home

100 Years in Prison, Not Really, For Soldier in Iraqi Rape, Murder

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:24:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

What a great headline for the Administration. One of the soldiers who raped an Iraqi girl and killed her and her family (background here) is sentenced to 100 years in prison.

Read the fine print. He's eligible for parole in ten years.

The soldier, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, also was given a dishonorable discharge. Sergeant Cortez will be eligible for parole in 10 years under the terms of his plea agreement.

...In his plea agreement, he said he had conspired with three other soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division to rape a 14-year-old girl, who was then killed with her parents and a younger sister.

The case made Last Night in Little Rock recall My Lai. TChris said it's an example of why the U.S. will never win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

It's good that the soldier was held accountable. This was an atrocity. And it's not certain he will be paroled in ten years. But a life sentence, it is not. Yet, four people died, including a young girl who was gang-raped.

I'm not feeling sorry for Sgt. Cortez.

< CA Spanking Bill Dies | Rethinking Draconian White Collar Sentences >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    100 Years in Prison, Not Really, For Soldier in Iraqi Rape, Murder | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'd like to read the fine print (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    can you link us to it?

    Sorry (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:39:54 PM EST
    What I meant was the actual military court docs, or whatever, all the newspapers are reporting on.

    Eligible for parole in 10 years seems ridiculous considering the crime.

    Sympathy.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    I can't muster much sympathy for the guy either...but what about the accesories to the crime?  Those that set the chain of events in motion.  If we weren't occupying Iraq, Sgt. Cortez or anybody else would not be in the position to commit such crimes.

    and if the perpetrators (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    parents did not conceive them and....

    Parent
    Denial is the key to life (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    Why not wear a sign that says "I cannot countenance a serious dicussion of this issue that in any way implicates our moronic, failed, murderous war in the nation where this heinous crime took place"?  Your remark is neither pertainent nor insightful, it's the kind of this excuses are made of.

    Parent
    Well you obviously fail to grasp the point! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:20:14 PM EST
     Point being that criminal accountability should not be premised on simplistic "but for" causation.

    Parent
    I get your point (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    but, I agree with Kdog's sentiments. Of course we have to hold individuals responsible for their crimes. And we also all understand that just because certain social conditions were pertinent to the personality and psychology of a criminal that does nto excuse him or her from being held responsible for the crime he os she committed. Although, it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

    But war is another situation and a unique experience. It can transform the personality of an individual drastically in a very short period of time. We are talking about youths given almost unlimited power to take life. There are rules of engagment, but in war many of these rules become muddled and in every war acts are committed that can only be described as criminal in the civilian world. More often than not, these acts go unpunished. Give a group of young men a rifle and unlimited ammunition, expose them to extreme violence and frightening experiences, send them into a population where the enemy is below human (insurgents and terrorists) but remain hidden among innocents and criminal acts will happen. Kdog was speaking of the ones who made the decision to go to war and accept that these criminal acts would inevitably happen for a cause that was not worth it.

    Parent

    all of that is true but... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:50:13 PM EST
      following the logic to its conclusion who would not be culpable? From the immediate superior to the commander-in-chief one could point to facts which establish "but for" causation. In fact, one could go far beyond the chain of command-- the legislators who voted for the war (or the legislators who did not do everything in their power to stop the war?. How about every citizen who voted to elect or re-elect the President or a legislator who supports the war?

      We are not talking about politics here we are talking about CRIMINAL liability. Concepts of direct and proximate causation and intervening acts must be employed otherwise -- seemingly coontrary to what most here desire in most contexts--- there is virtually no limit on the power of government to prosecute people for "crimes" and to deprive them of theirt liberty.

      A HUGE problem here is the inability or unwillingness to appreciate the consequences of what is advocated in one context when that exact same principle would be employed in a different context. (the whole law of unintended consuequnces deal. there is way too litle thinking going on and way too much emotional ranting.

    , the people who manufacture not just

    Parent

    Basically, (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    How about every citizen who voted to elect or re-elect the President or a legislator who supports the war?

