Rape and the "Civilized" World

K

In truth, I can't tell whether you whiffed the setup, fanned the punch line, or simply tried switching your stance mid-count and ended up taking the strike.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dark Night of the Soul: Does It Really Come To This?

Dark Night of the Soul: Does It Really Come To This?

"Just last night, a woman came to me and said her daughter wanted to join the military and could I give my unqualified support for her doing so. I could not."

—Sen. John McCain​

The first wave of response to Sen. John McCain's comments during an Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday includes some to the left of center sharpening their proverbial knives. At the same time, it is actually tempting to agree with him. Part of that, of course, is the question of the armed service. For some, it doesn't need to be a woman asking about her daughter; that is, anyone who actually wants to join today's armed services ought to be disqualified for psychiatric reasons.

For others, well, that's the thing. While it is true the military is not your normal workplace, it seems problematic to prescribe this particular sexual assault prevention technique: Stay out of the sector.

But before the liberals begin slicing and dicing, it is worth noting that McCain has not fallen back to a regular Good Ol' Boy stance. Senator Women-Love-Gorilla-Rape actually ended up making a relevant point:

Sen. John McCain, who built a potent political career on his record as a Vietnam veteran and ex-prisoner of war, on Tuesday told the leaders of every military branch he cannot in good conscience advise women to join the service as the military grapples to contain and curb its sexual assault epidemic.

"Just last night, a woman came to me and said her daughter wanted to join the military and could I give my unqualified support for her doing so. I could not," McCain, an Arizona Republican, said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing examining whether all serious sexual crimes should be removed from the chain of command.

"At its core, this is an issue about defending basic human rights but it's also a long-term threat to the strength of our military. We have to ask ourselves: if left uncorrected, what impact will this problem have on recruitment and retention of qualified men and women?" McCain asked. "I cannot overstate my disgust and disappointment over continued reports of sexual misconduct in our military. We’ve been talking about this issue for years and talk is insufficient."

(Briggs)​

And this in the wake of hearings this week that included military commanders insisting to Congress that the power to decide who gets charged for raping their fellow service members, and whether those found guilty should be punished at all, in the hands of individual military officers.

So perhaps before we leap to the most obvious criticism, we might consider the possibility of a splitting the hair.

It's not that I don't get Megan Seling's point—

John McCain's Genius Solution to End Sexual Assaults Against Women in the Military: If you're a woman, just don't join the military. Problem solved. Thanks, Maverick!​

—because, left as such, and given the Arizona Republican's history of dumb-assed attitudes toward women one can understand the temptation to keep it so simple, yes, that's approximately the right response.

But at the same time, McCain is also also:

• Asserting the human rights stake

• Asserting the corrosive effects of the behavior

• Acknowledging the fact that this is not a new problem

• Expressing his disgust at the failure to address the problem appropriately in the past

• Demanding some substantially transformative address of the problem​

And coming from a guy who divorced a wife because she wasn't pretty enough after an auto accident, got a marriage license to his heiress second wife while he was still married to the not pretty enough wife, and even once told a joke about how women like being savagely raped by animals, hey, I'm going to call it a step forward.

He has plenty of time to prove his insensitivity yet again; I say it's okay this time to take what we can get.

Perhaps I would be a bit more deliberate in my sarcasm, but yes, I get the point, and I think it's a good one: This sucks, we've screwed it up badly, and, really, the smartest thing to do is probably stay the hell away until we've fixed it. Perhaps the only thing that would make it better is if the senior senator from Arizona, who has long been part of the legislative bodies aware of the problem but reluctant to fix it, could tack some form of, "And, yeah, sorry 'bout that," onto the end.

Of course this isn't the solution. But that's the point. This is the situation we have made, and if we must accept the possibility that yes, it really does come to this, well, that pretty much is a testament unto itself. I mean, let us consider the point:

Summoned to Capitol Hill, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the beribboned four-star chiefs of the service branches conceded in an extraordinary hearing that they had faltered in dealing with sexual assault. One said assaults were "like a cancer" in the military.

But they strongly opposed congressional efforts to strip commanders of their traditional authority to decide whether to level charges in their units.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, especially the panel's seven female senators, grilled the chiefs about whether the military's mostly male leadership understands differences between relatively minor sexual offenses and serious crimes that deserve swift and decisive justice.

"Not every single commander necessarily wants women in the force. Not every single commander believes what a sexual assault is. Not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape because they merge all of these crimes together," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. ....

.... Dempsey and the service chiefs warned against making the dramatic changes called for in Gillibrand's legislation. Removing commanders from the military justice process, Dempsey said, would undercut their ability to preserve good order and discipline in their units.

"We cannot simply legislate our way out of this problem," said Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff. "Without equivocation, I believe maintaining the central role of commander in our military justice system is absolutely critical to any solution."

(Associated Press)​

It is important to the preservation of good order and discipline to leave in place a system that has unquestionably failed to preserve good order and discipline? Really? I mean, that is the argument against?

So before we begin to slice and dice, it is important to consider what Sen. McCain was referring to. The brass have made it self-evident that enlisting in the armed services requires extraordinary risks for women, and those on top of the extraordinary risks any service member agrees to undertake. They have made it self-evident that these risks will persist in the foreseeable future.

There is a strong practical argument in favor of McCain's statement.

But that, in itself, is the problem. Yet, the senator also points to the human rights aspect. While it may be true that there is a strong practical argument in favor of McCain's point, that point is the human rights issue that must be solved.

Knives out from some of my ideological fellows; I must dissent. Even if he wasn't an old, misogynist bastard, McCain sort of nailed the problem as squarely as one can.

What happened on Tuesday in the Senate Armed Services Committee is an embarrassment to the services, a denigration of our society, and an acutely resolved snapshot of just how dangerous the situation really is. While it is functionally impractical to relieve every one of those commanding officers, that is what should happen.
____________________

Notes:

Briggs, Bill. "John McCain: Women should avoid military service until sexual misconduct crisis solved". NBC News. June 4, 2013. USnews.NBCNews.com. June 6, 2013. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...service-until-sexual-misconduct-crisis-solved

Seling, Megan. "The Morning News: Someone Heckles Michelle Obama, Dzhokhar Gets to Call Home, and John McCain Is a Genius (Not Really, Though)". Slog. June 5, 2013. Slog.TheStranger.com. June 6, 2013. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...and-john-mccain-is-a-genius-not-really-though

Associated Press. "Senators Blast Military Response To Sex Assaults". National Public Radio. June 4, 2013. NPR.org. June 6, 2013. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=188542801

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Silver Linings Still Hollow

You Might Think ....

Perhaps you might think that, despite having stumbled headlong into one of the most idiotic controversies it could have ever achieved, an institution might see where it stands and at least pretend that it intends to do something constructive about the unfortunate situation. But if you're among those to whom that outcome sounds remotely reasonable, well, you're also among those who are wrong.

As tempting as it might be to point out the obvious—Well, it is North Carolina—that is insufficient.

Tyler Kingkade explains:

After an external review, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill announced Thursday that it dropped a school honor court charge against Landen Gambill, a student who was accused of "intimidating" the man she says sexually assaulted her.

Gambill was one of five women who filed two federal complaints against UNC in January alleging that the school underreports sexual assaults and fails to properly adjudicate them. Gambill spoke out about what she said was a failure on the part of the UNC honor court, which found her ex-boyfriend not guilty of assault. She never identified him by name, but was nevertheless hit with an honor court charge brought against her by the ex-boyfriend in February, claiming Gambill created an "intimidating" and "hostile" environment for him.

Gambill believed the charge was actually retaliation from the school for her federal complaints, and after an intense backlash, UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Holden Thorp asked the honor court to suspend the charge in March. Thorp, who will leave office this summer, told the campus Thursday that the charge was being dropped.

But Gambill's charge is only being dropped because the UNC administration has recommended that all students charged with "disruptive or intimidating behavior" should have those charges dismissed, pending an evaluation of that specific honor code provision by a campus committee.

"This action is not a challenge to the important role of students in our Honor System, but is intended to protect the free speech rights of our students," Thorp said in a letter to students, adding "This situation has raised important issue that will deserve further discussion. While I will not be here to take part in those discussions, I am confident that all of you will work together to help develop solutions that work for the whole Carolina community."

Gambill told The Huffington Post she was relieved she no longer faces the threat of expulsion, but is disappointed it took them so long to dismiss the accusation ....

.... Henry Clay Turner, Gambill's attorney, said they still expect federal officials to "conduct a thorough, credible investigation" in response to a complaint they filed in March—the third against UNC—claiming the charge was retaliation.

"The charge against me was an attempt to threaten a survivor of sexual violence into silence, but I am determined to make UNC a place where survivors are believed, trusted and protected, not shamed, silenced and bullied," Gambill said.​

But, yes, that is the update from North Carolina: Good news! You get a silver lining.
____________________

Notes:

Kingkade, Tyler. "UNC Honor Court Charges Against Landen Gambill Dismissed; Report Finds No Retaliation". The Huffington Post. June 7, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. June 7, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/unc-honor-court-landen-gambill_n_3400025.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't know many women, eh ...

 

You said:

There is no "culture of acceptance" among women when it comes to violence performed by women??!

Oh please.

 

Aiding and Abetting: The Lynnwood, Washington Way

Lynnwood, Washington

The city of Lynnwood is, well, if I go to the main road a block away and turn right, I end up in Mill Creek. If I turn left, well, I'm in Lynnwood.

As you might expect, I find Mike Carter's report for The Seattle Times just a bit unsettling:

In August 2008, a stranger broke into the apartment of an 18-year-old Lynnwood woman, gagged her, bound her hands with a shoelace and raped her.

When the woman reported the attack to Lynnwood police, she says detectives Jerry Rittgarn and Sgt. Jeff Mason didn't believe her. Claiming police coerced her into recanting her story, the woman was charged with false reporting and fined $500 when she later tried to insist the rape did happen.​

That's right. A woman reported a rape, the cops decided to not believe her, and she was eventually fined for filing a false police report.

Additionally:

The woman, identified in the lawsuit by the initials D.M., says she was forced to undergo counseling when Lynnwood police told managers of the at-risk youth program where she was living in 2008 that they didn't believe she'd been raped, according to court documents.

The lawsuit alleges that the woman was required to stand up in front of other program participants and say that she had lied about being raped or risk being evicted, according to the lawsuit.​

You ready for the punch line?

Oh, come on, you know you see it coming:

It wasn't until 2½ years later, when former Washington state resident Marc O'Leary was arrested for several rapes in Colorado, that Lynnwood police reopened their investigation. Among the items Colorado detectives found in O'Leary's possession were photographs of the woman and her ID card ....

.... According to the suit, Rittgarn and Mason had D.M. charged with making a false report in Lynnwood Municipal Court when she tried to take back a statement in which she had recanted her story of being raped. The woman claims she signed that statement under duress after having been questioned for hours without an attorney.

She was fined $500 in 2009 after entering into a diversionary agreement. After O'Leary's arrest, the city returned the fine and the court struck the case from its files.

According to police reports and statements filed with the lawsuit, D.M. was living in a small Cocoon House-sponsored apartment after having spent her youth moving among as many as 20 foster homes. She spoke to a friend on the phone for several hours early Aug. 11, 2008, finally going to bed around 5:30 a.m. She said she left the sliding-glass patio door ajar.

She said it was about 7 a.m. when she woke to find a man standing over her bed with a butcher knife and wearing latex gloves. He tied her hands behind her back with a lace from her tennis shoe, blindfolded her and gagged her.

He then raped her. He also told her he had taken photos of her and knew her name, and left.

D.M. called a neighbor, who called police. Police gathered evidence from the house, including stained sheets, the shoelaces, blindfold and gag.

At the hospital, a doctor noted injuries to both her wrists and abrasions on her genitals. Doctors also collected DNA specimens, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges police ignored or disregarded this evidence once they convinced themselves she was not telling the truth.

Their suspicions were based on comments from three people who said that they doubted her story, according to the suit. One was her former foster mother, with whom D.M. had been arguing, and the other a friend who had spoken to D.M. on the phone that night, before the alleged attack. The third doubter was an anonymous caller.

None of them had any firsthand knowledge of what had happened, the lawsuit says.

However, based on those statements, three days after the assault, officers picked up D.M. in a police car and took her to the station, where Rittgarn told her there were inconsistencies in her story. She claims the officers interrogated her and "put words in her mouth."

D.M., the detective wrote in a police report, would not look him in the eye, repeatedly said she "believed" she had been raped and, when initially asked if people should be worried that a rapist was on the loose, she reportedly said no.

Rittgarn wrote that, "Based on her answer and body language it was apparent that D.M. was lying about the rape," according to documents filed in U.S. District Court.​

Welcome to Lynnwood. I mean, yeah, the place has long been something of a joke to people around here, but this just isn't funny.

In a just world, the Lynnwood Police officers responsible for this outcome ought to face prison time for aiding and abetting Marc O'Leary in the commission of four rapes, and aiding and abetting a fugitive from justice in a fifth. As such, Detective Jerry Rittgarn and Sgt. Jeff Mason ought to be serving the 327 years beside the rapist.

And that's just for starters. There are many people who helped make this outcome—including the four other rapes Marc O'Leary committed—possible.

But, hey, this is what passes for justice in our civilized society. You know, help keep a rapist free to target more women, because what's really important is harassing a young rape survivor.

Yeah. Lynnwood.
____________________

Notes:

Carter, Mike. "Woman sues after Lynnwood police didn’t believe she was raped". The Seattle Times. June 10, 2013. SeattleTimes.com. June 11, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021161550_rapelawsuitxml.html

 

Las Vegas, Nevada

Las Vegas, Nevada

Just when we thought it couldn't get any more horrfying?

Well, come on, who's so naïve as to think it can't get any more horrifying?

Nathan Baca of the KLAS I-Team explains the soul-curdling stupidity:

Monica Contreras went to family court with her 2-year-old daughter in August 2011. She was in the courtroom only a few minutes on a routine divorce case. Her husband filed for a Temporary Restraining Order against her during their divorce. He never showed up in court so the order was denied.

According to internal court documents, as Contreras was leaving, family court marshal Ron Fox ordered her into a waiting room for an unexplained drug search.

Contreras said Fox touched her buttocks, breast, and ordered her to lift up her shirt. A later internal investigation by Clark County courts validated her claims. Contreras went back into the same courtroom and told hearing master Patricia Donninger that her requests to have a female marshal handle the search were ignored.

"I think I'd rather have a female in here and he went anyway. I was just offended by it. I'm just offended that he asked me," an upset Contreras told Donninger, who did not respond to her.

The video shows Marshal James Kenyon preparing to arrest Contreras. She can be heard pleading with him.

"For what, sir? Why would I be arrested? Can you please tell me?"

Marshal Kenyon is heard telling Contreras to turn around and put her hands behind her back. As Contreras continues to ask why she is being arrested, marshal Ron Fox replies.

"Because of false allegations made against a police officer," he told her.

The I-Team could find no law that would support the arrest. It is also highly unlikely a sexual assault victim would be placed under arrest by the alleged assaulter.

After repeated attempts by the marshals to get Contreras to recant her story, she breaks down.

"Let me go. It was all lies. I don't want to deal with anything. It was all lies. All lies. All lies. All lies. Please stop," she said.

Fox tells Contreras the only way she can avoid jail is to step up to the microphone and recant. Contreras agrees, but does the opposite.

"You put me in a room. You asked me to lift up my shirt without a witness," Contreras said into the microphone.

At that point, Fox replied, "OK, take her to jail."

For four minutes, Contreras pleaded to hearing master Patricia Donninger to listen to her, but Donninger never acknowledged Contreras, instead she talked and played with Contreras's daughter.

"How can you do this to me? How can you watch?" Contreras pleaded.​

The KLAS investigators also found that officials "were shocked they had not heard of the alleged courthouse sexual assualt from Lt. Steve Rushfield". And while Fox was, eventually, fired, "Nobody from Clark County courts told Contreras that her claims were validated. She only recently found out from the I-Team."

Las Vegas is widely known as Sin City. It is also a crown jewel of humanity's defiance against nature; really, the place has to be seen to be believed, that we could so determinedly—stubbornly—raise such a gem from the desert.

And here, too, we see defiance. The Clark County court system is now trying to figure out why the family courts have apparently been repeatedly—perhaps chronically—failing to forward sexual assault allegations to internal affairs. Meanwhile, Fox has filed a wrongful termination complaint against Clark County. KLAS reports, "[Fox's] attorney declined an on-camera interview but claims the marshal's arrest was legal because nobody in the courtroom tried to stop him."

In what Universe does the public trust allow personnel accused of committing a crime to arrest the accuser?

What happens in Vegas? Well, they really wanted that to stay in Vegas, didn't they?

This is ineffable.

To the other, maybe we should check back in on that whole prevention discussion. I'd love to hear the run-down for preventing that particular kind of sexual assault.

Sin City, indeed.
____________________

Notes:

Baca, Nathan. "I-Team: Cover-Up Alleged in Family Court". 8 News Now. March 8, 2013. 8NewsNow.com. June 12, 2013. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21557505/cover-up-alleged-in-clark-clark-family-court

 

I would beg to differ. The word you want is "insufferable".

