NationStates Jolt Archive

US marines 'raped Filipino woman'


Five US marines have been detained in the Philippines, accused of raping a local woman.
The woman, 22, was allegedly raped by troops who were in the Philippines for joint military exercises.

Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo said he was "deeply concerned" about the claims, and the US embassy in Manila said it took the report very seriously.

Analysts say the incident could fuel local opposition to America's military presence in the Philippines.

US troops often take part in counter-terrorism training in the country, together with Filipino soldiers.

According to the French news agency AFP, the Subic Bay authority said the alleged victim had been visiting a karaoke bar when she met the five men, on 1 November.

They had then reportedly invited her to get into a rented van with them.

A few hours later, witnesses said they saw the woman being dumped from the van into a road.

"The perpetrators of this heinous crime shall be brought to justice," said Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo.

"The US takes reports of violations of US and Philippine law by US military personnel very seriously, and will fully co-operate with the Philippine authorities in the investigation of this incident," the US embassy in Manila said in a statement.

According to press reports, the Philippine authorities briefly delayed the departure of a US warship while searching for the marines.

The five men were then prevented from leaving the country with the rest of their compatriots on Wednesday, and are currently in the custody of the US embassy in Manila.


Yet again, the US Military makes an ass of itself. *sigh*

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4403134.stm)

Yet again, the US Military makes an ass of itself. *sigh*

*braces for impact*

Bastards. They should be castrated.

Innocent till proven guilty.

How exactly is five criminal marines raping a women without an order in their spare time "the US Military"?

If they're found guilty they should be punised to the fullest extent allowed by law. Nobody's going to make excuses for rapists. It's a horrible, brutal crime.

Innocent till proven guilty.

What I'm a little confused with is that they are being held in the US Embassy. Are they not subject to Philippine law, and therfore should they not be held in a Philippine police station/jail unitl the matter is dealt with?

Innocent till proven guilty.

But if proven guilty they should have their significant others lobbed off and thrown into a pit of rattlesnakes.

If they're found guilty they should be punised to the fullest extent allowed by law. Nobody's going to make excuses for rapists. It's a horrible, brutal crime.

I agree.

And lets not make these 5 representative of the entire US Military.

I agree.

And lets not make these 5 representative of the entire US Military.

Seconded.

But if proven guilty they should have their significant others lobbed off and thrown into a pit of rattlesnakes.

:) Don't agree but fantastic imagery!

How exactly is five criminal marines raping a women without an order in their spare time "the US Military"?
Because they don't work shifts in the Marine Corps. Your on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Now, what about hoping for a fair trial instead of vindictive punishments?

What I'm a little confused with is that they are being held in the US Embassy. Are they not subject to Philippine law, and therfore should they not be held in a Philippine police station/jail unitl the matter is dealt with?

It depends on the terms of the agreement under which US troops are in the country. However, US servicemen on duty are always subject to the UCMJ, regardless of other agreements.

How are 5 people representative of about 1.2 million?

How are 5 people representative of about 1.2 million?

Well, given the recent torture and now just the other day finding out about the secret prisons the USA have been holding "suspects" in, it would appear to be more than just per-chance, it seems to be more like a trend.

It depends on the terms of the agreement under which US troops are in the country. However, US servicemen on duty are always subject to the UCMJ, regardless of other agreements.

Thank you for explaining. :)

Isn't that... a cop out though? You commit a crime on foreign soil- SURELY you are subject to the law of the land! Military or not.

Yet again, the US Military makes an ass of itself. *sigh*

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4403134.stm)
Yes, you seem to do that on a regular basis, I've noticed. Oh ... you were saying it was the military making an ass of itself. So let me see if I get this rignt ... if five black men rape a woman in a van, that means that all blacks are somehow rapists? How about if five muslim men bomb a US Embassy? That would mean that all Muslim men are terrorists, yes? What if five far-left liberals make total asses of themselves? That would mean that all liberals are assholes, yes?

The five marines, if guilty, should be tried in an international court of law to negate any favoritism on either side. Seeing as how this is idealistic and unlikely, i think it would be best be settled with courts-martial. If they are guilty, they would be punished severely; something tells me the Marines don't like being represented as rapists, especially with the current world view on the American military as a whole.

As for the military making an ass of itself, these 5 men, again providing they are guilty, are responsible for their own actions, and should not be seen as Marines, but criminals. I would also like to note that a military is a tool. If you feel a military action is unjust or stupid, look to the goverment controlling it.

Isn't that... a cop out though? You commit a crime on foreign soil- SURELY you are subject to the law of the land! Military or not.

There is a difference between a tourist in a foreign country, and a soldier in a foreign country, namely choice. The tourist chose to go to a country, therefore he voluntarily enters into an agreement (implicit or otherwise) that in exchange for being allowed in to do what he does, he is subject to the local laws. A soldier is sent, involuntarily, and there are already laws that bind him.

Yes, you seem to do that on a regular basis, I've noticed. Oh ... you were saying it was the military making an ass of itself. So let me see if I get this rignt ... if five black men rape a woman in a van, that means that all blacks are somehow rapists? How about if five muslim men bomb a US Embassy? That would mean that all Muslim men are terrorists, yes? What if five far-left liberals make total asses of themselves? That would mean that all liberals are assholes, yes?

May I remind you of your own post regarding the UN in Africa Eut.
LOL! The UN? Oh my! The UN is a toothless tiger. They have had a totally free hand in, for example, Africa. What did they do? Rape a score of local virgins, indulge their propensity for corruption and venality, and otherwise generally just sit on their hands. I would trust the UN about as far as I could throw the lot of them, and I'd love to throw them in the East China Sea.

You seem to do exactly what you accuse others of doing.

The five marines, if guilty, should be tried in an international court of law to negate any favoritism on either side. Seeing as how this is idealistic and unlikely, i think it would be best be settled with courts-martial. If they are guilty, they would be punished severely; something tells me the Marines don't like being represented as rapists, especially with the current world view on the American military as a whole

So, you're accusing both Filipino, and US Military judges of being unjust with no evidence whatsoever? Just to push some absurd piece of internationalism. If you're going to impune someone's integrity, you'd better bloody well be able to prove it.

The idea that "international" judges (who all actually come from one of the world's nations) are impartial is absurd. They are servants of their governments. They are appointed not to bring fair and reasonable judgements, but to push their national agenda, this is especially true of judges from dictatorships.

The fact is that these Marines are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and should be tried under it.

So, you're accusing both Filipino, and US Military judges of being unjust with no evidence whatsoever? Just to push some absurd piece of internationalism. If you're going to impune someone's integrity, you'd better bloody well be able to prove it.

The idea that "international" judges (who all actually come from one of the world's nations) are impartial is absurd. They are servants of their governments. They are appointed not to bring fair and reasonable judgements, but to push their national agenda, this is especially true of judges from dictatorships.

The fact is that these Marines are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and should be tried under it.
Right... which is why i recommended courts-martial. If you look closely, i said that the idea of an international court was 'idealistic' and 'unlikely.' Also, i never accused either U.S. or Fillipino courts of favoritism. I was just saying that, if the idealistic international court could actually exist, it would ensure that there would be no favoritism, regardless of whether there was any to begin with.

May I remind you of your own post regarding the UN in Africa Eut.

You seem to do exactly what you accuse others of doing.
Nope. The incidents with UN troops were numerous and continued over long periods of time. The incident involving the five Marines was an isolated one.

Nope. The incidents with UN troops were numerous and continued over long periods of time. The incident involving the five Marines was an isolated one.

That you know of. It is basic logic to conclude when things like this go on especially in the military of any country, that if some are caught, it usually means there is many more who were not. As I said, given the recent torture of prisoners and finding out about the secret jails in countries where "suspects" can be questioned without the benefit of human rights protection, to me this type of behaviour by the American military is becoming more like a trend then isolated incidents.

Nope. The incidents with UN troops were numerous and continued over long periods of time. The incident involving the five Marines was an isolated one.
No Eut. You accused the UN as a whole... not UN troops or even individuals of committing those heinous acts. Now when someone accuses the US military as a whole you get (rightly) defensive. That is being hypocritical.

The reported incidents of rape involving US soldiers abroad are not isolated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1432691,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1414851.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1220673,00.html

But that still does not mean it is indicative of the US military as a whole.

If you closely, i said that the idea of an international court was 'idealistic' and 'unlikely.' Also, i never accused either U.S. or Fillipino courts of favoritism.

You said an "international" court would negate any favouritism. I assumed you were talking about a US Court Martial, of a Philipenes criminal court. Perhaps you were suggesting that the Martian Court of Cool Justice might show favouritism?

Secondly, there is no such thing as an international court, everyone on that court comes from one or another of the world's nations. He is appointed by his government to serve his government.

I was just saying that, if the idealistic international court could actually exist, it would ensure that there would be no favoritism, regardless of whether there was any to begin with.

Since no previous international court has done this, this is unlikely.

Your statement also suggests that the Philipinos are not qualified to try crimes on their own territory, and that US Military judges are not qualified to try their own people.

Firstly, there's nothing to indicate that either court will show favouritism.

Secondly, the idea of using an "international" court to try conventional criminal cases is in disagreement with thousands of years of jurisprudence. Traditionally, crimes are tried in the applicable jurisdiction, not in another.

Thirdly, there is nothing to indicate that an "international" court won't show favouritism. If the court was composed of a Syrian judge (who serves a-Assad), a Chinese judge (who serves the Chinese Communist Party), and a North Korean judge (who is the voice of Kim Jong Il), would you say its fair (incidently, none of this is to impune the integrity of the individual judges, it is simply that in these countries, the judge is the voice of the rulers of the state, and serve the interests of the state, rather than the law, or justice due to the nature of these particular states)

That you know of. It is basic logic to conclude when things like this go on especially in the military of any country, that if some are caught, it usually means there is many more who were not. As I said, given the recent torture of prisoners and finding out about the secret jails in countries where "suspects" can be questioned without the benefit of human rights protection, to me this type of behaviour by the American military is becoming more like a trend then isolated incidents.

Given any population of males over time, there will be rapes. Regardless of laws, enforcement techniques, etc.

Rapes by US soldiers have always occurred regardless of where they are stationed.

I remember when I was stationed in Germany, it was noted that our rape rate (number of rapes per 1,000 men) was half the rate of the German population - but given the press that you get from "US Soldier rapes German woman" - well, you get the picture.

I might also add that US soldiers have been convicted in UCMJ trials for rape, and sentenced to long terms at Leavenworth (the place is no picnic for military felons).

The US military has also held preliminary hearings, and on the basis that local laws are broken, have turned over US soldiers to local courts and prisons. There are US soldiers in Japanese civilian prisons today.

No Eut. You accused the UN as a whole... not UN troops or even individuals of committing those heinous acts. Now when someone accuses the US military as a whole you get (rightly) defensive. That is being hypocritical.

The reported incidents of rape involving US soldiers abroad are not isolated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1432691,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1414851.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1220673,00.html

But that still does not mean it is indicative of the US military as a whole.
As I recall, the post was about the behavior/performance of UN personnel in undertaking to resolve problems in Africa. The behaviors I listed were taken from reports about UN personnel in Africa over a relatively short period of time.

The incidents you list as indicative of how the US Marines behave took place over a five year period and not all of the incidents were accurately reported.

That sucks and if it is true (I don't doubt it is true because there have been a HIGH number of cases where soldiers have raped fellow female soldiers here in the US on base) I really hope they get punished big time.

You said an "international" court would negate any favouritism. I assumed you were talking about a US Court Martial, of a Philipenes criminal court. Perhaps you were suggesting that the Martian Court of Cool Justice might show favouritism?

Secondly, there is no such thing as an international court, everyone on that court comes from one or another of the world's nations. He is appointed by his government to serve his government.

Since no previous international court has done this, this is unlikely.

Your statement also suggests that the Philipinos are not qualified to try crimes on their own territory, and that US Military judges are not qualified to try their own people.

Firstly, there's nothing to indicate that either court will show favouritism.

Secondly, the idea of using an "international" court to try conventional criminal cases is in disagreement with thousands of years of jurisprudence. Traditionally, crimes are tried in the applicable jurisdiction, not in another.

Thirdly, there is nothing to indicate that an "international" court won't show favouritism. If the court was composed of a Syrian judge (who serves a-Assad), a Chinese judge (who serves the Chinese Communist Party), and a North Korean judge (who is the voice of Kim Jong Il), would you say its fair (incidently, none of this is to impune the integrity of the individual judges, it is simply that in these countries, the judge is the voice of the rulers of the state, and serve the interests of the state, rather than the law, or justice due to the nature of these particular states)
Again, i have admitted that such an idealized court would never exist, because a) there is no way to ensure a lack of favoritism, b) there is no way to eliminate a sense of belonging to a sepcific country, c) Even if the above 2 conditions were met, it is impossible to eliminate personal feeling and instinct in a judicial figure. A judge rules based on facts and what he feels to be the truth.