    How about those citizens who did not vote for his election nor re-election, but also did not do what was necessary to stop him from engaging in nor continuing the war?

    Parent

    That little girl's blood.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:01:18 PM EST
    is on all our hands, no argument here.  Her blood and untold other's blood.

    I feel guilty at times I'm too wrapped up in my own life and survival to do something about it, like storming the White House.

    Cortez will pay, when do the rest of us?

    Parent

    Thanks for pointing this out (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:01:49 PM EST
    Concepts of direct and proximate causation and intervening acts must be employed otherwise -- seemingly coontrary to what most here desire in most contexts--- there is virtually no limit on the power of government to prosecute people for "crimes" and to deprive them of theirt liberty.

    For anti-war types, such as myself, emotions are often difficult to contain - but we try. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd like to believe that IF a President goes to war under false pretenses and justifiesit using manufactured and manipulated intelligence that this would be prosecuted aggressively by representatives of the people. Now, I agree, that this has nothing to do with the crimes a soldier commits during the prosecution of a determined illegal war and further, does not excuse the soldier from being prosecuted. I am just expressing my unity with Kdog in the frustration that one crime is agressively prosecuted and the other one is ignored or left to politics even though both crimes - if determined by the courts to be crimes - lead to the horrendous loss of life.

    Parent

    Thanks Peaches.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    I agree....Cortez will pay, the low-level Abu-Gharib abusers will pay....Bush and the gang never will.  That is frustrating as all hell.

    Parent
    I can understand that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    frustration. I do not agree with the assertion that Bush and his minions are "criminals" for starting the war but I can accept others' views to the contrary.

      What I can't accept is the idea that because he should be held criminally liable for starting the war he should therefore be held responsible for every crime committed during the war.

     

    Parent

    Wait a sec (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    You can get life for felony murder if some nut comes along and shoots a cop while you're in the backseat of the cruiser, but if you start a f*cking war then you get to wash your hands of the consequences?

    Parent
    kdog writes (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    If we weren't occupying Iraq,

    And if the dog didn't stop in the middle of the road to scratch, he wouldn't get run over.

    BTW - I read somewhere that he has agreed to testify against the others.

    Parent

    And so it goes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:38:31 PM EST
    squaky (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 07:37:44 PM EST
    In related news, the soldier who raped and killed a 14 year old Iraqi girl will be sentenced to life in prison.
    He is lucky. Most of us would have hanged him.
    [...]
    It is my understanding, based on information that I heard
    Well, that was wrong wasn't it. And to follow up this commenter claims:
    I read somewhere
    He heard, he read somewhere.

    Golly, hard to argue against such irrefutable facts.

    The facts are this soldier raped a 14 yr old girl, held her down while his buddies raped her and then helped kill her family. And he could be freed in 10 years.

    The difference between us is this. I have confidence we will investigate and do our best to find the criminals. And if they are US military, indict, try and convict.

    You don't. We understand that.

    What civilized people understand is that we don't lynch people. We also understand that eligible for parole in 10 years after gang rape and multiple homicides is a yet another travesty.

    And we also understand that if the media hadn't reported this the gov't would have never done anything about it. Heck they discharged the ringleader before it came to light!

    Like gitmo, like Abu Ghraib, like Padilla, like VA conditions at Walter Reed, the gov't was A-OK with those conditions until they were exposed.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    Yep. That's what I heard. That's what I wrote. Of course you claimed I lied. Want to apologize for that??

    And I also wrote this. Note the AP byline.

    squwaky (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 01:21:56 PM EST

    Speaking of justice, military and otherwise...

    "Soldier Gets 100 Years for Iraq Rape, Killin

    By ROSE FRENCH - AP"

    So what's your point??? I quoted accurately what I heard and quoted accurately what AP published.

    Oh, your point is that I heard something on the radio... read something by AP and noted it?

    Well, let's adopt your logic for a moment.

    All of the comments about Libby's guilt or innocence must disappear.

    All of the comments about Cheney's guilt or innocence must disappear.

    Matter of fact, all of this thread must disappear because the soldier in question may not be paroled in 10 years....