I was reading along until I hit... "allow personnel accused of committing a crime to arrest the accuser?". Seriously? [Reread]

As you may recall, I am no fan of law enforcement, but this...

Wow. Egregious comes to mind, but it's not strong enough. I continue to be amazed...

 

A Fine Word, But ....

Oh, I would not protest; insufferable is a fine word. But for me, it is insufficient. Indeed, even my own fairly impressive lexicon of denigrating terminology, context, and formulation is at a loss. No hyperbole I might present suffices.

There are no sufficient words; thus, ineffable.

 

The Lengths of Phallocratic Desperation

The Lengths of Phallic Phallocratic Desperation

From the good folks at Stars and Stripes, who labor tirelessly to bring you the latest and greatest on the finest armed services in human history:

Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of "unlawful command influence" derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.

Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference.

"The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this," Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.

"I expect consequences," Obama added. "So I don't just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody's engaging in this, they've got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period."

The judge's pretrial ruling means that if either defendant is found guilty, whether by a jury or a military judge, they cannot receive a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. Sailors found guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice's Article 120, which covers several sexual crimes including assault and rape, generally receive punitive discharges.

"A member of the public would not hear the President's statement to be a simple admonition to hold members accountable," Fulton stated. "A member of the public would draw the connection between the 'dishonorable discharge' required by the President and a punitive discharge approved by the convening authority.

"The strain on the system created by asking a convening authority to disregard [Obama's] statement in this environment would be too much to sustain public confidence."

The ruling sets the stage for defense attorneys to use the same arguments in sexual assault cases throughout the military.​

Yes, you read that correctly. A Navy judge has ruled that the President telling the public that he will not tolerate a continuing crisis in the armed services under his command is such "unlawful command influence" that even if these defendants are guilty, they should not be punished.

"Red, White and Blue, gaze in your looking glass; you're not a child anymore. Red, White, and Blue, the future is all but past; so lift up your heart, make a new start, and lead us away from here."

—Styx​

____________________

Notes:

Slavin, Erik. "Judge: Obama sex assault comments 'unlawful command influence'". Stars and Stripes. June 14, 2013. Stripes.com. June 18, 2013. http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974

 

For a while after reading this latest post, I had no words. Literally--my jaw dropped so hard, it smashed my keyboard to bits.

At what point does the hero worship become a roadblock to accountability? We've always been a bit overeager to celebrate our military, but the adulation has taken a turn for the saccharine since 9/11. Now that the proverbial lid has been blown off of the dysfunction within our armed services, isn't it time we stopped pretending that enlistment makes one a hero by default? Maybe it would have no impact, but I can't shake the feeling that if we spent a little less time genuflecting, and a little more time criticizing, they wouldn't be bold enough to do something like pretend Obama's comments qualify as unlawful command influence.

 

Update: University of North Carolina

Update: University of North Carolina

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill faces three separate federal investigations under the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights in the wake of a sexual assault scandal that included university personnel working to harass a rape survivor on behalf of her accused rapist.

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is opening a new investigation into the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill over allegations that UNC-Chapel Hill sophomore Landen Gambill faced retaliation for filing a federal complaint against the university. Gambill's case gained national attention after she reported a sexual assault to the school and was later charged with a school honor code violation.

The university now faces three investigations by the department. Charges include complaints that UNC-Chapel Hill allegedly created a hostile climate for sexual assault survivors, failed to properly adjudicate rape at the school and that officials allegedly underreported sexual misconduct on campus.

The third OCR investigation will consider whether the February honor code charge against Gambill was retaliation, the News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., reports. Gambill was one of five women who filed federal complaints against UNC-Chapel Hill in January, which spurred the first two investigations by the department.

Gambill filed an additional complaint in March after being charged with the honor code violation by the student-run honor court. The court charged that Gambill created an "intimidating" environment for her alleged abuser, an ex-boyfriend and fellow Chapel Hill student whom she has never named publicly. Gambill would have faced expulsion if she had been found guilty, but the charge was eventually dropped.

"The university is reviewing the matter and will cooperate fully with OCR's investigation," UNC-Chapel Hill spokeswoman Karen Moon told The Huffington Post in an email. The university has previously denied that officials retaliated against Gambill.​

It should be noted, though, in the University's defense, that its hand-picked, underfunded private investigator, a professor from Rutgers University, concluded that there was no retaliatory intent in the institution's actions, such as when UNC staff helped the accused rapist try to drum his victim out of school for accusing him. Or, perhaps, when the University moved the accused rapist to a new residence near Ms. Gambill's, potentially forcing a violation of a restraining order.
____________________

Notes:

Kingkade, Tyler. "UNC Faces Federal Investigation Into Retaliation Complaint By Sexual Assault Survivor". The Huffington Post. July 7, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. July 7, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/07/unc-investigation-retaliation_n_3555886.html

 

And No Member of Congress Should Ever Have to Say That ....

How's This for the New Slaughter Rule?

"No service member wearing the uniform of the United States military should ever be told 'it may be advisable to submit than to resist' in the case of a sexual assault."

—Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)​

So, right. The detail:

The Air Force has pulled a brochure circulated at a South Carolina base after a lawmaker complained about some objectionable advice to sexual assault victims – such as submitting to an attack rather than resisting.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who had complained about the brochure in May, on Tuesday released a copy of a letter she received from the Pentagon informing her of the Air Force's decision and steps the services are taking to deal with the epidemic of sexual assault in the ranks, including reviewing its prevention material.

"We have reviewed the Shaw Air Force Base brochure you mentioned in your letter," Jessica Wright, acting undersecretary of defense, wrote to Slaughter. "We share your concerns over some of the materials presented, and the Air Force has withdrawn the brochure from circulation."

The letter was dated June 20, received by Slaughter's office during last week's congressional recess and released on Tuesday.

The brochure contained some common-sense recommendations, such as checking around a car before entering and using dead-bolt locks and peepholes when home alone. It also included advice that the congresswoman described as victim-blaming and inappropriate as the military struggles with the problem of sexual assault.

"If you are attacked, it may be advisable to submit than to resist," the brochure said. "You have to make this decision based on circumstances. Be especially careful if the attack has a weapon."

The brochure also suggested that if an individual is accosted in a parking lot, "consider rolling underneath a nearby auto and scream loud. It is difficult to force anyone out from under a car."

(Cassata)​

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what language the thing was originally written in. "It may be advisable to submit than to resist"? That sounds like a translation. "Be especially careful if the attack has a weapon"? "Consider rolling underneath a nearby auto and scream loud"? Does anybody else see a bit of pidgin in all that? Quite certainly, a proficient copy editor overseeing a material crafted in English as its first language is a phenomenon that has nothing to do with this brochure in the first place.

And that's regardless of the horrible advice.
____________________

Notes:

Cassata, Donna. "Air Force Pulls Sexual Assault Brochure". Associated Press. July 9, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. July 9, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/air-force-sexual-assault-brochure_n_3568081.html

 

Conduct in Uniform: Military Judges Furiously Protecting Rapists

Conduct in Uniform: Military Judges Furiously Protecting Rapists

Rape advocacy is spreading as the de facto rule of thumb in the United States military. While many are appalled by the desperation of a ]Navy judge who believes a presidential statement that crimes should be punished is unlawful command influence, the idea gets a much different reception in the practice of military justice:

In at least a dozen sexual assault cases since the president’s remarks at the White House in May, judges and defense lawyers have said that Mr. Obama’s words as commander in chief amounted to “unlawful command influence,” tainting trials as a result. Military law experts said that those cases were only the beginning and that the president’s remarks were certain to complicate almost all prosecutions for sexual assault.

“Unlawful command influence” refers to actions of commanders that could be interpreted by jurors as an attempt to influence a court-martial, in effect ordering a specific outcome. Mr. Obama, as commander in chief of the armed forces, is considered the most powerful person to wield such influence.

The president’s remarks might have seemed innocuous to civilians, but military law experts say defense lawyers will seize on the president’s call for an automatic dishonorable discharge, the most severe discharge available in a court-martial, arguing that his words will affect their cases.

“His remarks were more specific than I’ve ever heard a commander in chief get,” said Thomas J. Romig, a former judge advocate general of the Army and the dean of the Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kan. “When the commander in chief says they will be dishonorably discharged, that’s a pretty specific message. Every military defense counsel will make a motion about this.”

(Steinhauer)​

Perhaps most striking is how seriously people take the proposition. Which, of course, leads to a minor digression:

I would ask my feminist neighbors for an occasional dispensation today, in order to make the point according to language I generally consider beyond the pale of propriety: Why are our military service members such fucking pussies?

No, seriously, I want to know. They're fit to kill and die, but when it comes to behaving like decent human beings, that's just a bridge too far, isn't it?

I remember Okinawa in the nineties; sure, a Marine might leave base and rape a child, but he shouldn't have to stand trial under the local jurisdiction. Indeed, he should have to face military justice, where he can be convicted, have his conviction expunged, and move on believing he's done nothing wrong. Oh, the sacrifices our servicemen make. How dare we besmirch the United States Armed Services by expecting our soldiers to be held accountable!

In the end, the argument still remains steady: It would be a detriment to morale and good conduct to put effective stakes on the demand for good conduct.

So let us try an exercise: Sure, he raped a fellow service member, but _____.

Fill in the blank with whatever rationale you think justifies a rapist not facing punishment.​

Still, the desperation of a rapist's privilege aside, it is not as if there is no counterpoint:

White House officials said Mr. Obama’s remarks, made in response to a reporter’s question, were meant to demonstrate his concern about the issue and were not intended to recommend penalties for offenders.

“The president was absolutely not trying to be prescriptive,” said Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel. “He was listing a range of examples of how offenders could be held accountable. The president expects all military personnel who are involved in any way in the military justice process to exercise their independent professional judgment.”

Some military law experts said that while defense lawyers would naturally use the president’s words to try to have cases dismissed, they would be pushing legal boundaries. Mr. Obama, they said, used the phrase “dishonorable discharge” as a catchall for getting assailants out of the military and not in its strict, technical meaning.

“There is a point at which the statements of civilian officials could be so specifically directed, or so inflammatory, that a military defendant is deprived of due process,” said Diane H. Mazur, a professor emeritus at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. “But I don’t think the president’s remarks come close to that level.”

But others said it was hard not to see the potent meaning in Mr. Obama’s remarks, particularly on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are contemplating making dishonorable discharge an automatic punishment for convicted offenders.

“There is a tension created between trying to give the victim their day in court, but you can’t ignore the defendant’s rights,” said Victor M. Hansen, a former military lawyer who is now an associate dean at the New England School of Law in Boston. “Whatever efforts are made to better address sexual assault, there is always the other side of the equation if someone gets too out front of the issue.”

The president’s comments have not been the only ones cited as influencing sexual assault cases. Last year, lawyers in more than 60 Marine Corps sexual assault cases filed motions claiming “unlawful command influence” because of a series of remarks made by Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, according to a McClatchy-Tribune news report.

Lawyers said it was too soon to know how many judges would grant motions for dismissal because of Mr. Obama’s words. They said that in many cases, judges might stop short of that and rule that defendants should stand trial but not be punitively discharged — as the Navy judge, Cmdr. Marcus Fulton, did in the Hawaii case. (The prosecution is appealing the ruling.) Lawyers said that some judges might simply instruct jurors to disregard the president’s remarks.​

Let us, then, consider the defendant's rights:

• You have the right to commit a crime.

• You have the right to be arrested for it.

• You have the right to a fair trial.

• You have the right to be convicted or acquitted.

• If convicted, you have the right to walk away scot-free because it might hurt other people's feelings if a rapist is punished.​

You know, compared to the liberty and justice for all these service members are protecting, that's a pretty luxurious set of rights.

There are many, many criminals in civilian society, then, who should be free. For instance, there are many men in our society whose feelings are hurt when a man is sentenced for beating or raping his wife. And, you know, hurt feelings might lead to a breakdown of societal cohesion, order, and morale.

In a military built on obeying the orders of commanders immediately and without question, Mr. Somerset made this argument in his motion: “The president publicly stated that a particular court-martial punishment is the correct response to the crime of sexual assault.” He further argued, “What choice would that seem to give” a judge “if the commander in chief is telling him to dishonorably discharge anybody who has engaged in sexual assault?”

In Hawaii, Commander Fulton wrote that Mr. Obama’s comments raised “concern” because “they may indicate that a particular result is required of the military justice system.”

In his comments on sexual assault, Mr. Obama said, “I expect consequences.” He added: “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately, folks look the other way. If we find out that somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable.”​

To say it is problematic that our military judges are concerned by the notion that they should hold rapists and other sexual criminals accountable would be, well, something of an understatement.

This is what we call institutionalized injustice, and it very much appears calculated.
____________________

Notes:

Steinhauer, Jennifer. "Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials". The New York Times. July 13, 2013. NYTimes.com. July 15, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/obama-remark-is-complicating-military-trials.html