US soldier admits gang raping and murdering a girl

A second US soldier's plea of guilty to the gang rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her and her family has been accepted by a judge.

Sgt Paul Cortez admitted four murders, rape and conspiracy to rape. His plea means he will avoid the death penalty.

In November, Specialist James Barker, 24, admitted rape and murder over the killings and was jailed for 90 years.

Cortez broke down as he confessed to raping the girl as her parents and sister were shot dead in another room.

The case is one of several in which US troops are accused of killing Iraqis.

According to the plea agreement, Cortez admitted conspiring with three other soldiers, Private First Class Jesse Spielman, Specialist Barker and Steven Green, a now discharged soldier, to rape Abeer Qassim al-Janabi.

Card game

Pte Spielman and another man, Bryan Howard, are awaiting court martial on charges related to the attack.

Mr Green is being tried as a civilian because he was discharged from the army before his superiors knew of his suspected involvement. He denies the charges against him.

All five belonged to the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, which is also where the hearing took place.

In court, Cortez admitted the plan was hatched as they played cards and that the girl had been targeted because there was only one male in her house, making it an easy target.

Family murdered

He said: "During the time me and Barker were raping Abeer, I heard five or six gunshots that came from the bedroom.

"After Barker was done, Green came out of the bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were dead."

Cortez added: "Green then placed himself between Abeer's legs to rape her. When Green was finished, he stood up and shot Abeer in the head two or three times."

The entire crime took about five minutes and the girl knew her parents and sister had been shot while she was being raped, the hearing heard.

Source: BBC

Bush: After Iraq, Iran?

By Vincent Jauvert
Le Nouvel Observateur

Week of Thursday 25 January 2007

Intimidation or Strike Preparations?

The American president assured Jacques Chirac that he still favored diplomacy with respect to Iran. Yet indicators of war preparations against the Islamic Republic are increasing.

John Rockefeller is one of the best-informed men in the United States. The most important civilian and military officials file through his office. Chairman of the powerful Senate intelligence committee, he has access to most top-secret documents produced by the Bush administration. Ordinarily, this Democratic senator is not talkative. Yet, last Friday, he saw fit to confide in the New York Times. He is very worried about White House plans for Iran. "To be honest," he said, "I'm afraid it will be Iraq all over again."

He's not alone. Last week, several Democratic leaders rang the same alarm bell: according to them, the White House is secretly preparing America for a war against the Islamic Republic. Many specialists share their concerns. A former military professor, Colonel Sam Gardiner, is closely following the deployment of American forces to the Persian Gulf. He explains: "Soon there will be two aircraft carriers in the regions: the USS Eisenhower, which arrived several weeks ago, and the USS Stennis, which sailed January 16th." Yet, every time America has deployed two aircraft carriers to the region, bombing ensued.

There are other indications of war preparations against Iran. When, at the beginning of January, he presented his new battle plan for Iraq, George Bush announced that America was about to deploy Patriot anti-missile batteries in the region - probably the Gulf States. "Why is he doing that? What has it got to do with the war in Iraq?" asks Trita Parsi, a specialist in American-Iranian relations based in Washington. "The Iraqi insurgents have no ballistic missiles, so what good does it do to install anti-missile batteries? I can see only one reason: last year, Iranian officials let the Gulf States know that if America attacked Iran from their territory, the Islamic Republic would strike back at them. Consequently, Washington wants to protect them against such a riposte. [This seems to be] proof that an attack is being seriously contemplated."

That's not all. George Bush has just named Admiral William J. Fallon as commander of American forces in the Europe-Middle East region. Why an admiral for such a position, when the war in Iraq is a ground war? Several specialists see it as an obvious signal that the aircraft carriers will soon come into action against Iran. The same observers note that the number of American submarines crossing the Gulf has increased to the point where accidents with civilian vessels are on the rise. They also observe that after three years of slowed operations, the Incirlik American Air Force base in Turkey, close to Iran, is now operating at full capacity and that several F-16 are stationed there again. They add that the F-16 can carry the B61-11 atomic mini-bombs, the so-called "bunker busters," i.e. able to destroy bunkers - and consequently the nuclear installations Iran is hiding underground.

The White House intimates that all of that is only gesticulation, that the preparations have no other motive than to intimidate Iran, to force Tehran to give up supporting Shia militia in Iraq, and to demonstrate more flexibility with respect to the nuclear issue. At the Elysee, they say they believe this version. "In September, George Bush repeated to Jacques Chirac that, with respect to the Iranian matter, he did not favor the military route, but diplomacy," an adviser to the French president explains. "We think he is still of the same mind." A great many American politicians, including Republicans, are not so optimistic. They think that in spite of the Iraqi quagmire - or perhaps because of it - George Bush has decided to dispose of the "Iranian threat," alone or with Israel; that he wants to go down in history as the one who rid the West of the devil Ahmadinejad. Alarmed by the sound of boots, several senators are looking for a way to prevent such a catastrophic scenario. Some even intend to adopt a law prohibiting the president from starting a nuclear war against Iran without Congress's approval. And they want to act quickly.

Because it's becoming urgent. "The military preparations will be complete by the end of February," Colonel Gardiner explains. And this timing is in no way coincidental. Several casus belli will offer themselves at that time. First, the deadline given Iran to execute Security Council Resolution 1737 will be up at that time. Second, Russia will deliver nuclear fuel for the Busher reactor in Iran - which could, after use, serve to manufacture an atomic weapon. Finally, Ahmadinejad will probably announce that the 3,000 Natanz centrifuges have begun uranium enrichment: a point of no return in the race to the bomb, assert the Israeli hawks and neo-conservatives close to Bush - who are burning for a fight.

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012607G.shtml