not actually been to Iraq. It was found after the publication date but before the final magazine printing. They printed a correction (presumably in the next issue since magazines are not daily publications).

I'm at a loss to suggest how this one fact invalidates the entire report. Clearly they felt there was sufficient information to publish when they had and then issue a correction. It sounds reasonable to me.

Were there more mistakes in the story other than this? If not then I fail to see how undermining one point invalidates the entire subject.

[Threads Merged]

much like FOX news not correcting or apologizing for labeling Mark Foley a Democrat

That was a screen graphic issue that, what, lasted for several seconds, a minute? How many people were falsely informed? If the evidence had not been screen captured at the right time then nobody would know or care about it now.

[Fresh]

So they admitted that they learned that one of the interviewees had not actually been to Iraq. It was found after the publication date but before the final magazine printing. They printed a correction (presumably in the next issue since magazines are not daily publications).

I'm at a loss to suggest how this one fact invalidates the entire report. Clearly they felt there was sufficient information to publish when they had and then issue a correction. It sounds reasonable to me.

Were there more mistakes in the story other than this? If not then I fail to see how undermining one point invalidates the entire subject.

[Threads Merged]

That was a screen graphic issue that, what, lasted for several seconds, a minute? How many people were falsely informed? If the evidence had not been screen captured at the right time then nobody would know or care about it now.

I do not think it invallidates the entire report; but I do believe you should not lie about being raped...

[snyper]

Quote - (snyper @ Mar 27 2007, 13:04)

Off with the balls upon conviction.

That would be a pretty awful system in light of cases like these:

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfu...ry.asp?ID=86425

No balls or 22 yrs in jail....

il sacrafice the balls i think.

[ServerMechanic]

I think rape is horrible no matter where it happens in the world. When someone is found guilty of rape, they should have their penis and testicals cut off. Period. No excuses. That way you know up front if you rape someone you will lose your genitals period. Either that or when someone is found guilty of rape they should be raped with a baseball bat every day for a year.

I also do not think that women should be on the front lines at all. I weigh 260 lbs and I am 6'2" tall. There are not many women that could carry me out of battle if they had to. Most men could do it.

[snyper]

I also do not think that women should be on the front lines at all. I weigh 260 lbs and I am 6'2" tall. There are not many women that could carry me out of battle if they had to. Most men could do it.

Im al little taller and a little heavier 6lbs ;) i wouldnt say most men could do it + the #1 priority on the fromt line is not whether toy can carry big men like us . . .there are many positions there...

Besides.. nothing scares the **** out of me more than an angry woman with a gun in one hand and a knife in the other . . u cant reason with them!

[kevbo]

That was a screen graphic issue that, what, lasted for several seconds, a minute? How many people were falsely informed? If the evidence had not been screen captured at the right time then nobody would know or care about it now.

it's true, but the way the left side blew it out of proportion, you'd think that FOX would've had something to say...

[digipoi]

I also do not think that women should be on the front lines at all. I weigh 260 lbs and I am 6'2" tall. There are not many women that could carry me out of battle if they had to. Most men could do it.

I'm 4'2" and 58lbs. I cant carry you. I couldn't even lift your leg to wrap a bandage around it. My thumb wouldn't stop a bullet wound from bleeding either.

j/k

[TokyoKiller]

OK Let me clarify my post...

I meant this, if the military would take care of these soldiers needs since they are serving for full tours and are deprived of sexual activity. I am not saying the RAPE is justifiable and no matter what the circumstances are RAPE is not an OPTION.