Killers Coming Home?

[Annie]

I noticed the headlines on the right bar and clicked on the one titled:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_us/killings_after_combat

AP
Report: 121 veterans linked to killings

After reading a bit, I thought, this sounds weird, it's seems the only purpose is to label the returning vets as, 'killers.'

Just didn't sound right. Yet I'm not interested enough to find the stats and then have someone disagree if they didn't work out. Luckily someone else did:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/the_media_does_it_again.php

From the October 1, 2001 start of the Afghanistan war, that's about 26,000 troops/month. To date (Jan 2008) that would give about 1.99 million.

That means that the NY Times 121 murders represent about a 7.08/100,000 rate.

Now the numbers on deployed troops are probably high - fewer troops from 2001 - 2003; I'd love a better number if someone has it.

But for initial purposes, let's call the rate 10/100,000, about 40% higher than the calculated one.

Now, how does that compare with the population as a whole?

Turning to the DoJ statistics, we see that the US offender rate for homicide in the 18 - 24 yo range is 26.5/100,000.For 25 - 34, it's 13.5/100,000.

See the problem?

Damn, is it that hard for reporters and their editors to provide a little bit of context so we can make sense of the anecdotes? It's not in Part 1 of the article. And I'll bet it won't be in the future articles, either.

Because it's not part of the narrative of how our soldiers are either depraved or damaged.

The NY Times Public Editor can be reached at [email protected].

 

[Annie]

Looks like another has noticed too:

http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003612.html

...The first installment, 6253 words, is a considerable investment of ink, with more to come, by the New York Times to create negative impressions of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and by extension the missions they served....

...The NYT’s does offer this: “The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, to 349 cases from 184, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the American homicide rate has been, on average, lower.”

To which the Pentagon offers this:” Colonel Melnyk questioned the validity of comparing prewar and wartime numbers based on news media reports, saying that the current increase might be explained by “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.” He also questioned the value of “lumping together different crimes such as involuntary manslaughter with first-degree homicide.” I'm sure the Pentagon had more to say, much of it unpublishable for polite company.

In short, the NYT’s has no serious methodology but a serious agenda.

The few stories the NYT’s presents, however colored for effect, are tragedies. But the greater tragedy is that we have to suffer the NYT’s agenda of defamation of another generation of veterans...

UPDATE: Army Replies To NYT's

Army spokesman Paul Boyce told Reuters in an e-mail that Army statistics "show little or no increases in positive drug use, driving under the influence crimes or domestic abuse in the past years among the more than 300,000 soldiers who have deployed in this war."...

Boyce said the newspaper's statistics "appear to be based on a basic review of American newspaper crime stories from 2004 to 2006, rather than statistics provided by the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense, or even any interviews with military medical or judicial professionals."​

 

[Taomon]

I noticed the headlines on the right bar and clicked on the one titled:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_us/killings_after_combat

After reading a bit, I thought, this sounds weird, it's seems the only purpose is to label the returning vets as, 'killers.'

Just didn't sound right. Yet I'm not interested enough to find the stats and then have someone disagree if they didn't work out. Luckily someone else did:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/the_media_does_it_again.php

[/COLOR]

I work for a bio-tech. They have an MS drug on the market that works great and requires weekly injections. They created a stronger version that requires a monthly intravenous injection by a doctor. For many patients it was miraculous because some were able to walk again and enjoy life.

The company tested the drug before releasing it as is required by Federal law. However, the drug causes one side effect in a very minute portion of the population taking the drug. It causes a very rare disease that killed two patients.

Now according to Medscape about 350,000 Americans have been diagnoses with MS: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/503246_7

That is a relatively small percentage of Americans (but that is a lot of people). Only a portion of those patients take the drugs manufactured by my company. Of them a smaller portion (less than 1%) are susceptible to contacting the rare disease. Two deaths out of a few thousand patients who took the new drug.

My company pulled the drug and notified the FDA. Compare that to a company like Phizer who would say that the percentage is small so let it run until a complaint is lodged by a patient or their family.

The whole point is that even though the percentage of veterans returning harm who become killers is small (not a new phenomena), those few soldiers can cause the death a many innocent people.

Plus, you made it quite clear that you wanted stats that made the threat appear smaller. Stats are funny that way; how you present them determines the outcome.

 

[William Joyce]

The Times wants to remind its readership that The military is a bad thing. Soldiers are bad people. War is heck.

And so on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I work for a bio-tech. They have an MS drug on the market that works great and requires weekly injections. They created a stronger version that requires a monthly intravenous injection by a doctor. For many patients it was miraculous because some were able to walk again and enjoy life.