Also, i never implied that a fillipino court was unqualified to handle the situation. I was merely stating that military courts-martial might be used to determine the guilt of the accused. If they are guilty, they are punished, and perhaps released to Fillipino authorities so that they may decide a punishment in accordance with Fillipino law. Any shortcomings you think i am citing in either that U.S. or Fillipino Judicial systems is your own interpretation. The fact that i even suggest that either court would show favoritism is only because there is no government without some level of corruption, and that corruption could very well include part of the judiciary.

The incidents you list as indicative of how the US Marines behave took place over a five year period and not all of the incidents were accurately reported.


No, I posted them to show that those incidents WEREN'T indicative of the US military as a whole. I don't believe in tarring with the same brush. I only pointed out your UN post because it was relevant to 'tarring with the same brush'. ;)

You know we're arguing the same point, but just coming at it from different angles :p

Thank you for explaining. :)

Isn't that... a cop out though? You commit a crime on foreign soil- SURELY you are subject to the law of the land! Military or not.

You are. I forget the name of it. But if you commit a crime on foriegn soil. It was that way in the USAF. I dun know about the other branches though. But the USAF was very clear, you screw up off base, once the country deals with you prepare for some serious butt loving when you get back.

That you know of. It is basic logic to conclude when things like this go on especially in the military of any country, that if some are caught, it usually means there is many more who were not. As I said, given the recent torture of prisoners and finding out about the secret jails in countries where "suspects" can be questioned without the benefit of human rights protection, to me this type of behaviour by the American military is becoming more like a trend then isolated incidents.
Give it a rest already, will ya? The only thing that the cia and these Marines have in common are that they are all citizens of a country that you obviously loathe. It's apparent, and it just makes you look bitter, and small minded.

So by your logic, all Muslims are terrorists (seems to be a trend) all Liberals are pascifist hippy protestors (seems to be a trend) all Canadians are potheads (seems to be a trend) all Blacks are criminals (seems to be a trend) all Mexicans are illegal immigrants (seems to be a trend) all Woman are stay at home moms (seems to be a trend) RIGHT? Did I get the gist of your argument right?

Or do you just hate America(seems to be a trend), and you don't have ANY argument other than that?

She was an Enemy Combatant and they were just interrogating her.

The US military has also held preliminary hearings, and on the basis that local laws are broken, have turned over US soldiers to local courts and prisons. There are US soldiers in Japanese civilian prisons today.
Yes, that's how this things are usually handled. If the military finds enough elements to prosecute they will turn the soldiers over to the local justice. But if they also find that those soldiers won't get a fair trial or won't be afforded protection or will be in some other kind of danger, then they will carry a military trial themselves.

Either way, the case won't fall on deaf ears.

What I'm a little confused with is that they are being held in the US Embassy. Are they not subject to Philippine law, and therfore should they not be held in a Philippine police station/jail unitl the matter is dealt with?if an Philipino soldier was charged with rape while on the US...he would be at the Philipines embassy.

rite? of course not

She was an Enemy Combatant and they were just interrogating her.give them a medal.

give them a medal.
Pin it to their foreskins.

Pin it to their foreskins.

What if they don't have foreskins?

What if they don't have foreskins?
Then pin it through their meatuses (meati?). Actually, that'd probably work for all concerned. I revise my previous statement.

What if they don't have foreskins?then...pin it on their testiculeoes..
he says "tomatoes"...

What if they don't have foreskins?

Then it's straight into the urethra, through the corpora cavernosa and corpus spongiosum. Serves them right for being mutilated! ;)

(This was a joke. I oppose any sort of corporal punishment for any sort of crime.)

No Eut. You accused the UN as a whole... not UN troops or even individuals of committing those heinous acts. Now when someone accuses the US military as a whole you get (rightly) defensive. That is being hypocritical.

The reported incidents of rape involving US soldiers abroad are not isolated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1432691,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1414851.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1220673,00.html

But that still does not mean it is indicative of the US military as a whole.

Yes, soldiers from ANY country that do these things to civilians or even enemy combatants should appear before that countries court of law and follow their laws. It is funny too, that no one really makes a big deal if U.N. peacekeeping troops are raping woman in Africa, but makes a big deal if they are U.S. troops. Just an interesting fact......

Yet again, the US Military makes an ass of itself. *sigh*

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4403134.stm)
Please understand this is not intended as a justification or defence but merely some perspective.

If these 5 men were locals this would not have ever become an issue nor even reported since things like this are almost a daily occourrance in the region. Do I say that this justifies rape? NEVER! Am I saying I believe that these men did the rape, if there was even one committed? No! You must keep in mind that the possibility does exist that she tried to extort money from these men, or that she told them afterward that she was a prostitute, or that things got out of control, or that everything was fine until she got remorseful after the fact, or that it is exactly what she is saying it is.

My point is simple there can be no judgement by a bunch of anti-military numbskulls half a frigg'n planet away!

I based my statement on precident.

Hmmm Article 120 UCMJ:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

(there were 5 of them so they at some time probably stuck something inside of either her ass or mouth)
925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
(there are some subsections to this but i can't find them at the moment(actually this aritcle covers a shit load of stuff)



ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT

Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

ART. 81 CONSPIRACY

Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.






They would fall under all of these charges, and probably AWOL as well

ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

A good military prosecutor always has some Lesser included offenses in the charge. A lot of times, it is the UA (AWOL) charge or the Conduct Unbecoming charge that draws the conviction.

A good military prosecutor always has some Lesser included offenses in the charge. A lot of times, it is the UA (AWOL) charge or the Conduct Unbecoming charge that draws the conviction.

I thought about conduct unbecoming but i haven't read the article yet and didn't know whether any of them were Commissioned or Warrant Officers

since things like this are almost a daily occourrance in the region. WOW...you say they rape daily in that place? and you know this how? ... the possibility does exist that she tried to extort money from these men, or that she told them afterward that she was a prostitute, or that things got out of control, or that everything was fine until she got remorseful after the fact, or that it is exactly what she is saying it is. the possibility also exist that she raped the men :rolleyes:
My point is simple there can be no judgement...half a frigg'n planet away!Your point is that they cannot judge US citizens in other countries?

because their peoples may be antiwar?

Was that woman raped in the name of freedom? Was she a terrorist?

[QUOTE=OceanDrive2]WOW...you say they rape daily in that place? and you know this how? QUOTE]

Are you naive enough to think that rape doesn't occur in EVERY country on a DAILY basis? sigh.....

Believe it.

Well, given the recent torture and now just the other day finding out about the secret prisons the USA have been holding "suspects" in, it would appear to be more than just per-chance, it seems to be more like a trend.

Agreed. The US needs a total overhaul.

Great, the USA bashing has already started. Can you US-bashers name a country that the US should imitate?

Besides, the woman sounds like a prostitute. I don't want to sound mean here, but seriously, what normal women gets in a van with FIVE HORNY SOLDIERS unless she has a 'business deal' for them? Would any of YOU get in a van with five marines you don't know?
She, or the people who know her, are probably only calling it rape to protect her honor. But the odds are she was a prostitute.

And lets leave the idea of condemning the entire US military for what happened out of here. The US military is responsible for saving the free world. Read a history book and you'll see that. If it wasn't for the US, the Philippines would be a Japanese-speaking nation. And the natives would be dead or slaves. So one incident is not enough to say "THE US SHOULD DIE AND THEIR MILITARY IS FACIST!"

Great, the USA bashing has already started. Can you US-bashers name a country that the US should imitate?
Germany. Imitate Germany - it's probably the most peaceful military in the world.
Or Sweden, they're always nice. What about Switzerland - I've never heard something bad about Swiss soldiers.

I don't want to sound mean here, but seriously, what normal women gets in a van with FIVE HORNY SOLDIERS unless she has a 'business deal' for them?
Any woman who is grabbed by the arm and pulled into the van without her consent for example.
And besides, even if she was a prostitute, it doesn't look like they paid for it - so it's rape nonetheless.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about what to do to the bastards who do that shit in uniform than about how to make the other side look bad?

Neu Leonstein, except for Germany(which is only peaceful because half the world had to kill millions of the fascist nutjobs to make them peaceful), you have a good point. I like Sweden, and I know some very fine Swiss people. The US should be isolationist and peaceful. Unfortunetly, if the US does become like them, who knows what will happen. The problems of the world do not all spring from US foreign policy.

Anywho, you're also right that I shouldn't just blame the woman. The Marines are guilty. Either they're rapists, or they deal with prostitutes and don't pay them, which is cruel.
Now, we'll never know for sure what is true. The woman, even if a prostitute, will never admit to it. The Marines will claim she was.

So the whole US military should leave, and let the country fend for itself. Thats what they've wanted.

Let's try them via the facts of the case first. Innocent until proven guilty.

I have always believed that rape should be punished by castration - cuts down the repeat offenders.

This does not reflect on the military as a whole. Were they guilty, or not, I don't know. That is for the court to decide.

Neu Leonstein, except for Germany(which is only peaceful because half the world had to kill millions of the fascist nutjobs to make them peaceful), you have a good point. I like Sweden, and I know some very fine Swiss people. The US should be isolationist and peaceful. Unfortunetly, if the US does become like them, who knows what will happen. The problems of the world do not all spring from US foreign policy.

Anywho, you're also right that I shouldn't just blame the woman. The Marines are guilty. Either they're rapists, or they deal with prostitutes and don't pay them, which is cruel.
Now, we'll never know for sure what is true. The woman, even if a prostitute, will never admit to it. The Marines will claim she was.

So the whole US military should leave, and let the country fend for itself. Thats what they've wanted.



Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? What happened to letting a judge and jury decide a trial not what a newspaper article said which was pretty sketchy on the details. now don't get me wrong from the wording of that article i would have a hard time deciding guilt or innocense(god i'm so tired i can't spell) based on an anti-american newspaper article. Granted I know there are pro biased and anti-american biased news outlets, with the BBC being one of the most blatantly anti-american. I think I'll do what I did with Abu Gharib, ignore the News and read the CID report.

...Granted I know there are pro biased and anti-american biased news outlets, with the BBC being one of the most blatantly anti-american...
The BBC is anti-American? :rolleyes:

Germany. Imitate Germany - it's probably the most peaceful military in the world.
Or Sweden, they're always nice. What about Switzerland - I've never heard something bad about Swiss soldiers.


Any woman who is grabbed by the arm and pulled into the van without her consent for example.
And besides, even if she was a prostitute, it doesn't look like they paid for it - so it's rape nonetheless.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about what to do to the bastards who do that shit in uniform than about how to make the other side look bad?

You want us to imitate Germany? How about "no". Wait rewind; How about hell no. Sweden and Switzerland wow, let's imitate someone with almost a population of nothing, in comparison to the United States.

The US makes a mistake you jump on them like they invaded England, things like this happy everyday, civilian and military life. Soldiers do it, specifically US soldiers they get hounded, sure they are suppose to be disciplined but yet some bad get through the lines, in this case five US soldiers. It was a terrible thing to happen but it happens in almost every country every day.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about what to do to the bastards who do that shit in uniform than about how to make the other side look bad?

Don't bother. From the way Blackledge has posted, it looks like he's one of those misinformed "US alone is the saviour of the world" people who think that anything done by the US is perfectly fine. A US marine squad could butcher an entire village of people indiscriminately including the women and children and he would probably find a way to justify it.

In fact, I bet he would justify the My Lai Massacre too.

Besides, the woman sounds like a prostitute. I don't want to sound mean here, but seriously, what normal women gets in a van with FIVE HORNY SOLDIERS unless she has a 'business deal' for them? Would any of YOU get in a van with five marines you don't know?
She, or the people who know her, are probably only calling it rape to protect her honor. But the odds are she was a prostitute.


Whoa, hold up a minute there. Firstly, what right do you have to make that sort of judgment? They were coming out of a bar. When you've had a few drinks, your common sense tends to not be so great. Getting into a van with some guys she may have spent a while talking to inside might have seemed like a better idea than walking home in the dark, at the time. Who knows?

Secondly, even a prostitute can be raped.


And lets leave the idea of condemning the entire US military for what happened out of here. The US military is responsible for saving the free world. Read a history book and you'll see that. If it wasn't for the US, the Philippines would be a Japanese-speaking nation. And the natives would be dead or slaves. So one incident is not enough to say "THE US SHOULD DIE AND THEIR MILITARY IS FACIST!"

History books are extremely biased. Of course a US history book is going to be pro-US and pro-US Military.