    And all the citizens of the US may not share joint blame....

    etc., etc....

    Sailor, you really should engage all of your mental facilities before you start typing.

    But you don't because you just want to find something, anything, to make a snarky comment about.

    Didn't TL ask you, and me, to be nice???

    Parent

    i didn't call you a liar (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:43:50 AM EST
    I let your words speak for themselves.

    Sailor, you really should engage all of your mental facilities before you start typing.
    again with the personal attacks.

    Parent
    Blame Game (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:15:46 PM EST
    If you want to start passing the blame around, how about we blame OBL for attacking us?

    Then we can blame Jimmy Carter for letting all this get started in '79...

    No, wait! It's the Soviet's fault for attacking Afghanistan that made us give weapons to OBL's happy  band of cut throats...

    No, wait!.....

    You know, I have never seen more BS spouted in my life..

    For the record. It isn't my fault and I refuse to feel guilty because some criminal commits a crime.

    For the record. The other day I posted that if it was up to me, I'd hang the guy.

    Excellent idea! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    If you want to start passing the blame around, how about we blame OBL for attacking us?

    How can we get this information to the president?  He went and attacked Iraq instead.

    Parent

    You too, RePack! (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    Well, you tell us that you fought in Vietnam. Now if you hadn't done that the military wouldn't have been so whacked out Reagan wouldn't have had to use Iraq as a proxy army to fight Iran...

    Look! Up in the sky! It's a black chopper!

    They're coming for you, RePack!

    Parent

    They had their chance and missed (none / 0) (#33)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:41:15 AM EST
    OBL wants me to fear him.  GWB wants us to fear OBL.  Why is GWB advancing OBL's policies?

    If OBL wants me to be afraid of hinm, the last thing I wlll do is grant his and GWB's wish.

    Since the odds aree far greater that I wlll be killed by a legally possessed handgun held by an American citizen than by a terrorist (and I'm not even too worried about THAT), terrorism is far down my list of crap to worry about.

    Parent

    RePack (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    I don't want to talk to someone who will soon be hiding from black copters...

    Parent
    Questions, questions (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    If you want to start passing the blame around, how about we blame OBL for attacking us?
    BTW, where is OBL?

    Why after saying 'dead or alive' did bush claim he 'wasn't that important?'

    Why did bush start a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

    Why is Afghanistan seeing a resurgence of the Taliban and having record opium crops?

    But mainly, and to bring the above commenter back on topic; why is this soldier eligible for parole in 10 years after gang raping a 14 yr old girl and murdering her family?

    That, actually, is why I'd love to see the (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    military court docs.

    ia(definately)nal, but from the linked article I wonder if the, I don't know, horrendous stress or whatever, that the soldiers were under was viewed as a mitigating factor?

    I'm not suggesting I think it should or should not be a mitigating factor in deciding his sentence, just wondering if it was.

    As an aside, I do wonder, though, why JM isn't congratulating this dude's defense lawyers as doing a good job for their client, as she seems to do on every other trial-type thread where the defense is at all successful...

    No answer necessary - we are large, we contain multitudes...

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    Could you please stay on target. This thread is how the US and all of western culture is to blame for this crime. Haven't you been reading kdog, peaches, etc????

    BTW - I think you said you were in the military...

    And I haven't the vaguest idea as to why the judge gave the sentence.

    Remember I wanted to hang him. Of course you got all excited over anything like that..

    Now you're excited over this.

    Could you just make your mind up?? My country, wrong or wrong, eh?

    Parent

    Group blame (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 09:39:37 AM EST
    Do you ever read the thread before you comment?

    Or do you just jump right in when you see my name?

    Try it. I have now identified that the thread is about the group blame of America and western civilization, as discussed by Kdog, Peaches, Squeaky, Sailor, et al...

    Actually it is Pope's fault. If he would just convert...

    Parent

    Hallucinating Again? (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    ppj aske Dark Avenger
    Do you ever read the thread before you comment?

    Or do you just jump right in when you see my name?

    Then ppj claims to say he knows what the thread is about:

    Try it.  I have now identified that the thread is about the group blame of America and western civilization, as discussed by Kdog, Peaches, Squeaky, Sailor, et al...