The company tested the drug before releasing it as is required by Federal law. However, the drug causes one side effect in a very minute portion of the population taking the drug. It causes a very rare disease that killed two patients.

Now according to Medscape about 350,000 Americans have been diagnoses with MS: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/503246_7

That is a relatively small percentage of Americans (but that is a lot of people). Only a portion of those patients take the drugs manufactured by my company. Of them a smaller portion (less than 1%) are susceptible to contacting the rare disease. Two deaths out of a few thousand patients who took the new drug.

My company pulled the drug and notified the FDA. Compare that to a company like Phizer who would say that the percentage is small so let it run until a complaint is lodged by a patient or their family.

The whole point is that even though the percentage of veterans returning harm who become killers is small (not a new phenomena), those few soldiers can cause the death a many innocent people.

Plus, you made it quite clear that you wanted stats that made the threat appear smaller. Stats are funny that way; how you present them determines the outcome.

You have called our troops terrorists, murderers and worse, your bias on THIS issue is clear. FACTS are not manipulated and the FACT is there is no way to prove any claim since no one keeps track of information in this manner. Basing a supposed "study" on articles in the press does not work since there is no way to know if every story, especially before 9/11 actually reported any relation to the military.

 

[pegwinn]

A small percentage of troops returning home to commit murder is unfortunate. It is also a pattern that followed every war we've ever been in. Only the labels have changed.

It's not like the NYT could have mentioned that either.

 

[Annie]

A small percentage of troops returning home to commit murder is unfortunate. It is also a pattern that followed every war we've ever been in. Only the labels have changed.

It's not like the NYT could have mentioned that either.

Actually I think it more likely that young men in general are more likely to murder than other groups. The military consists overwhelmingly of young men, one could conclude therefore that there would be murders committed by enlisted men and recently retired vets. There are, but indeed, they may do so at a lower rate than young men who have not served in the military.

Actually the point of the piece seemed to be that because of their training and exposure to violence, they would be more prone to murder. There was no consideration of the discipline most of these young men had learned and followed, for varying amounts of time. The later in all likelihood, makes the lower rate more likely, if taken into consideration.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn
A small percentage of troops returning home to commit murder is unfortunate. It is also a pattern that followed every war we've ever been in. Only the labels have changed.

It's not like the NYT could have mentioned that either.

Actually I think it more likely that young men in general are more likely to murder than other groups. The military consists overwhelmingly of young men, one could conclude therefore that there would be murders committed by enlisted men and recently retired vets. There are, but indeed, they may do so at a lower rate than young men who have not served in the military.

Actually the point of the piece seemed to be that because of their training and exposure to violence, they would be more prone to murder. There was no consideration of the discipline most of these young men had learned and followed, for varying amounts of time. The later in all likelihood, makes the lower rate more likely, if taken into consideration.

I was thinking more of combat vets. After you've pulled the trigger enough, the idea isn't so scary and the act isn't hard. Add that to battle fatigue, shell shock, PTSD or any other label and I think you will see what I was driving at.

Too bad the NYT chose the easy route. Lazy reporter or biased editor.

 

[Annie]

I was thinking more of combat vets. After you've pulled the trigger enough, the idea isn't so scary and the act isn't hard. Add that to battle fatigue, shell shock, PTSD or any other label and I think you will see what I was driving at.

Too bad the NYT chose the easy route. Lazy reporter or biased editor.

I wonder though Pegwinn, it would be interesting study for some military sociologist.

 

[Taomon]

You have called our troops terrorists, murderers and worse, your bias on THIS issue is clear. FACTS are not manipulated and the FACT is there is no way to prove any claim since no one keeps track of information in this manner. Basing a supposed "study" on articles in the press does not work since there is no way to know if every story, especially before 9/11 actually reported any relation to the military.

Actually, I wasn't choosing sides in this matter. I gave an example of percentages and what they mean to different people. You are the one trying to find something to make the percentage smaller as stated in your first post.

You seemed to ignore the fact that I stated that all wars have produced a minority of men who became killers and a larger group of men who became violent in other was (abusive husband/fathers, addiction, suicide, etc).

And on many occasions I have also said that the veterans should have free or affordable housing for life. There should never be a homeless veteran, especially in a time of war.

Yes, I have spoken out against the war and our aggression. These are facts that you choose to turn a blind eye to.

 

[Annie]

Actually, I wasn't choosing sides in this matter. I gave an example of percentages and what they mean to different people. You are the one trying to find something to make the percentage smaller as stated in your first post.

You seemed to ignore the fact that I stated that all wars have produced a minority of men who became killers and a larger group of men who became violent in other was (abusive husband/fathers, addiction, suicide, etc).

