PDA

View Full Version : NY Times trying to provide footing for new law (HR 2640)


kermit315
01-13-2008, 10:31 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_us/killings_after_combat

NEW YORK - At least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have committed a killing or been charged in one in the United States after returning from combat, The New York Times reported Sunday.


The newspaper said it also logged 349 homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans in the six years since military action began in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. That represents an 89-percent increase over the previous six-year period, the newspaper said.

About three-quarters of those homicides involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, the newspaper said. The report did not illuminate the exact relationship between those cases and the 121 killings also mentioned in the report.

The newspaper said its research involved searching local news reports, examining police, court and military records and interviewing defendants, their lawyers and families, victims' families and military and law enforcement officials.

Defense Department representatives did not immediately respond to a telephone message early Sunday. The Times said the military agency declined to comment, saying it could not reproduce the paper's research.

A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, questioned the report's premise and research methods, the newspaper said. He said it aggregated crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to murder, and he suggested the apparent increase in homicides involving military personnel and veterans in the wartime period might reflect only "an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11."

Neither the Pentagon nor the federal Justice Department track such killings, generally prosecuted in state civilian courts, according to the Times.

The 121 killings ranged from shootings and stabbings to bathtub drownings and fatal car crashes resulting from drunken driving, the newspaper said. All but one of those implicated was male.

About a third of the victims were girlfriends or relatives, including a 2-year-old girl slain by her 20-year-old father while he was recovering from wounds sustained in Iraq.

A quarter of the victims were military personnel. One was stabbed and set afire by fellow soldiers a day after they all returned from Iraq.

Anybody else think they are trying to bolster the new law that was passed that both the NRA and the Brady bunch are calling a success? Seems like it is a "See, we were right, vets are dangerous" thing, although they dont directly call attention to the new law.

Am I just being paranoid?

hoffmang
01-13-2008, 11:52 AM
No, I think this is just an attempt to find some bad news out of Iraq.

-Gene

paradox
01-13-2008, 12:30 PM
A rather cynical take on the matter:

http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/Dead_Souls:_The_Pentagon_Plan_to_Create_Remorseles s_%22Warfighters%22/

bwiese
01-13-2008, 12:59 PM
The reporter's probably a liberal Vietnam draft dodger, or his spawn.

Gotta make those soldiers baby killing wife beaters!

CalNRA
01-13-2008, 01:05 PM
A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, questioned the report's premise and research methods, the newspaper said. He said it aggregated crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to murder, and he suggested the apparent increase in homicides involving military personnel and veterans in the wartime period might reflect only "an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11."

great, so if a moron steps out onto the freeway lanes in the dark and a veteran doesn't have enough time to react and runs him over, according to NYT it's the fault of the veteran, and in turn the War in Iraq?

Gotta love those New York Times idiots.

Army
01-13-2008, 11:53 PM
Did I read that right? They piled on murdered Vets as part of the 121 "crimes"? They were victims, yet they were added to a "bad deeds" list?

troyus
01-14-2008, 10:21 AM
I didn't read it the way you guys did when I saw this in the news (before seeing it here), I interpreted it more as the unaccounted cost of war, for a lot of veterans it just doesn't end when you go home for some who had to fight.

wilit
01-14-2008, 11:22 AM
I didn't read it the way you guys did when I saw this in the news (before seeing it here), I interpreted it more as the unaccounted cost of war, for a lot of veterans it just doesn't end when you go home for some who had to fight.

+1

I think this is a great illustration of how our VA system is f'd. Once your duty to your country is complete, you're left to your own devices to re-adjust to society. And if you have a real need for treatment, well, take a number and have a seat. Someone will be with you in 3-6 months.

This is an excellent opportunity for all of you to take a perceived liberal attack and turn it into a positive by writing your representatives and urge them to revamp the VA system.

RRangel
01-14-2008, 11:29 AM
+1

I think this is a great illustration of how our VA system is f'd. Once your duty to your country is complete, you're left to your own devices to re-adjust to society. And if you have a real need for treatment, well, take a number and have a seat. Someone will be with you in 3-6 months.

This is an excellent opportunity for all of you to take a perceived liberal attack and turn it into a positive by writing your representatives and urge them to revamp the VA system.

If liberals at the NY Times could be trusted with real news maybe that would happen. Their reputation is their own doing.

troyus
01-14-2008, 02:23 PM
+1

I think this is a great illustration of how our VA system is f'd. Once your duty to your country is complete, you're left to your own devices to re-adjust to society. And if you have a real need for treatment, well, take a number and have a seat. Someone will be with you in 3-6 months.

This is an excellent opportunity for all of you to take a perceived liberal attack and turn it into a positive by writing your representatives and urge them to revamp the VA system.

I would go one step farther and say our perception of what it means to go to war is f'd. I grew up surfing with a lot of Vietnam veterans, and even after all these years, 30, 40 years... these guys are permanently scarred by their experiences. No amount of time at the VA or re-integration with society is going to completely heal the wounds. I've never been a soldier in a war but have had some ****ty things happen to me and I still have nightmares sometimes.

I can't even imagine what those guys re-live when they go to sleep at night.

"Pre-emptive invasions" are imho unacceptable for a democracy to conduct. War is a last resort, you don't put your country into it on a 'gut feeling'. :(

1911A-1Fan
01-14-2008, 02:38 PM
A LEO shoots one person in a lifetime and gets paid administrative leave and counseling. We send YOUNG men to Iraq, they get shot at, blown to bits, they don't go home to their families at night, they live in terrible conditions, we make them serve extra tours of duty, and when their tour of duty is over they are discharged with no out-counseling or follow-up counseling or support?

We are surprised they are having problems? D'oh!

$70k a year, lifetime health benefits and retirement for an Oakland police person.

Our military personnel get squat.

RRangel
01-14-2008, 03:31 PM
It's just great how the NY Times pulls this garbage. Who said our servicemen aren't getting care? 121 cases out of near 1.6 million service members who have left service since the beginning of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq does not equal the problem they say it is.

The killings cited by the Times also include accidental homicides, e.g. vehicular. Sound familiar?

I hate to disappoint the NY Times and all the whiners, but reality doesn't fit the lefties world view.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40227&archive=true

Army
01-14-2008, 11:32 PM
Those with a proclivity for violence will commit it, regardless of service to country, or even if they were a Boy Scout.

I still do not subscribe to the "war damaged me permanately" PTSD hype. Yes, Soldiers do have mental troubles after being a part of such a horrible thing as war. But the REAL percentage of mental cases should be easily handled by the VA or others. Claiming PTSD for ANY action or thought after coming home is bull****. 16+ million in uniform during WWII, and by today's "standard", there should still be millions of crazed out, drug addicted 80 year old men and women on the streets.

I don't buy it one bit. The HUGE majority of in-country Vietnam vets NEVER saw any enemy, much less fired in anger. The HUGE majority of Vietnam vets went on to become sucessful and productive, raising families and loving the freedom they fought for. I don't buy the fatigue and boonie hat wearing "vet" weaping at the Wall, because he went on too many classified missions, and his PTSD is kicking in. Vietnam ERA vets that served in Germany, Japan, or anywhere else than actually in Vietnam are claiming PTSD, because they MAY have been sent.

horse****.

Some ITO and ATO vets are claiming PTSD, though they never left the states. Saying the possibility of going to a war zone has damaged them.

I'm not saying PTSD doesn't exist, it just isn't at the levels reported or claimed.
PTSD has become a stain on the honorable military service of millions of American vets past.