    Guess you should take your own advice.

    My comment was on topic and not about group blame etc.

    So back to my question: if, as you say, war crimes are to be expected:

    So why is there only one rape charge for the last four years?


    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 07:23:39 PM EST
    I'm sorry that your bud sailor dragged you into this. Please take your complaints to him.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 08:40:52 AM EST
    Nice try to avoid the subject.

    My question again.

    So why is there only one rape charge for the last four years?

    Sailor had nothing to do with your statement that rape is to be expected in wartime.

    Parent

    Squeaky, sailor quoted you, I didn't... (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:30:12 AM EST
    Let me see. Your complaining question is why there is only one rape charges.... read the post.. you might learn something.

    And I do love your implied complaint about only one rape charge. Disappointed are you?

    Brings something you wrote back to my mind.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.




    Parent
    Twisting again ppj? (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    Or is it squriming?

    You are misrepresenting me again. Not surprised, considering that is what you do here at TL.  

    Try it. I have now identified that the thread is about the group blame of America and western civilization, as discussed by Kdog, Peaches, Squeaky, Sailor, et al...

    Out of spin so soon?

    And if rape is to be expected in Iraq, as you say, why only one charge in four years?

    Parent

    Snitty rage? (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:34:56 AM EST
    Snitty rage at you? The only thing larger than your ego is your bad judgement in this matter.

    Parent
    Gee DA, that crtianly brings a lot (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    of light to something.

    But certaily not to this issue.

    You say tomato, I say potatoe...

    ;-)

    Do you spend much time keeping your archives up to date????

    ... "Counting flowers on the wall... that don't bother me at all...don't tell me.. I've  nothing to do....."

    Staler Brothes.. circa 1965??

    Parent

    There's probably other (none / 0) (#21)
    by bx58 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    similiar incidents which we don't know about. This is what happens in war. I think the number executed for similiar crimes during WW2 was about 200?

    And we weren't the barbarians.

    Rare (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    According to the lastst talking points from wingnuttia, via our echo-chamber portal poker player, this sort of thing is quite common during wartime. A thing to be expected.

    So why is there only one rape charge for the last four years?

    I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence for video-taping in a movie theater is more than ten years with no hope of parole.

    A thing to be expected. (none / 0) (#24)
    by bx58 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    Absolutely. Who knows what these guys have been through? They never should see the light of day, that's the way it works.

    Maybe if they screened these guys the way they screen judges in Florida we'd have less wanton killing and more wanton crying.

    Parent

    maybe if they screened these guys (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    "maybe if they screened these guys"
    As has been noted several times here, the military is dropping the standards, not raising them.

    This case, gitmo torture, secret prisons, locking up citizens indefinitley because 'we say so' & abu ghraib are not isolated events. They aren't a 'few bad apples.'  They are the predictable result of torture memos, signing statements and a pattern of unconstitutional acts.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    Yes, unfortunately when you cycle probably 200,000 or so men through an area you should expect some of them to commit crimes.

    Surely you don't think other wise.

    That's why we have JAG. (Don't you watch TV? Surely that showed you how bad the military really is. You know, evil people doing evil things, restrained only by the noble lawyers......did I mention they are also good looking and on once a week at....on channel...)

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#35)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 10:45:16 AM EST
    Yes, unfortunately when you cycle probably 200,000 or so men through an area you should expect some of them to commit crimes.

    Especially when you arm them to the teeth, show them by experience that the odds of prosecution for a crime against an Iraqi are pretty long, you demonize the locals, you lower your recruiting standards so a criminal history is no impediment to enlisting, and you put them in the position of occupying a country with no end to the mission in sight.

    Parent

    RePack - Quite a rant about the troops. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:22:15 AM EST
    Now, tell us how you support the troops. Them being so bad, etc.

    Parent
    Support the troops (none / 0) (#48)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    tell us how you support the troops. Them being so bad, etc.

    Of course I "support the troops" by wanting them out of harm's way.  I want to remove them from a meaningless cause which will certainly end in defeat.