And on many occasions I have also said that the veterans should have free or affordable housing for life. There should never be a homeless veteran, especially in a time of war.

Yes, I have spoken out against the war and our aggression. These are facts that you choose to turn a blind eye to.

If war is the 'producer of killers' why do others do so? How do you know those with military background would not have been killers if they hadn't served? Your cause and effect, like the original article, are flawed.

 

[Taomon]

If war is the 'producer of killers' why do others do so? How do you know those with military background would not have been killers if they hadn't served? Your cause and effect, like the original article, are flawed.

Therein lies the problem. I actually think it is based on a person's fragile psyche. Look at the experience of being in the military, boot camp breaks you down and rebuilds you.

Now in stronger people, like gunny, this is a good thing. In someone who is not wired correctly, this can cause all kinds of underlying issues to surface, which is what the first half of Full Metal Jacket is about.

War, which is a very long series of violent interactions is also harmful to a fragile psyche. Not everyone can handle it afterwards. Yes, I agree that it depends on the person's personal makeup that determine if they become a killer or abusive. But the military experience can trigger that more effectively than say, a tragic experience.

Basically, not everyone is cut out for combat and even gunny will agree with that. But there are not many precursors. The military, for their credit will try and catch as many bad seeds as possible. But sometimes a few slip through the cracks.

Sometimes those nightmares from combat become more vivid and suffocating when dealing with the real world and the many pressures it brings.

 

[Annie]

Therein lies the problem. I actually think it is based on a person's fragile psyche. Look at the experience of being in the military, boot camp breaks you down and rebuilds you.

Now in stronger people, like gunny, this is a good thing. In someone who is not wired correctly, this can cause all kinds of underlying issues to surface, which is what the first half of Full Metal Jacket is about.

War, which is a very long series of violent interactions is also harmful to a fragile psyche. Not everyone can handle it afterwards. Yes, I agree that it depends on the person's personal makeup that determine if they become a killer or abusive. But the military experience can trigger that more effectively than say, a tragic experience.

Basically, not everyone is cut out for combat and even gunny will agree with that. But there are not many precursors. The military, for their credit will try and catch as many bad seeds as possible. But sometimes a few slip through the cracks.

Sometimes those nightmares from combat become more vivid and suffocating when dealing with the real world and the many pressures it brings.

You are not addressing any of my points.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are not addressing any of my points.

Of course he isn't.

 

[Taomon]

You are not addressing any of my points.

Actually, I did you just don't like what I have to say. You asked me how I would know if the military causes killers and I answered it.

I stated this time and again on the homosexuality threads. The human mind is far too complex to generalize. You are looking for a way to make the military and/or soldiers free from culpability and those types of guarantees (although noble) are not available.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, I did. You asked me how I would know if the military causes killers and I answered it.

I stated this time and again on the homosexuality threads. The human mind is far too complex to generalize. You are looking for a way to make the military and/or soldiers free from culpability and those types of guarantees (although noble) are not available.

You can NOT provide proof that the military is the sole cause of their murdering others. Thus your whole premise fails to be valid.

 

[Taomon]

You can NOT provide proof that the military is the sole cause of their murdering others. Thus your whole premise fails to be valid.

And I did not state ever, that the military is the sole cause of killers. What is your problem? Do you see my name and then look for a reason to argue? Next time, try reading what I wrote.

 

[Annie]

You can NOT provide proof that the military is the sole cause of their murdering others. Thus your whole premise fails to be valid.

Correct, moreso he argued the military causes killings from some of those that served. I asked how he arrived at that, no answer. One would have to prove they would not have murdered, if they had NOT served. The cause if flawed, in the cause and effect he's arguing.

 

[Annie]

And I did not state ever, that the military is the sole cause of killers. What is your problem? Do you see my name and then look for a reason to argue? Next time, try reading what I wrote.

Actually you did imply if not explicit. You spoke of how their psyches were traumatized, they were not strong of mind, like a GunnyL.

That wasn't the issue.

 

[Taomon]

Correct, moreso he argued the military causes killings from some of those that served. I asked how he arrived at that, no answer. One would have to prove they would not have murdered, if they had NOT served. The cause if flawed, in the cause and effect he's arguing.

Every war has had longterm casualties. Are you denying the shell shocked of WWI and WWII? Are you denying the syndromes that came out of Vietnam and both gulf wars?

There is a small minority of veterans who come back psychotic, violent and angry. The DC Sniper was in the Guard and then the Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad

Charles Whitman was a Marine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

There are many others. I have clearly stated that the human mind is far too complex to generalize but that the weak psyche of some individuals cannot handle the stress of military training and/or combat.

But the stats remain, there are killers and violent abusers (physical, psychological and sexual) who emerge from the military and every war.