And before you start going off about me being anti-American or anti-Military, let me assure you that that is not the case. While I am not a supporter of Bush, I'm an American citizen, and realize that we are privleged with our rights. While I will admit to being a peacenik, I respect our Armed Forces, for the most part.

You want us to imitate Germany? How about "no". Wait rewind; How about hell no.
Now, I want you to make a good case why you should not imitate the methods of the Bundeswehr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr) when it comes to assignments in foreign countries.

Sweden and Switzerland wow, let's imitate someone with almost a population of nothing, in comparison to the United States.
What has population to do with the methodologies employed in training and preparing soldiers for service in foreign cultures, and with military behavioural codes?

You know what keeps most dictators from extreme, in-your-face abuses these days? The US military. They are afraid of US invasion.

You know what keeps most dictators from extreme, in-your-face abuses these days? The US military. They are afraid of US invasion.
Name one.

Damn Bush given out orders for marines to go rape foreign women. where will he stop?

History books are extremely biased. Of course a US history book is going to be pro-US and pro-US Military.exactamente

Germany. Imitate Germany - it's probably the most peaceful military in the world.
Or Sweden, they're always nice. What about Switzerland - I've never heard something bad about Swiss soldiers.

LMAO

pre or post ww2 Germany? i think theres a reason they have a "peaceful" millitary now, maybe has something to do with theres alot of eyes watching them.

pre or post ww2 Germany?
What is it with you people that one cannot mention the name of this country without getting comments about the Nazis?
I don't comment about Slavery everytime someone mentions the US, right?

i think theres a reason they have a "peaceful" millitary now, maybe has something to do with theres alot of eyes watching them.
Ahem...sure. :rolleyes:

That must be the reason they always come crying to the Bundeswehr when NATO or the UN goes on foreign missions...and everytime it's weeks and weeks of fundamental discussions about the rights and wrongs of using the military.
Care to read the German constitution?
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html
Article 87a (Establishment and powers of the Armed Forces; added March 19, 1956.)
(1) The Federation shall establish Armed Forces for Defense purposes. Their numerical strength and general organizational structure shall be shown in the budget.
(2) Apart from Defense, the Armed Forces may only be used insofar as explicitly permitted by this Basic Law.

What is it with you people that one cannot mention the name of this country without getting comments about the Nazis?
I don't comment about Slavery everytime someone mentions the US, right?


Ahem...sure. :rolleyes:

That must be the reason they always come crying to the Bundeswehr when NATO or the UN goes on foreign missions...and everytime it's weeks and weeks of fundamental discussions about the rights and wrongs of using the military.
Care to read the German constitution?
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

and why do you think the millitary was written to be for defense only?, i dont know, hey maybe check with another country that has millitary for defense only, i think its JAPAN

Its almost funny. The reason america gets involved with everyone else is because WWII. If all the other countries had kept Germany and Japan in place, America never would have gotten involved in world affairs.
I wonder what it would be like?

I feel sorry for the girl. Everyones calling her a whore just because she tried to be with soldiers.

and why do you think the millitary was written to be for defense only?, i dont know, hey maybe check with another country that has millitary for defense only, i think its JAPAN
I don't doubt the reason for it - but if you want to look closely at the establishment of the German army, you'll find that it was the US who wanted it, most Germans however were against it.
At any rate, no one is actually watching Germany anymore, instead Germans watch themselves. It works much better, and it is an excellent way of preventing excesses like these - and that's why I think the US would do well to do the same.

I don't doubt the reason for it - but if you want to look closely at the establishment of the German army, you'll find that it was the US who wanted it, most Germans however were against it.
At any rate, no one is actually watching Germany anymore, instead Germans watch themselves. It works much better, and it is an excellent way of preventing excesses like these - and that's why I think the US would do well to do the same.
so you suggest the us just wash its hands of the world, drop everything it is doind and return to the us?, do you have any idea how many countrys will collapse, how many wars will break out of control, how insane the world will become?

im not saying the US makes the world sane or that the us runs the world, but what the US does do is defense, for alot of countries. for alot of people, it also has alot of programs of aid for these countries and people.

im not saying the US makes the world sane or that the us runs the world, but what the US does do is defense, for alot of countries. for alot of people, it also has alot of programs of aid for these countries and people.
Well, there is a way to do both things: Help Allies out and not have your soldiers behave like morons.

And that thing is: Peacekeeper Training! They're not there to fight, but I'd bet my arse that they didn't get meaningful instructions on the Phillipines, of the politics and the reasons for being there, or any of the rest.
They learned how to shoot, and how to drive tanks and all the rest of it. But I wouldn't think any of them could actually name any traditional Phillipino holidays, or actually speak tangalog.

I always thought that the US Military was neglecting that part hugely - and as a result you get those sometimes huge differences between areas where the US does the peacekeeping, and the areas where other nations do.

As for the rest of the post...I'll keep that in mind, but I won't hijack the thread anymore than I'm already doing. Suffice to say that a good number of the governments with US support aren't actually nice places themselves.

Well, there is a way to do both things: Help Allies out and not have your soldiers behave like morons.

And that thing is: Peacekeeper Training! They're not there to fight, but I'd bet my arse that they didn't get meaningful instructions on the Phillipines, of the politics and the reasons for being there, or any of the rest.
They learned how to shoot, and how to drive tanks and all the rest of it. But I wouldn't think any of them could actually name any traditional Phillipino holidays, or actually speak tangalog.

None of this would have stopped the alleged rapes, nor is it necessary to good peacekeeping (apart from the language). Australian troops are probably the most capable peacekeepers around, and they don't do this, they just talk to the locals a lot.

None of this would have stopped the alleged rapes, nor is it necessary to good peacekeeping (apart from the language)...
I would imagine that such training would foster understanding of the place, and therefore might make the soldiers think a little more before behaving in inappropriate ways.
I can't prove it, nor am I going to try, but I don't know how much the lack of understanding (both linguistically and culturally) contributed to this incident happening (if it did indeed happen, which seems to be the case, one way or another).

...Australian troops are probably the most capable peacekeepers around...
Well, that is a matter of perspective I guess...it's kinda hard to measure peacekeeping quality.

once someone joins the military they should castrate them so that they don't get distracted from their duty.

I would imagine that such training would foster understanding of the place, and therefore might make the soldiers think a little more before behaving in inappropriate ways.

If someone is inclined to rape, then such training can have no positive effect, it may even make things worse by giving people inclined towards rape tools to use to lure potential victims.

You don't need training to understand that rape is wrong, and no amount of training will make someone think it is wrong when they already believe they are entitled to do it.

You don't need training to understand that rape is wrong, and no amount of training will make someone think it is wrong when they already believe they are entitled to do it.
In cases of rape, of course.
I was more generally talking behaviour and getting the population to work with you rather than against you.

Name one.
Khadafi --- Libya. He dismantled his weapons programs right after we invaded Iraq.

Well, there is a way to do both things: Help Allies out and not have your soldiers behave like morons.

And that thing is: Peacekeeper Training! They're not there to fight, but I'd bet my arse that they didn't get meaningful instructions on the Phillipines, of the politics and the reasons for being there, or any of the rest.
They learned how to shoot, and how to drive tanks and all the rest of it. But I wouldn't think any of them could actually name any traditional Phillipino holidays, or actually speak tangalog.

I always thought that the US Military was neglecting that part hugely - and as a result you get those sometimes huge differences between areas where the US does the peacekeeping, and the areas where other nations do.

As for the rest of the post...I'll keep that in mind, but I won't hijack the thread anymore than I'm already doing. Suffice to say that a good number of the governments with US support aren't actually nice places themselves.
A military force is trained to fight and win wars. What is required is not duality, but another force that are trained as policemen. I don't think we were peacekeeping in the Philippines, however.

Five Marines are being held for the alleged rape (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/11/04/marines_accused_of_rape_in_philippines/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News)of a Filippina woman. The dormant brain cells in my mind have slowly been remembering similar schemes that were pulled on my troops when we were deployed to the Philippines. In fact, we had one Avionics Tech that wasn't allowed to leave the country because he found himself 'married' to one of the bar girls. We paid her a few hundred bucks and he was 'freed'.

MANILA -- Five US Marines who had participated in counterterrorism exercises were barred from leaving the Philippines yesterday, after they were accused of raping a woman in a former US naval base, officials said.

The article continues

The woman told investigators that she had met the six Marines in a discotheque at the freeport, where they had drinks. The Marines later brought her to their rented van, where she allegedly was assaulted, Calimlim said.

Tawana Brawley got the same sort of notoriety in the States before it was determined that she was lying about her rape. This whole episode is going to turn out the same way. If there was ever a government that would collude with an unhappy bar girl, it would be the Philippine government. Nice girls don't go to bars around Subic Bay.

If you have never been to Subic City, Olongapo, and the surrounding areas, you probably don't understand the situation. All you old guys, remember Marilyns? How do you explain playing smiles to a bunch of these kids without being banned? Remember Jolos? Another great place.

Anyhow, sex is a major contributor to the economy in the Subic Bay area. Every bar girl is 'really' going to school to become a teacher. And they're all twenty-two years old. Remarkable.

I suspect these Marines, being what Marines are, offered a bar girl a few hundred pesos each for her to do them all. She met them after work. Maybe she didn't live up to her end of the bargain, maybe they didn't pay. Either way, she got pissed off and used the rape gambit. In the old days, we would have just ignored her.

I call shenanigans. You made the last post in the other thread about this topic. Though I do suppose an entirely blank topic is a good way to protect the boys by accusing the alleged victim of something and pretending it is an impenetrable defense.

I call shenanigans. You made the last post in the other thread about this topic. Though I do suppose an entirely blank topic is a good way to protect the boys by accusing the alleged victim of something and pretending it is an impenetrable defense.
That one had drifted out of control. I think this is a valid way to re-focus the discussion.

That one had drifted out of control. I think this is a valid way to re-focus the discussion. You would.

...This whole episode is going to turn out the same way...That's a pretty rash statement. While I don't doubt that the Philippines are the way you described, that doesn't guarantee that this situation will be exactly the same, or that the girl didn't get assaulted.

There's already a thread about this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452305

Obviously he believes in innocent until proven guilty by casting aspersions of guilt on the other side to exonerate the other, regardless of whether it is true.

And on the darker side of things, using Myrmidonisia's story, perhaps the payment was made to make the charges drop, conveniently escaping justice by bribing their way free?

I bet he never thought of that.

There's already a thread about this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452305
Post number 2 in this thread, poster: Me.

That's a pretty rash statement. While I don't doubt that the Philippines are the way you described, that doesn't guarantee that this situation will be exactly the same, or that the girl didn't get assaulted.
Like I said earlier. Nice girls don't hang out at bars in the Subic Bay area. The economy of that area is driven by the wants of sailors and Marines. That means booze and sex. When one can walk into any bar and 'buy' a girl for the night for less than $20 US, it's not hard to realize it's not the most righteous area of the country. There isn't a bar girl there that wouldn't jump at the chance to make money and not split it with the bar. That's why it's so easy to meet them after they quit working for the night.

No, you guys are judging this whole situation through the lenses of civilization when you should be looking at it through beer goggles.

Post number 2 in this thread, poster: Me.
Y'all can complain about it here, have the thread merged, participate, or just ignore the whole thing.

No, you guys are judging this whole situation through the lenses of civilization when you should be looking at it through beer goggles.
And you are defending potential rapists on the basis that (a) they are American soldiers and can do no wrong and (b) on an incorrect assumption that due to the area being a prostitution area, rape doesn't happen.

Like I said earlier. Nice girls don't hang out at bars in the Subic Bay area. The economy of that area is driven by the wants of sailors and Marines. That means booze and sex. When one can walk into any bar and 'buy' a girl for the night for less than $20 US, it's not hard to realize it's not the most righteous area of the country. There isn't a bar girl there that wouldn't jump at the chance to make money and not split it with the bar. That's why it's so easy to meet them after they quit working for the night.

No, you guys are judging this whole situation through the lenses of civilization when you should be looking at it through beer goggles.
I'm not. Believe I understand what you're getting at. What I'm saying, though, is that not only nice girls get raped. Your scenario is quite likely, but it isn't guaranteed to be true, just very likely.

I don't think we were peacekeeping in the Philippines, however.

Which brings to mind an interesting question. Just exactly what ARE US forces doing stationed in the Philippines? I am given to understand that they do not have the same army limitation charter that the Japanese have, so the US is not obliged to provide the heavy armaments nor does it take part in constant joint-army operations. Other than another staging point from which to launch their forces when they choose to, what purpose is there to the continued stationing of US forces in the Philippines area?

Or Germany for that matter? Or any other area where they have bases on foreign soil that does not actually require their immediate presence and use?

The notion that because SOME Phillipinos might be looking to scam military personel doesn't mean that they all are.

Conversely, the fact that MOST military people are honourable doesn't mean that they all are either. Remember Tailhook? Some of the reports on treatment of female cadets at some of the academies?


How about instead of tossing around bigotry, racism, or anti-military sentiment we actually wait for the evidence, and - if neccessary - the trial.

The notion that because SOME Phillipinos might be looking to scam military personel doesn't mean that they all are.

Conversely, the fact that MOST military people are honourable doesn't mean that they all are either. Remember Tailhook? Some of the reports on treatment of female cadets at some of the academies?


How about instead of tossing around bigotry, racism, or anti-military sentiment we actually wait for the evidence, and - if neccessary - the trial.

I've been to Subic Bay. The line from Star Wars applies in full - you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

It's not safe for soldiers to be hanging out there, but they do. Everyone who goes in there at night knows they might be killed or abused. Not that I'm approving of the crime (any of it) - I would welcome and wait for an investigation and trial to see what happens. But there isn't any place I've been to in Europe or the US that compares.

Back when Cabrini Green was still standing in the rot of Chicago, I thought that was a bad place. But Subic is easily 1000 times worse.

I'm not. Believe I understand what you're getting at. What I'm saying, though, is that not only nice girls get raped. Your scenario is quite likely, but it isn't guaranteed to be true, just very likely.
It's far from guaranteed that what I say is true, but it's probably closer to the mark than the condemnation that went on in the other thread.

And you are defending potential rapists on the basis that (a) they are American soldiers and can do no wrong and (b) on an incorrect assumption that due to the area being a prostitution area, rape doesn't happen.
I think my view is a little less extreme than that. Sierra has chosen the proper metaphor for Subic Bay. We used to call it "Disneyland for adults", but I like the Star Wars thing better.

Every time I hear about a rape charge, I think of Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton.

Which brings to mind an interesting question. Just exactly what ARE US forces doing stationed in the Philippines? I am given to understand that they do not have the same army limitation charter that the Japanese have, so the US is not obliged to provide the heavy armaments nor does it take part in constant joint-army operations. Other than another staging point from which to launch their forces when they choose to, what purpose is there to the continued stationing of US forces in the Philippines area?

Or Germany for that matter? Or any other area where they have bases on foreign soil that does not actually require their immediate presence and use?
I believe that US forces are helping the Philippine government fight the Abu Saryf terrorists. I also believe either the article linked here, or in my post on the subject mentions some other sort of joint operations. Then, there are always liberty calls. We used to put into port in Australia very frequently.

I believe that US forces are helping the Philippine government fight the Abu Saryf terrorists.

How exactly? I don't remember reading any articles of the US troops actually being deployed as an active unit on the lines against the Abu Sayaf (not Saryf). Perhaps you have a link?

How exactly? I don't remember reading any articles of the US troops actually being deployed as an active unit on the lines against the Abu Sayaf (not Saryf). Perhaps you have a link?

It's been going on for years now.

I remember a SOCOM helicopter accident during an operation in Mindinao a couple of years ago.
http://www.groups.sfahq.com/1st/02_01_us_troops_arrive_to_aid_hu.htm

How exactly? I don't remember reading any articles of the US troops actually being deployed as an active unit on the lines against the Abu Sayaf (not Saryf). Perhaps you have a link?
From the link (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/11/04/marines_accused_of_rape_in_philippines/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News)in the other thread ...


The government expressed concern about the alleged crime, which was condemned by leftist groups opposed to the presence of US troops for training with Filipinos. The United States has been helping the Philippines battle the group Abu Sayyaf, which has been linked to Al Qaeda.

When we were stationed there, it was always the communist NPA group we were supposed to worry about. Turns out they used Olongapo and Subic City for liberty call, same as us. They probably visited the bars off Magsaysay, while we stuck to the main streets.

It's been going on for years now.

I remember a SOCOM helicopter accident during an operation in Mindinao a couple of years ago.
http://www.groups.sfahq.com/1st/02_01_us_troops_arrive_to_aid_hu.htm

A group of trainers? But I thought there were a whole lot more people than just instructors weren't there? Aren't the bases in Subic Bay and Cubic Point US run bases? So what are those ones for?

A group of trainers? But I thought there were a whole lot more people than just instructors weren't there? Aren't the bases in Subic Bay and Cubic Point US run bases? So what are those ones for?

The bases belong to the Phillipines (handed over a long time ago). We have Special Forces and Marine units residing there (a far smaller presence than we used to have during the Cold War) as they perform either combat operations or training missions against insurgents.

Compared to what used to be in the Phillipines, the US has token forces present at best.

http://www.subicbaypi.com/

I believe that US forces are helping the Philippine government fight the Abu Saryf terrorists. I also believe either the article linked here, or in my post on the subject mentions some other sort of joint operations. Then, there are always liberty calls. We used to put into port in Australia very frequently.

The US forces misbehave in Australia too, sadly. Some take too many liberties with the local female population.

The US forces misbehave in Australia too, sadly. Some take too many liberties with the local female population.

There's a brothel in Australia that caters to visiting US Navy aircraft carriers. I've heard that less than 50 women service over 3000 men in a very short period of time.

They make money, so I wouldn't call it "taking liberties with the local female population".

There's a brothel in Australia that caters to visiting US Navy aircraft carriers. I've heard that less than 50 women service over 3000 men in a very short period of time.

They make money, so I wouldn't call it "taking liberties with the local female population".

I live in Darwin where the US navy often turns up. Once in a while, you get a rape case where US sailors get carried away with one the local girls.

I live in Darwin where the US navy often turns up. Once in a while, you get a rape case where US sailors get carried away with one the local girls.

And I presume that over the course of the year, the local men never get carried away and rape a local girl?

It would be interesting to compare the number of incidents - per 1000 men in each population (and look at the age distribution).

There's a brothel in Australia that caters to visiting US Navy aircraft carriers. I've heard that less than 50 women service over 3000 men in a very short period of time.

They make money, so I wouldn't call it "taking liberties with the local female population".

When I was in Australia, there were quite a few brothels that catered to US servicemen. The non-working ladies there were also very 'friendly'. WHen I was standing quarterdeck watch, I recieved over a dozen calls from local women wanting to meet Americans and the memo board was full. I also met a number of ex-pats who had been given homes and jobs by thier in-laws to stay and marry thier daughters.

Most of the problems we had were w/ local guys as all the women were paying attention to the Americans and not them.

And I presume that over the course of the year, the local men never get carried away and rape a local girl?

It would be interesting to compare the number of incidents - per 1000 men in each population (and look at the age distribution).
How is this a defense? I'm sorry but the all-too-common "Hey look, the other guys are doing it too" defense of something is bullshit. Your not proving something didn't happen, hell, you're not even excusing it.

How is this a defense? I'm sorry but the all-too-common "Hey look, the other guys are doing it too" defense of something is bullshit. Your not proving something didn't happen, hell, you're not even excusing it.

The press that we get is that somehow, US soldiers are rape crazed, and are somehow doing something that the locals would otherwise never experience.

The press that we get is that somehow, US soldiers are rape crazed, and are somehow doing something that the locals would otherwise never experience.
Are you even paying attention or just typing?

Why are they even making a big deal of this? People get raped all the time in all sorts of countries, but we never hear about it.
This does seem like just another media attempt to cut the US down a bit.

And I presume that over the course of the year, the local men never get carried away and rape a local girl?

It would be interesting to compare the number of incidents - per 1000 men in each population (and look at the age distribution).

That's still no justification - rape is criminal offense in Australia regardless of the offender's origin.

Are you even paying attention or just typing?
I figured that you weren't paying any attention - just knee-jerk reacting to comments made by someone who doesn't share your political beliefs.

Why are they even making a big deal of this? People get raped all the time in all sorts of countries, but we never hear about it.
This does seem like just another media attempt to cut the US down a bit.

Welcome to NS General.

I figured that you weren't paying any attention - just knee-jerk reacting to comments made by someone who doesn't share your political beliefs.
You, and Myrmidonisia, seem to be making the point that because locals do it, or because they are military or the ladies are prostitutes, rapes never happen or don't count.

You, and Myrmidonisia, seem to be making the point that because locals do it, or because they are military or the ladies are prostitutes, rapes never happen or don't count.

No, I am making the point that we don't do it in any greater incidence than any other population of men with the same age distribution.

You, like most of the posters here on NS, seem to confuse my statements with a moral approval of the actions. You can't separate facts from emotions - at all.

It's called "compartmentalization". I suggest you look into developing the skill.

Yes, women get raped. Yes, it's horrible. But like any other human activity, you're not going to be able to do much more than minimize it - it won't stop - even if the US Navy sails away from a country forever.

I get the distinct impression you've never been to any hardcore place in your life. Or you would understand why this goes on (and why objecting to it on a moral basis is a private, and ultimately futile, matter).

I am objecting on no basis, other than to your attempts, and especially Myrmidonisia's, that other people do it too is a good excuse. It is irrelevant to the thread once you get past "It doesn't mean the US is making an ass of itself because rapes are fairly common.. blah blah blah." Instead, you continue to repeat yourself and not bothering to even allow for the fact that this might have happened. Rapes happen, this may or may not have happened, the fact that they are servicemen, or the woman may be a prostitute, or that locals rape women too does in no way marginilize the situation.

I am objecting on no basis, other than to your attempts, and especially Myrmidonisia's, that other people do it too is a good excuse. It is irrelevant to the thread once you get past "It doesn't mean the US is making an ass of itself because rapes are fairly common.. blah blah blah." Instead, you continue to repeat yourself and not bothering to even allow for the fact that this might have happened. Rapes happen, this may or may not have happened, the fact that they are servicemen, or the woman may be a prostitute, or that locals rape women too does in no way marginilize the situation.

Well, unfortunately, you are making the mistake that I am applying some moral judgment to the situation (saying it's right, wrong, or inexcusable, etc).

I try never to suffer from delusions of morality. That is when a person is most likely wrong - when they feel strongly that they are morally right and want to impose that on everyone around them.

You, and Myrmidonisia, seem to be making the point that because locals do it, or because they are military or the ladies are prostitutes, rapes never happen or don't count.No, no, no, no. I'm making the point that just because a rape is alleged, it isn't necessarily so. This sort of scam has been going on for as long as there have been soldiers. Maybe the girl didn't get paid, maybe she didn't hold up her end of the bargain. Maybe she did get raped. Now, we're back to the fair trial part. My guess is that this is all a shakedown, not a rape.

I am objecting on no basis, other than to your attempts, and especially Myrmidonisia's, that other people do it too is a good excuse. It is irrelevant to the thread once you get past "It doesn't mean the US is making an ass of itself because rapes are fairly common.. blah blah blah." Instead, you continue to repeat yourself and not bothering to even allow for the fact that this might have happened. Rapes happen, this may or may not have happened, the fact that they are servicemen, or the woman may be a prostitute, or that locals rape women too does in no way marginilize the situation.
"Forget it Jake, it's chinatown"

When I was in Australia, there were quite a few brothels that catered to US servicemen. The non-working ladies there were also very 'friendly'. WHen I was standing quarterdeck watch, I recieved over a dozen calls from local women wanting to meet Americans and the memo board was full. I also met a number of ex-pats who had been given homes and jobs by thier in-laws to stay and marry thier daughters.

Most of the problems we had were w/ local guys as all the women were paying attention to the Americans and not them.Interesting

No, no, no, no. I'm making the point that just because a rape is alleged, it isn't necessarily so. This sort of scam has been going on for as long as there have been soldiers. Maybe the girl didn't get paid, maybe she didn't hold up her end of the bargain. Maybe she did get raped. Now, we're back to the fair trial part. My guess is that this is all a shakedown, not a rape.

After skimming a few of the posts in this thread, I have to agree with you. A woman climbing into a van with 5 GIs she met at a bar says something right there. This is a scam that has been tried and exposed countless times. If she was raped then they deserve to be punished. But, on face value, I'm not buying it...and they probably didn't either.

Here it is some odd 4-5 years later, and this is the 1st I ever heard of the incident. I do know that rape in the Philippines is punishable by death. I wonder what became of the 5 Marines ? They should be held completely accountable for their actions

who are u?

shouldn't it be Filipina?

Here it is some odd 4-5 years later, and this is the 1st I ever heard of the incident. I do know that rape in the Philippines is punishable by death. I wonder what became of the 5 Marines ? They should be held completely accountable for their actions

I was there when it happened; I think the Marines were renditioned to the U.S., but nothing after that.

shouldn't it be Filipina?

Maybe...