    Funny how the dog-whistle meaning of "supporting the troops" in the right-wing nutosphere means making sure more of them get killed in the service of protecting Halliburton's profits.  Please do not "support" me in any such fashion, since I value my life and health.

    My reference was not to the troops as being responsible for the troops being where they are, under the conditions imposed on them, but those (like you) who "emboldened" the fools and criminals who put them there.

    Parent

    Repack (none / 0) (#49)
    by glanton on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    It is very clear what you are stating.  It is just so much easier to avoid the issue entirely than to meet it head on.  This is what "flag-wrapping" is all about.

    What I've been wondering about lately is how representational this avoidance continues to be in the public mind.  Jim claims that most Americans will blame the Iraq killings not on the invasion but on those who oppose it; he also claims that attacking those who give the orders is synonymous in the puiblic mind with attacking those who follow the orders.  

    To invade someone and say hey, if you just gave up there wouldn't be any bloodshed, so really it's all your fault.  And if everyone back home would get on board then there wouldn't be the bloodshed, so it's their fault too.  In fact, it's everyone's fault except those who order the killings.  

    According to this rubric the hand that signs the Order is clean.  Indeed, it is dignified, suited for black tie events and handshaking and libraries erected in their honor.  The hand that signs the Order deserves in old age to pat grandchildren and pen memoirs.  And when the hand is finally, tragically still (having come to rest in the comfrt of old age sleep, of course) there needs to be week-long funeral ceremonies and accolades from around the world.      

    It's very strange, of course, so much so that Orwellian really fails to cover it.    

    Parent

    RepPack - So what you want is for (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    them to not engage in battle.

    You don't support them. You just want to tell them what to do.

    Parent

    Appropriate punishment for a heinous crime (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    First degree murder IS a capital offense in the military.  But death is not and cannot constitutionally be a mandatory punishment for any crime, including the most heinous crimes.  To be a "capital offense" means that capital punishment is a possible penalty for the crime, IF the prosecutor elects to proceed capitally, and IF the judge finds a sufficient basis to allow that, and IF the jury at the sentencing phase chooses death as the punishment, and IF the judge finds the jury's verdict to be legally and factually justified.  Each of those steps involves (or should involve) a balancing of ALL mitigating and aggravating circumstances, not just the seriousness of the crime. Mitigation is not to be confused with excuse or exoneration, you understand.  A person held guilty of a capital offense, but with enough mitigation to prevent the imposition of the death penalty, will receive a very severe punishment, generally life imprisonment (with or without parole eligibility).  Mitigation can include the offender's age, lack of prior record of crime and other violent or antisocial behavior, mental condition, education, childhood trauma or other lack of socialization, prompt remorse and/or cooperation with authorities, and lots of other possibilities. The vast majority of people convicted of (theoretically) capital offenses are not prosecuted capitally much less sentenced to death.

    As for the sentence of 10 to life, that is totally appropriate.  It means he must serve at least ten years in prison -- a very long time -- before being even considered for release.  He may spend the rest of his life in prison.  There is no presumption he will be released after ten years.  That decision depends on a balancing at that time of the seriousness of the crime against his present dangerousness, remorse, rehabilitation, etc.  I wish more civilian sentencing systems were as humane and logical as the military's.  People change, and we learn new things.  We should therefore always be able to look at life sentences again, perhaps after a significant period of pure punishment, and ask whether society's interests are still being served.  There are far, far too many people in prison in this country without hope of release, on account of awful things they did in their teens or twenties.  

    Peter G (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 07:24:36 PM EST
    Thank you for your very clear explanation.

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    In Repack's statement:

    Especially when you arm them to the teeth, show them by experience that the odds of prosecution for a crime against an Iraqi are pretty long, you demonize the locals, you lower your recruiting standards so a criminal history is no impediment to enlisting, and you put them in the position of occupying a country with no end to the mission in sight.

    What does the subject pronoun "you" stand for?  Hint.  It isn't the troops.

    100 Years in Prison, Not Really, For Soldier in Iraqi Rape, Murder | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment