This news item made my stomach turn: Cassandra Hernandez, a female Air Force airman was raped, reported her attack and then subsequently became a court-martial defendant, herself.
The story goes down like this: Hernandez was at a party, where she was drinking. She says that three male airman raped her. She went to the hospital and filed a report accusing her attackers. Due to stress and harsh interrogation tactics by the Air Force, she eventually refused to testify against the airmen.
The Air Force then charged her with underage drinking (of which she admits to being guilty, but that's hardly the point, now is it?) and, along with her three attackers, "indecent acts." I had a hell of a lot of trouble finding an official definition for "indecent acts," and the best one I came up with is a "form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic translation seems to be "a sexual act, particularly one that is not generally accepted in society, such as sex with multiple partners."
So. The woman was raped. By three men. She reported her rape. She was harassed by her superiors, to the point where she became too afraid to testify. The Air Force took this as meaning that the sex was therefore consensual (which isn't what it means at all), and charged her in the case of her own rape. If she loses her case, she could be publicly registered as a sex offender.
Sounds like it couldn't get any worse, right? But it does. How? The three alleged attackers were offered sexual assault immunity to testify against Hernandez on the indecent acts charge. Having at least half a brain cell among them, they accepted.
Hernandez is writing to her congresspeople and her Governor, Rick Perry, in a desperate plea to end this madness. Once you finish throwing up, crying, breaking things, etc., I strongly suggest that you write, too.
IMPORTANT CORRECTION: Apparently, the correct action to take is to write directly to YOUR congresspersons. You can find the information to write to your Representative here, and the information to write to your Senators here. It is a good idea to include one of the links to articles about the case, so that they know specifically what you are referring to.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Air Force Charges Victim in Her Own Rape.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5771
WTF is the u.s.air force thinking. OMG! Hello Governor Perry...
You'll have to forgive me, but I have no idea what the efficacy of writing the Governor of Texas would be in a military matter. Congresspersons is probably more effective; she's apparently written to the entire delegations of North Carolina (where she's stationed) and Texas.
Apart from that, it sounds like rape victims in the Middle East being charged with adultery when they can't pony up the requisite four witnesses.
Wow - I'm writing Rick Perry right now; this is disgusting.
But, and the only but - why the fuck didn't she testify? Harassment is harassment, but can't she get some protection, a la witness protection?
According the article, she said:
"The pressure of the judicial process was too much for me, and I felt like no one was looking out for my interests."
Well, ok, yes - that's why you testify. In your own interest.
What happened to her is deplorable, the subsequent treatment perhaps even moreso - but I can't not say I think she should have testified.
I'm not sure, either, norbizness. I tried to find information who one should write in this kind of circumstance, and couldn't find much other than what was in the article. If you have a better suggestion, please let me know. Would we write to our own congresspersons? To the delegates of TX and SC? If anyone knows, please tell me.
Joe, criticizing her actions in this situation is extremely callous. I would generally prefer that rape victims testify, as well, but what they go through makes that a hell of a lot easier said than done. Until you are raped (something I would never wish on anyone) and testify in court against your attacker, please abstain from making these kinds of judgments, particularly on a feminist site. In fact, I imagine that most rape victims who have testified would be extremely hesitant to criticize those who don't, because they know what an arduous task it is.
Joe, I realize this is a personal question, and you're under no obligation to answer.
Have you ever been raped? If so, did you report it? Did you have to face the full brunt of the law and the scrutiny thereof? Have you had to deal with pressure and intimidation from those above you while you are still trying to recover from one of the most traumatic events there is?
If the answer to those questions is no (or really, even if it isn't), I'd ask that you not judge her. Testifying in a rape trial is terrifying and difficult by all accounts. Adding in the intimidation from superiors in the armed forces (which is not traditionally the most friendly environment for women) makes it even worse.
Sometimes people just can't put themselves through the additional pain and heartache and humiliation while they're still trying to recover from what they've already experienced.
this is incomprehensible.
this is incomprehensible.
Joe, welcome to your privilege. Please to be examining.
sorry for the double post.
There seems to be a paranoia spreading that a woman can, at any time for any reason, accuse a man of rape and his life will be ruined, while nothing bad will happen to her. Whenever you talk about rape, someone brings up false rape charges, and when you tell that person those aren't common, they'll bring up the Duke case or (before that) Kobe Bryant or something. Conveniently forgetting that that the men in those cases are moving on with their rich, privileged lives while the women receive death threats. But the "common wisdom" more and more holds that the men are the victims when rape is charged. I've heard more and more people calling for prosecution of "false" rape charges, and this is the realization of that. It's horrible, but I'm afraid it's only the beginning.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
This is so ridiculous I don't even know what to think about it.
As norbizness noted, it would be more effective to contact the Representative from where Hernandez lives since this is a military matter.
The only good thing about this is that if enough people make a big deal out of it (and I hope they do), justice can be served. The Air Force doesn't want to scare away people from enlisting especially at a time like this. It's pretty disgusting that the only reason the Air Force would seek justice on this matter would be out of their own self interest.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
So. I guess I'm wrong. But: this post takes severe liberties on what happened - ie, she says she was raped, therefor she was raped.
Um, fuck no.
The initial "She says that three male airman raped her." does not equal the later "The woman was raped."
Think it's never happened before? Think that those who say they are raped are necessarily infallible? Three words: Duke lacrosse team.
The fact that she refuses to testify is objectively to her detriment.
Three words: DUKE. LACROSSE. TEAM.
Will there be any moment in time where those accused of rape are innocent until proven guilty? Has no one here learned a lesson from the Duke case? Simple because she is a woman does not mean she gets protection.
And no, I'm not defending her harassment or scrutiny or what she had been through.
But, I am wary of making an accusation of rape a verdict.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
No, it's perfectly clear what this is. It's an outrage. Where do I drive the truck bomb?
Disgusting.
It's one thing to intimidate a woman who has been raped out of testifying, but to punish her for daring to report a crime? Beyond the mentality that would rather see rapists go free to save face, this added bullshit is just excessive cruelty.
I mean, what the hell are they really trying to accomplish with these pithy charges? Underage drinking? "Indecent Acts"? Give me a fucking break. And immunity for the rapists so they can pursue said minor charges! Who the hell are they kidding? In a situation where four people were involved in what they refer to as "indecent acts," the only one they're interested in punishing is the woman. It would be blatant sexism on their part if the situation was exactly what they're presenting it as. Given the reality of what actually occured, it's just plain misogyny.
Rape is no big deal to these assholes. Just one more reason for women not to come forward when it happens to them.
Oh, flaming hell - I tried to check, every time I hit post, to see if my comment had actually gone through even though it registered as an error - and it always said it hadn't. And now it's repeated half a dozen times. I apologise.
Also - Joe? I... Oh, never mind. Go to hell. (The Air Force clearly believes the sexual event took place, or they couldn't be charging her... they're not denying that it happened.)
They're trying to create more guys with attitudes like our dear Joe's, is what they're trying to do, MizzMegan.
And look! It works!
Joe, you're gonna smoke a pile of turds in hell for that one.
Joe, Marle predicted your comments. So you're still offensive, but not very original.
I also do not want any flame wars on my post. So cool it and consider yourself warned.
"Also - Joe? I... Oh, never mind. Go to hell. (The Air Force clearly believes the sexual event took place, or they couldn't be charging her... they're not denying that it happened.)"
I won't indulge you - but, geez. It's not like I'm acting as a holy chalice of reason. I'm sorry the comments weren't working.
As for "sexual event" - OK. So it happened, but that doesn't make it rape. Or am I violating some ethic in saying that?
I certainly don't agree with the reversal, not at all - refusing the speak is not grounds to infer consent, at all. But that doesn't mean we automatically infer the lack of consent.
And, OK, I'm a man. I understand. But that doesn't mean I have no say. Men get raped too, and men are the majority of those accused of rape. I mean, who got the short end of the stick in the Duke case?
This is absolutely disgusting.
BTW, the governor's the wrong person to contact; he works purely on State level. You want to hit up the highest in the chain of command on the Base.
Are you freakin' serious?
If you're going to be writing members of Congress, be sure to include members of the Armed Services Committee in each house.
Joe, just because someone misidentifies their attacker doesn't mean they weren't attacked. Do keep up.
I agree that they're admitting the act happened--I may be wrong with state to state laws, but in my state if a woman is under the influence, she cannot consent to sex. And they're charging her with underage drinking...and having sex
I just noticed something: The attack occured in Pope AFB, NC. Why is the governor for Texas listed? Is that her home station?
In my own personal experience, the Air Force is a hypocritical group of jackasses. They bring up "indecent acts" against certain people, but will turn a blind eye to others. They punish people for living outside their set of moral codes, but will sell pornographic material in their base grocery stores.
The fact that she is the subject of a court martial herself, makes me so angry. The sad part is that I am not at all surprised.
The problem here is in the manner in which many military branches decide to punish the people serving under them. In a civilian court, this would not have happened. So why is this apparently acceptable in a military one?
Malaika, are you sure about that? I ask because there have been a few different answers on this post. If you are sure, do you know how to contact them? I only saw bio info on that page.
The point of contacting the governor is publicizing the case. I know (personally, from when my husband got fucked over in his immigration proceedings) that various levels of government are generally very cordial to each other and can often be willing to do each other favors. And if that doesn't work, Rick Perry talking about the case would sure as hell embarrass them. But yes, I would like to contact the most effective person.
Can we not talk about the Duke case? Please? This case is sickening enough all on its own. And if we could stop engaging with Joe's entitled, hostile ignorance, it would just about make my day.
And yes, her home state is Texas.
First of all, Cara I must have missed the day you got introduced as a contributor but you have been doing a bang up job. I am puking, throwing and breaking things, etc. This shit used to happen all the time when I was doing feminist work in, like patriarchal dictatorships (Egypt, Swaziland, etc.), but here? Oh wait, I almost forgot...
God I hope she gets a good JAG lawyer.
And suddenly every rape case could be just like the Duke case. I knew this would happen, but it still pisses me the fuck off.
As a sexual assault survivor who chose not to report at all, I can't fault the girl for not wanting to testify. I'm impressed she had the courage to say anything cause I sure as hell didn't.
And yes, Joe, men are raped. And I'd wager to say most of the men that are raped are raped by other men. And since most women who are raped are raped by men, that would make most rapists men. Which is probably why most of those accused are men. You might want to try another argument cause I don't think that one really estabilishes what gives you the right to say this particular woman should've testified. Your assertion wasn't offensive because you're a man, it was offensive based on the assumption that you've never reported a rape only to be put on trial while those you accused walk free all because you were pressured not to testify.
I think the issue here has nothing to do with whether or not she was raped so bringing up the Duke lacrosse team is pretty pointless.
Even if she never reported a rape but had consensual sex with 3 men and then got put on trial for it while the men were granted immunity it would still be fucked up. The fact that this all started because she reported a rape just makes it more fucked up.
Joe wrote:
"Will there be any moment in time where those accused of rape are innocent until proven guilty?"
Um, in case you missed the point of the post, Joe, I think you can derive your answer from the conduct of the AF thus far. That is, unless you had put your "bizarro" hat on before you read the post, and somehow hallucinated the words *Air Force dishonorably discharges men on basis of allegations; Assumes guilt not innocence.* I didn't see those words, did you? And puhleeze, the defendants in the Duke case are getting lucrative job offers and are local heroes. Or didn't you know, because you live under a rock of your own making?
Or by *assumptions of guilt*, did you mean, assumptions among the discussants here? Because I'm quite sure we're not doing significant damage to those men by merely discussing the situation; that is, compared to the damage that has been done to Ms. Hernandez, whose career and autonomy are now on the line, while the men in question are getting immunity.
And if you do believe something DID HAPPEN Joe (since the AF is not disputing it, as you say), and you REALLY think it might have been *consensual*, can you imagine a scenario in which it would make sense, and would be fair, to grant the co-participants immunity in exchange for testifying against one particular party, who just so happens to be the only woman involved, and a woman who alleges she was raped? Give me a break. As MizzMegan says, it would be sexist at minimum, even if you did think it was consensual...but it's so blatantly illogical that it reeks of something more sinister.
A court-martial has been scheduled for Sept. 24 at the air base adjacent to Fort Bragg, Drohan said, and it will be open to the public.
I would suggest that anyone who is near the Fort Bragg area appear for her court-martial.
Joe,
What's your point? Does one incidence of lying mean that all people are lying? At the very least, a person should examine the number of people who make such a claim and figure out the percentage that are lying. IIRC, it's something like 2% of women who lie.
The chances that this woman is telling the truth are extremely high. Also, let's examine what we know of this case: she was examined. Presumably, the genetic material of more than one man was found inside of her. Presumably, those men are the now-witnesses in question - otherwise, why have them as witnesses?
Now, let's put this together. Occam's Razor states, in one manner, that when two situations are equally likely (and we now that they are not - the woman is likely telling the truth), the one with the more simple explanation is probably correct.
One situation: she had sex with three men all at once while the others watched; thought this was a rocking good time to screw a guy while his buddies ogled them; managed to find three men who share the same fetish; and then went and claimed that she was raped.
Situation 2: she was gang-raped and was too traumatised to follow through (as are most rape victims).
Think it through. Presume her to be at least moderately rational. I'm sorry, but, for her to be lying, there has to be some really screwed up stuff going on. Even if she is lying, then, the men should be charged, too. Except they aren't.
---
The Air Force, IMHO, has a really horrible history of dealing with women. IIRC, a lot of women were raped in training camp in Colorado a few years back. The incidence of rape is something like 40% there, and most women never even report it.
This is one really good reason why women should not be drafted.
before anyone goes shouting "accusing doesn't make it rape" and "innocent until proven guilty" and "false rape charges", which always happens when talking about rape, please understand a few things...
i am a female in the US Navy. the military takes accusations of rape VERY seriously. a charge can not even go forward w/o medical examinations. she sought medical attention. we are briefed to no end on what to do if you are sexually assaulted. DO NOT shower, or clean yourself in anyway, etc, and get to the nearest MTF ASAP.
second, a case won't move forward w/o enough evidence to support said claim. especially in the military. there are counselors who are trained to work w/ vicitms, and personnel in place to help collect the evidence needed. the Sexual Assault Victim (SAVI) Intervention teams on military installations are volunteers trained to handle these situations.
there are numerous steps to take to even file a small charge. you can't just walk into a JAG office and claim rape and go directly to trial.
the point is if it went forward, there is a good chance that there was plenty of evidence to support the descision to go forward.
all that aside...when a low ranking person (airman is only E-3) makes such claims, it follows chain of command like anything else. meaning, every person b/t her and the top rung will meet w/ her...probably all stressing how serious this charge is and how it can tarnish the name of the military and damage the careers of said accused. it is not an easy task when you are trained from day one to fear these higher ranking people. especially the air force, who draw harsh lines between rank. the fact that she was under too much stress to testify does not surprise me, working in joint service facilities, at all. it is difficult to pursue simply accusing someone of mistreating you...let alone something as horrible as this.
also, on indecent acts...the military believes that ANY sexual contact outside of good old missionary 1 man to 1 woman intercourse is an "indecent act". sodomy, oral sex, etc, is punishable under the UCMJ, and alcohol related incidences are a top priority now, w/ the new trend being toward dishonorably discharging anyone for under age drinking. this is a horrible and harsh fact, and can actually make it difficult to seek justice in cases like these.
i hope i offered some insight.
one more thing...
in the military...sadly...under the UCMJ, which takes priority over civilian law, you are basically guilty until you can defend yourself out of the big shit heap you are in.
Can people please not advocate violence here? You don't know who is watching and taking note. I understand this case brings out the most visceral reactions, but advocating violence is not acceptable. The offending comment should be redacted to preserve the integrity of the community and out of respect for the hosts.
Evolve. Discuss. Peace.
and yes...a representative is the best course of action for concerned civilian personnel.
i would have to check, but it seems the Inspector General could be brought into this if there is enough of a case put together to present to him.
Whose representative, ouyangdan? Hers or our own?
Joe, you're right. Just because we're men doesn't mean we get no say. So as a man, I'd like to say: shut the fuck up, you unspeakable bastard.
You have no idea how much damage you cause just by thinking the way you do, do you?
There are monsters among us, Joe. There always have been, and there always will be. But they're not the problem. Not really. Monsters hurt on the individual level. The real damage is done by a system full of people like you.
If these three men are guilty, then they are monsters. They gang-raped a woman, and that's horrible.
However, maybe they didn't. As you say, innocent until proven guilty. Maybe it was three entirely different guys - or four - or two - or whatever, and she was too drunk to tell.
All beside the point.
The point is that the Air Force is clearly making an example of her for daring to report her colleagues. A patriarchal power structure is putting an uppity bitch in her place, and warning other uppity bitches that this could happen to them.
And do you know why they get away with it, Joe? Because of people like you. People who look for the "right" behavior from the victim, and question her honesty if she's even a little bit "wrong".
It's possible to falsely report any crime. However, rape and sexual assault are the only crimes I know of where we assume that the victim is lying until she's proven honest. If a burglary case can't be brought to trial because there's insufficient evidence that a particular burglar did it, we don't assume that the victim lied about being robbed. If a thug is found Not Guilty of assault, we don't assume that the victim wasn't beat up.
Only rape. That's what you're doing, Joe. And you're justifying it, as everyone like you does, with a single well-publicized case.
Go ahead and write to whoever you want to. It might even help. In the larger picture, though, you're the problem.
i'm so confused. Who determined that the three attackers be offered immunity? What is that process?
The Air Force took this as meaning that the sex was therefore consensual (which isn't what it means at all), and charged her in the case of her own rape.
If they've determined it's consenual, how can they file any rape charges against anyone? Or are they trying to get her on miscounduct? (Sorry if this stuff has been answered already).
They are charging her on misconduct, Azliza. As for the immunity, I'm not sure of the exact process, but it's pretty standard civilian procedure to grant lesser criminals immunity for their help in convicting greater criminals-- which is particularly offensive and insane in this case.
I know I'm being way, OT, but something else is bothering me here:
She's old enough to die for her country, but not old enough to have a drink? WTF?
Meanwhile, privileged chickenhawks in colleges get away routinely with underaged drinking ...
I know I'm being way, OT, but something else is bothering me here:
She's old enough to die for her country, but not old enough to have a drink? WTF?
Meanwhile, privileged chickenhawks in colleges get away routinely with underaged drinking ...
Oops ... sorry about the double post. I got an error message which led me to believe the first post didn't "take".
*
it's pretty standard civilian procedure to grant lesser criminals immunity for their help in convicting greater criminals - Cara
Indeed. But granting immunity to people accused (n.b. Joe ... I said "accused") of a greater crime to go after someone accused of a lesser crime? That just don't pass the sniff test ...
The thing that really makes me think the Air Force is covering up and actively trying to punish her for reporting the incident is their giving immunity to three people in order to charge one, who is accused of exactly the same crime. That is ridiculous and, in my estimation, reveals the fucked up attitude of those involved. Allowing a defense attorney to interview her without representation, if that is true, further reveals this “punishment�.
That said, I am surprised you all feel so free to declare that a rape took place as if it were proven fact. It probably was a rape, but I would have thought you all have learned a lesson by now about the difference between an accusation and proven fact. I guess not.
Although this story is indeed sad and disgusting, it does not suprise me. Being an active duty member of the military, I have constantly felt that sexual harassment (and I'm not even touching on sexual assault or violence such as rape here) goes on daily. During the last four years I have served HONORABLY alongside men in the Marine Corps,and have been labled a "slut", "bitch", "DYKE"! for being a WOMAN! I have even had to slam a door on a drunk Marine's foot to keep him from breaking into my barracks room at 2 am (to rape me, perhaps?)! The military is in need of a huge makeover in sexual policy. Women in the armed forces are not protected, respected, or even treated in a half-way decent matter. That is why I have chosen to stay in. I want to evolk change. The politically correct, unenforeced policies that are suppossed to protect women are in truth half-assed attempts to fool a conservative public. The truth of the matter is that women are violated on a daily basis, and as a result of the lack of attention given to these situations, women are made criminals because of their victimization. Women are not respected, and therefore not treated as human beings, let alone service members risking their lives for America's causes (whether justified or not). I beleive that this woman was raped and that she is paying the price for being a woman in a male-dominated field.
Military law is different from civilian law. Court martials apply military law, not civilian law.
As a result, the "normal" rights and privileges of defendants are different.
I don't know enough about the specifics of the UCMJ to explain further. But I wouldn't be surprised if the military law carries an obligation to report certain types of wrongdoing, which she may have technically violated.
That doesn't make this any less slimy. But if you were wondering (as was I) how the fuck this is even theoretically possible I think the UCMJ would be the place to start.
The idea that testifying is "objectively" in the interest of a rape victim is preposterous. By testifying (and pressing charges at all), a rape victim subjects herself (outside of prison,it's overwhelmingly a herself) to vilification, intimidation, in-court humiliation, and possibly retaliatory violence. The fact that the perpetrator might get convicted in the end isn't much of a counterbalance to the world of shit the victim exposes herself to by coming forward.
Against this background, while I don't want to make this about the Duke case, I don't see how we get from recantation (which is all, to my knowledge, the woman in that case ever did) to lying? When a woman recants admidst death threats and public vilification, it seems like there might be other hypotheses to discount before we can draw the conclusion that she was lying from the start (and wasn't there an e-mail in which one of the Duke men admitted it? I remember reading that, in any case.)
A woman files charges alleging that three men gang-raped her. The fact that three men engaged in penetrative intercourse with her is not disputed by anyone, including the three men. They get immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against her on charges of "Indecent Acts" arising out of the very conduct she reported when she filed rape charges. Here, again, the assumption that she's not testifying in the rape case because she's lying seems to be one of the less probable interpretations of the events.
By the way, the definition of "rape" under the UCMJ is:
Art. 120(a) UCMJ. One might be foregiven for drawing conclusions about the attitudes of institutions that do not deem "sexual intercourse by force and without consent" with one's wife to be worthy of punishment.
"This is one really good reason why women should not be drafted."
All the really good points you made in your comment were somewhat negated by this self-defeating statement, oenophile.
“Against this background, while I don't want to make this about the Duke case, I don't see how we get from recantation (which is all, to my knowledge, the woman in that case ever did) to lying? When a woman recants admidst death threats and public vilification, it seems like there might be other hypotheses to discount before we can draw the conclusion that she was lying from the start (and wasn't there an e-mail in which one of the Duke men admitted it? I remember reading that, in any case.)� – Elise
The accuser in the Duke case told many different, contrary stories, and even recanted on the night of the party (so it had nothing to do with threats). And no, there was no email where a Duke man “admitted it�, regardless of what you remember reading.
And now back to our previously scheduled subject…
"This is one really good reason why women should not be drafted."
All the really good points you made in your comment were somewhat negated by this self-defeating statement, oenophile.
(Rolls eyes) Whatever.
So my good points are less valid? Wow. I wasn't aware that the validity of one's points can be NEGATED just like that. Amazing how truth works, isn't it?
So, humour me: you think that women should be drafted into such an environment? Women are much more likely to be raped than to be injured or killed in the line of duty.
Would you support the draft of a particular group of people who, by their inclusion in that group, had a 40% chance of being shot? Of receiving injury? Of being killed? Why should rape be different?
Turns out there was an e-mail. I just found the article. Here's an excerpt:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10092
Not drafting women into such an environment is certainly one possible solution, though it does not do much for the women who volunteer. One other solution, which does not seem entirely unreasonable to me, would be to reform the institutional culture that allows these conditions to persist.
many years ago (e.g. 1982) i spent the summer working in the home office of my representative (a very cool woman). i helped with constituent services and a lot of the letters we received were from servicemen & women. There were a lot LESS women in the service then, but i remember seeing a number of letters back where the writer wanted assistance with issues SUCH AS THIS ONE. We'd evaluate the letter and then we, the staff would write a letter to the governmental entity -the army, social security etc. We had a tickler file and we'd check up periodically until we had some sort of answer- or ideally a resolution.
If enough representatives and senators write this standard letter of inquiry to the Secry of the Air Force, the Secry of Defense etc, it does get attention. We found that we got faster and better responses if the petitioner had other reps writing concurrently.
Even now a LOT of people doing constituent services are women - and i'd hope they would have some sympathy though i know that there are plenty of women who think that "only women who ask for it" get raped. However a lot of the most right wing women i know nonetheless KNOW women who have been raped and who weren't "asking for it". (I know it's inconsistant, but rigid thought processes like this often crumble when one sees enough exceptions to the rule to determine that their rule of thumb on things like rape is flawed and untrue.) I think that a letter like this would get priority.
A letter that includes addresses and names of the involved Secretaries & Undersecretaries makes it really EASY for said constituent relations staff to turn right around and pop a letter out ASAP.
We also found that if local VFWs got involved, that too helped press the point. I'd suggest writing your local VFW & AMerican Legion and ask THEIR members to write on her behalf...on the basis of "What would they do if this were their daughter?"
I know that appealing to these rather right wing patriarchial groups may not appeal to all, but if the goal is righting an injustice, well...politics make strange bedfellows...and i'm depressed by this all enough to make me willing to write to the old fart vets on my nice "ladylike" stationary if that's what it takes to help.
And THEN we'll go after the folks that let this abomination of a charge occur in the first place.
Wow, I am supposing the military cares so much about rape and treats it so severely that it would rather side with the rapists rather than victims, as to ensure not to ruin any careers.
But this certainly isn't the first time this has happened. The Air Force has a long history of sexual assaults. But it's not such a new theme, is it?
I KNOW for a fact, having spent a few years in the military as a journalist, that underage-drinking is not a crime worthy of UCMJ actions, or whatever "acts of indecency" she might have engaged it.
I still have many contacts in the military and will be giving the base's public affairs officer a call as a freelance journalist tomorrow and report back.
And if anyone would like, I'd encourage you to call his office as well. I'd be happy to supply you with a number.
"Whose representative, ouyangdan? Hers or our own?"
Both, perhaps?
"If these three men are guilty, then they are monsters. They gang-raped a woman, and that's horrible."
Also, it's horrible no matter if the victim is a woman or not.
"The military is in need of a huge makeover in sexual policy. Women in the armed forces are not protected, respected, or even treated in a half-way decent matter."
For that matter, why aren't these attacks recognized as troops attacking their own country's military?
Thank you very much for this info, Bailey. I'm going to add it into the post, now.
Wow, I am supposing the military cares so much about rape and treats it so severely that it would rather side with the rapists rather than victims, as to ensure not to ruin any careers.
But this certainly isn't the first time this has happened. The Air Force has a long history of sexual assaults. But it's not such a new theme, is it?
I KNOW for a fact, having spent a few years in the military as a journalist, that underage-drinking is not a crime worthy of UCMJ actions, or whatever "acts of indecency" she might have engaged it.
I still have many contacts in the military and will be giving the base's public affairs officer a call as a freelance journalist tomorrow and report back.
And if anyone would like, I'd encourage you to call his office as well. I'd be happy to supply you with a number.
I find this whole thing to be so disgusting, I can't even handle it.
As for the Duke case and the Bryant case (I will admit I didn't follow the details too closely), how can we be sure that recanting indicates lying? We know about those cases what was fed to us through the media. Maybe if Bryant's accuser had a PR rep lit the one Bryant can afford, she wouldn't have been vilified by the media and seem like a big liar in the public eye.
As for the military, it is clear what they are doing. Not only are they punishing the woman for reporting her attackers, but they are also punishing her for being a woman. It is worse for her to get caught drinking than a man because she is a woman. If the sex was consensual (which I don't believe for a moment!), then she should be punished for having sex, right? The military doesn't care about women; it's the oldest boy's club there is. I mean, where else in the civilized world is it not rape if it is your wife?
I'm curious, Elise, why you think that women ought to be drafted (and raped) while we work on changing the culture.
Because I never said that we shouldn't change the culture. I simply said that the CURRENT culture is not something that women ought to be forced into.
I'm sorry, but I'm really sick of the nit-picking that goes on here. It doesn't make you look smart or feminist; it makes you look like you have nothing better to do with your time than to harp on people to make yourself look better.
Please check the correction at the bottom of the post for information on how you can take action.
Perhaps this, too, is "nit-picking", but you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone should be drafted; nor are women (or men, come to that) currently drafted in the US (the "backdoor draft" of "stop-loss orders" is another matter, since it requires people to stay in the military beyond their commitment rather than requiring them to join).
Nor do I think that anyone else was specifically advocating a draft of women (or men). People were responding to your comment that women should not be drafted because of the current military culture, and it appears I'm not the only one to assume (and it's not a leap given your usual antics) that you were suggesting that the culture itself should not be changed, given that you did not suggest that it should be.
"Men get raped too, and men are the majority of those accused of rape."
You forgot something: The majority (99%?) of rapists are men. Just an honest mistake, I'm sure.
And Oenophile, I completely agree with the first part of what you said, but the second part smacks of victim-blaming. First of all, we don't have a draft. Neither men nor women are drafted into the armed services in this country.
Second, denying women the opportunity to serve in this capacity because men victimize them is completely backwards. It's not different from telling women to avoid going out in public alone in order to avoid being raped/assaulted. How about punishing the actual perpetrators rather than restricting the movement/choices of the victims? Maybe MEN shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, since they're so likely to vicitmize their female comrades.
That would never fly though because the majority of service members are men and who could imagine restricting men in that way?
tangentially off topic:
I just read this story aloud to my two (male) roommates, and one of them reacted the same way I did (puke, cry, hurl things, etc) and the other one, who is a nice guy (not to be confused with Nice Guy (tm)) was puzzled by the situation. He couldn't understand why she had reported it then refused to testify, and thought that might mean she was lying. I mostly calmly explained that testifying, etc, after an assault was often just as traumatic and more prolonged than the assault. He brought up the possibility of false accusation, and cited the Kobe Bryant case (which I less calmly explained to him was actually rape), but he seems to think that there are a significant number of vindictive women who would pursue false rape charges to the end, and I couldn't seem to find the right words to convince him of the small chance of that happening. He also seems to be laboring under the (adorable) impression that when a woman reports an assault the accused life is immediately ruined, because everyone believes her. Anyone have advice for how I can explain this to him? I read this site all the time, but I just don't have the vocabulary to talk coherently about these issues.
tangentially off topic:
I just read this story aloud to my two (male) roommates, and one of them reacted the same way I did (puke, cry, hurl things, etc) and the other one, who is a nice guy (not to be confused with Nice Guy (tm)) was puzzled by the situation. He couldn't understand why she had reported it then refused to testify, and thought that might mean she was lying. I mostly calmly explained that testifying, etc, after an assault was often just as traumatic and more prolonged than the assault. He brought up the possibility of false accusation, and cited the Kobe Bryant case (which I less calmly explained to him was actually rape), but he seems to think that there are a significant number of vindictive women who would pursue false rape charges to the end, and I couldn't seem to find the right words to convince him of the small chance of that happening. He also seems to be laboring under the (adorable) impression that when a woman reports an assault the accused life is immediately ruined, because everyone believes her. Anyone have advice for how I can explain this to him? I read this site all the time, but I just don't have the vocabulary to talk coherently about these issues.
I still don't understand. They're charging her with raping herself or something? I'm completely confused.
I served in the Army National Guard and NEVER got a solid class of instruction on what to do if you are raped. It differes ALL based on your commanders.
In the military the rape protection regulations are years behind civilian law, as poor as those are. Women are often pushed into hidingthe rape before they even report it just becasue of military culture.
This is not only just one of many insults to women service members but this goes above and beyond seeing that she is being charged. However this is just more of the same for women when dealing with the US military.
This is just one reason why groups like SWAN, the Service Womens Action Network are begining to shape in order to give women who have served in the military a way to navigate the waters of it. It is absolutly needed for some women to have a place to turn after the military turns on them.
This is just one more reason I think our ramoant militarism as a culture is hurting more than it will EVER protect anyones freedom.
Lindsey, they are essentially charging her with having sex. Did you read the links? Maybe they explain it better than my post did?
Angiecita, not off topic at all. Very frustrating indeed. Not specific to the topic of rape or rape accusations at all, but two great threads / posts I feel have the potential to help men understand some of women's experiences more generally are the *everyday misogyny examples* thread at Bitch, Ph.D. (it's an old post but I believe the link is still up as it's one of her favorites / "classics"), and Chris Clarke's post entitled something like STFU at Pandagon, which is also at least a few months old now.
As for understanding the horror / trauma of rape and the retraumatization that comes with prosecuting one's rapists, I have no Internet resources to recommend, but some rape prevalence statistics or rape conviction statistics might help (with the understanding that rape is significantly underreported) put things in a more reality-based perspective for him, as might some autobiographical writing from women who have been raped, whether that be in blog or book or film form or whatever. It all depends on how invested you feel in helping him "get it."
"He also seems to be laboring under the (adorable) impression that when a woman reports an assault the accused life is immediately ruined, because everyone believes her. Anyone have advice for how I can explain this to him?"
I don't know how much this will help, but try pointing him to the recent OC case and that the idea of treating a victim like a perpetrator isn't new.
Remind him that the most asked question about an alleged rape is "what was she doing/wearing?"
Make sure he knows about the long list of restrictive things that women are told by everyone - from parents to co-workers - to do to prevent rape, despite dubious results, at best.
And lastly, remind him that the woman in this case didn't really have the choice of not being surrounded by guys like him throughout the trial. Ok, well, I wouldn't put it that way - I'd mention recent scandals within the military instead.
Most importantly, stay focused on the goal and try not to get sidetracked. The goal: to make it clear that military personnel who are raped by their comrades are often stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Not the goal: to get mired down by the question of whether or not this particular woman is a victim or not. If you get him to concede the larger point, he will probably concede the minor point the next time the subject comes up, but may hold out this time - no matter what - for pride's sake.
Also not the goal: don't let him sidetrack you into complaining about false accusations.
If you think he has any bit of compassion, make this about you and what you would feel in this situation and getting him to understand what that is like. But be careful not to let him paint you as some crazy; have some well known and/or universal examples to use in case he tries to make this about you having "problems."
Don't let him turn this into a debate for debates sake. Nip nitpicking in the bud by bringing it back to the goal rather than responding point by point.
And take my advice with a grain of salt, I'm ok at online debates, but often bad in person.
Plus! good luck! and remember that this may not help. Sadly, it likely won't make an immediate difference. It may give him food for thought, though, and help down the line.
The story is not making sense from the article. She says she was attacked but managed to flee with half of her clothes on, even got a medical exam. Now, because of the refusal to testify, the new charge is she was performing an indecent act (what does that constitute by the way, and why can't the male also involved in the act be prosecuted as well) witnessed by 2 men? I understand an act normally not punishable can become an "indecent act" via its occurrence in public or in front of others, so the presence of the men, who previously were charged as rape victims, are now potentially the impetus for her indictment?
'The night of the alleged assault, she was taken to the hospital and eventually given counsel and therapy, but the stress of it was all too much.
She says after a defense attorney with the Air Force harshly interrogated her without representation present, she backed off and decided not to testify.
"It got very bad, I was getting calls late at night. She was in tears, and she was going back and forth on everything," Hernandez said.'
The timeline on the whole incident is fucked up; you're not told how soon after the incident she was interrogated, how soon after the interrogation that she decided not to testify. They say her advocate was not present; for how long?? I am highly sympathetic to her, if it it happened the way she says it happened, it's terrible just to think about it, but the story as written has so many holes and discrepencies, it's hard to determine the details. Is the immunity of the men absolute, or can mitigating evidence or claims, such as the interrogation by the airforce laywer without Cassandra's advocate, be used to get a new trial against the men, or at least postpone the upcoming courtmartial? Sorry it's a lot to throw out there, but there is a lot here that I'm having trouble following.
OK, I get that people are innocent until proven guilty and therefore we shouldn't assume that these men actually did rape her (although we can use stats on how infrequently rape is falsely reported and how frequently it is unreported to conclude that it is likely), but regardless, they should not give immunity to the men in order to catch the woman! What the hell? Even if she wasn't raped, she wasn't guilty of anything more than what they were guilty of, unless they just want to punish her for trying to report the alleged rape, which it sounds like they already did.
Oh, in which case they would be considering her guilty (of lying) without a trial. So yeah, I can't see any way that this is fair, but I can see ways that it might well be grotesquely and misogynistically wrong.
Wow, did anyone else catch this at the end of the article:
"If convicted on both counts, the woman could face up to a year in jail, reduction in rank, a cut in pay in allowances, a possible bad conduct discharge and be required to register as a sex offender, her defense lawyers said."
REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?!
It sounds to me like she's being charged for having consensual sex* with another consenting adult* not child molestation, sexual assault or anything else that could possibly be considered a sexual offense by any normal, rational person.
If I have sex with someone tonight am I going to have to register too?
*according to the charges brought against her and disregarding her previous accusations
Wow, did anyone else catch this at the end of the article:
"If convicted on both counts, the woman could face up to a year in jail, reduction in rank, a cut in pay in allowances, a possible bad conduct discharge and be required to register as a sex offender, her defense lawyers said."
REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?!
It sounds to me like she's being charged for having consensual sex* with another consenting adult* not child molestation, sexual assault or anything else that could possibly be considered a sexual offense by any normal, rational person.
If I have sex with someone tonight am I going to need to register too?
*according to the charges brought against her and disregarding her previous accusations
thanks for the advice (and sorry about the double post!)
I vaguely remember the "STFU" post on Pandagon, but can't seem to find it again. And the Bitch PhD post was a really good example of how pervasive and accepted casual misogyny is in the world we live in.
I hope I didn't give the impression that my one roommate is an awful person or anything. He's actually quite nice, I just wish he did the dishes more often. He just hasn't been exposed to feminism much. I think one of his problems is that he judges situations based solely on his own experiences, and those experiences don't include the blatant misogyny women face every day. I tell him about harassment on the bus or the train, or that super creepy customer at work that says things that are almost offensive, but not enough to ban him from the coffee shop, and he believes me, but thinks they are freak occurrences. Since he would never harass a woman on the bus, in his world view, those people don't exist.
He's gotten a lot better, though. I guess I didn't realize that your average Joe Blow really does think that feminism is all about man hating and promoting women above men. Once I explained to him that feminism is about equality for everyone, that it's about getting equal pay for women, and also about telling men that it's ok to have and show feelings, it was like a little light bulb went on in his head. I think he'll get there, it's just going to be a long road.
angiecita-style feminism: changing one person at a time through run-on sentences and occasional bad spelling.
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/13/how-to-not-be-an-asshole-a-guide-for-men/
Here's the Pandagon article you were talking about: "How not to be an asshole: A guide for men"
sorry cara...i was away for a few...it is best to go w/ first her representative, and maybe follow through w/ the one in the state where she serves, but the one in the state where she would vote (i assume from the background articles that she still claims texas as her home of record) would be best, as they tend to want to help constituents (spelling?). after that, if you REALLY want to take action, contact your own reps. after all, they all meet in the same place eventually.
and fantastic job this week so far cara!
i think someone took my earlier post to mean that i was defending the air force's actions...that is NOT what i was doing. what they are doing in this matter is deplorable. i was trying to give some background on how they look at situations like this, and why they can get away w/ it. i was also trying to point out that you can't just cry rape and go to court. there is a very LONG process involved. (sexual assault training is not dependent on commanders, in the navy we take up to three hour long classes on sexual assault quarterly, and pretty much monthly are briefed on the navy and UCMJ's policies regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault. it is also worth noting that national guard isn't trained the same way, but navy and air force, including marines, go through this. i can't speak for the army).
someone asked what she was being charged w/ and again, under UCMJ, it is pretty much illegal to do anything that is not standard run of the mill man to woman vaginal intercourse, and then you shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage if you ask them. the UCMJ laws are out dated for the most part, partiarchal and conservative at best. they are really only designed to protect married men if you read them closely enough. the military has a horrible habit of not handling things properly, or w/ sensitivity, especially w/ it's young, single female service members.
sorry if i confused anyone. i was just trying to help.
and yes, public affairs officer is another route to go, if you have the rank or civilian authority to contact one.
last point...i forgot one detail.
underage drinking IS punishable under the UCMJ, because the federal law is clear that if you are not 21 you are not allowed to drink...the current trend in the military is to squash drinking offenses as harshly and as quickly as possible. the navy and air force will dishonorably discharge you for your first offense, after severly punishing you. the minimum at my command is dock of half a month's pay for three months, reduction in rank by two pay grades (which is pretty big for a majority of the servicemembers here), and at least 2 weeks restriction and extra duty. this is the lowest punishment. it is harsh, and there is nothing that can be done if it is confessed to.
it sounds like the air force is on a witch hunt, so to speak. i believe they are using one offense to lay ground work to allow them to charge w/ the other. it is HORRIBLE. again, not defending the military, i am choosing to get out b/c of some of the injustice they inflict everyday on their own members. just trying to clarify.
Someone posted: "Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?"
I have email addresses - I'm not sure how well they'll work though. They probably have people that check their inbox for them.
MichaelW.Wynne@pentagon.af.mil
Ronald.Sega@pentagon.af.mil
I'm in the Air Force, and these are in our "global" Outlook address book.
Someone posted: "Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?"
I have email addresses - I'm not sure how well they'll work though. They probably have people that check their inbox for them.
MichaelW.Wynne@pentagon.af.mil
Ronald.Sega@pentagon.af.mil
I'm in the Air Force, and these are in our "global" Outlook address book.
Joe said:
"Men get raped too, and men are the majority of those accused of rape. "
What exactly is your point.? Yes men get raped, but rape is something that affects women individually and culturally. Rape is not something that men run a high risk of happening to them. It is very rare.
"Men are the majority of those accused of rape"
Well yes Joe, because men are the ones who rape. Please tell me the last case you recall where a woman was convicted of rape.
I don't know, I drank plenty underaged and probably did things that were considered "indecent," too, but I was never kicked out. Hmmm. I wonder why? Could it be the fact that I HAVE A PENIS? I really do wonder.
I just talked to a friend in the Air Force and he says because it's "downsizing," that the Air Force is using this case to get her out of the military. If that were truly the case, it's pretty shitty.
I am making the call this afternoon when I get home. Something about asking military officials about possible wrongdoings while still in uniform and on government time is kind of - uh, stupid.
"Turns out there was an e-mail. I just found the article. Here's an excerpt:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10092 " - Elise
How is that "admitting it"? This email is widely known, but says nothing about the night in question, and is not even written by the accused.
"As for the Duke case and the Bryant case (I will admit I didn't follow the details too closely), how can we be sure that recanting indicates lying?" - CatherineM
Check out the details of the Duke case if you are interested. The recantation on its own was not overly compelling. However, that combined with the conflicting stories, DNA evidence, alibis, witness accounts (even the second dancer called her story “a crock�), numerous problems with the ID process (including an inability to ID any attackers during most of the presentations), and more should be enough to convince any reasonable person that the accuser was lying.
Again, back to the subject of the post…
Lazy though it sounds, I always find it easier to take action when information is simplified, and there is an easy draft email ready to send my representative. SO, I made this one, which I sent my reps. The links at the top were real helpful to find their contact info.
I don't know if it is Ideal, but feel free to copy and use it:
Dear Senator,
I'm urging you to do anything you can to prevent the case against Ms. Cassandra Hernandez for "indecent acts" and underage drinking from going forward. If convicted on both counts, the she could face up to a year in jail, reduction in rank, a cut in pay in allowances, a possible bad conduct discharge and be required to register as a sex offender, her defense lawyers said.
Please read these 2 links:
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/080107kvueairforce-eh.d0a50cd9.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5034202.html
I believe that she has been harassed and on the receiving end of undue stress from the Air Force, if not rape from 3 of its airmen. I would like to see my representatives help create an environment in which women in the armed forces feel comfortable reporting - and testifying about - rape allegations.
I urge you to send a representative to her case at Fort Bragg on September 24th if you cannot attend yourself. I urge you to pressure the Air Force and military to reform their ways and to protect our young women that serve from mental, physical, and sexual harassment and violence.
Thanks,
signed
I'm coming into this thread late, and other's have responded already, but there are a couple statements here I just couldn't let go without commenting:
Will there be any moment in time where those accused of rape are innocent until proven guilty?
Sure. Every moment of every day, for about 90% of the world's population. Men accused of rape are assumed to be innocent and to bear no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. She shouldn't have been there/worn that/gotten drunk/passed out/been a tease/trusted a stranger/trusted a friend-lover-spouse-relative/allowed herself to be alone with a man/left her house/owned a pussy in the first place, right?
I mean, who got the short end of the stick in the Duke case?
Hmm, well probably not the rich white boys who have now been enshrined as the ultimate bastions of the she's a lying bitch defense, to be trotted out ad nauseam any and every time a woman says she was raped. Goes something along the lines of, "That one (mentally ill?) woman lied about being raped, therefore all women who claim they were raped can be assumed to be lying." Or something.
This logic is never applied to crimes other than rape. The acquittal of one accused murderer doesn't get cited as "evidence" that a different murder suspect is probably innocent too, now does it?
Why, oh why, oh why, oh why goddamn it why, are people talking about Duke?
Air Force =\ Duke.
This accuser =\ Duke accuser.
These accused \= Those accused.
Court martial \= North Carolina state court.
This accusation of rape \= that accusation of rape.
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?
Sailorman, it's because all of us sometimes forget that we should assume both that a) a man is innocent until proven guilty, AND b) a woman is telling the truth unless proven otherwise.
Some of our fellow fellas can't handle B.
You know, the men who crawl out of the woodwork to remind everyone that "women lieee!" whenever a woman accuses someone of rape can't be depended on to give two shits about the facts that:
1.) most rape accusations are true, and
2.) 1 out of 4 women will be the victim of sexual assault or rape in her lifetime.
It's just the ultimate injustice when a man is falsely accused of rape, or even mistakenly fingered in a rape. But the fact that rape is so common, underreported and casually accepted? Eh, no biggie. So fuck off to those who think it's at all appropriate to cry "Duke!" whenever a woman speaks up about her rape.
Do you folks even know what "innocent until proven guilty" means? It means "in a court of law."
It doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to talk about a case until the accused has had his/her day in court.
It doesn't mean your employer can't terminate you after you're charged with rape/dog-fighting/whatever.
Only within the justice system is there an expectation of "innocent until proven guilty." And even then, sometimes guilty people are found "not guilty." Innocent people are found "guilty." And guess what? The fact that a verdict's been handed down does not mean all discussion and examination of an issue must cease.
This is a disgusting situation and made worse by the fact that the military has not changed from past scandals and miscarriages of justice.
Also, echoing the man above, STFU about the Duke case. It proves nothing about any other rape cases.
angiecita - An exercise I find useful is to watch the watchers. I assume from your post that you are talking about a straight man. So, encourage him the next few times he is on the bus to when he sees an attractive and/or interesting woman to look out for people watching that person. It is also useful anytime you feel an urge to watch someone. Turn it around and scan for others staring.
This is a disgusting situation and made worse by the fact that the military has not changed from past scandals and miscarriages of justice.
Also, echoing the man above, STFU about the Duke case. It proves nothing about any other rape cases.
angiecita - An exercise I find useful is to watch the watchers. I assume from your post that you are talking about a straight man. So, encourage him the next few times he is on the bus to when he sees an attractive and/or interesting woman to look out for people watching that person. It is also useful anytime you feel an urge to watch someone. Turn it around and scan for others staring.
Since people are bringing up Kobe Bryant, as a matter of fact he did it. The court system kept "accidentally" releasing her name in documents and she got threatened and villified until she gave up. But in Kobe's post-dismissal statement, he admitted that he understood how she could have viewed their encounter as nonconsensual. That is an admission of rape, and anyone who doesn't see it that way should shoot themselves in the head with a large caliber weapon and make the world a better place.
kid_icarus
BIG THANKS!!! I used your letter and I've passed it around!
And Oenophile, I completely agree with the first part of what you said, but the second part smacks of victim-blaming. First of all, we don't have a draft. Neither men nor women are drafted into the armed services in this country.
Second, denying women the opportunity to serve in this capacity because men victimize them is completely backwards.
Oh my God. Get a clue, Sarah.
I simply said that we should not require women to be subjected to those conditions.
Nothing else. I REFUSE to deal with the shit that you mindless people throw against me. You take something completely out of context, warp it, twist it, and then bitch about how I said something offensive to your little psyches.
Get a fucking clue or learn to read. I refuse to defend myself against accusations which are equally baseless and stupid as those thrown against the woman in question.
ok -- i am a Canadian -- and i would love to help --- does anyone know what I could do?? i might make a video blog about this on youtube
ok -- i am a Canadian -- and i would love to help --- does anyone know what I could do?? i might make a video blog about this on youtube
ok -- i am a Canadian -- and i would love to help --- does anyone know what I could do?? i might make a video blog about this on youtube
ok -- i am a Canadian -- and i would love to help --- does anyone know what I could do?? i might make a video blog about this on youtube
does anyone have any other ideas?
ok -- i am a Canadian -- and i would love to help --- does anyone know what I could do?? i might make a video blog about this on youtube
does anyone have any other ideas?
ok -- i am a Canadian -- and i would love to help --- does anyone know what I could do?? i might make a video blog about this on youtube
does anyone have any other ideas?
One possible interpretation, certainly. But it could also be interpreted as the woman's colleague knowing the world of shit she'd be in if she corroborated the story. Appearing unable to identify someone in a lineup is also not, in itself, proof of lying. It's the easiest way to end a case that one initiated when one fears retaliation. None of these things is inconsistent with a victim of violent crime who is afraid of what the perpetrator or his friends might do if the case goes forward.
So you weren't saying that women shouldn't be drafted 'cause it's too risky for them to serve with men? Why don't you clear that up for me, Oenophile.
What's the point? If you point out that what she says includes offensive underlying assumptions and glosses over key realities, you're "nit picking". If you disagree with her philosophically on some point, you're almost certain to hear a suggestion that you up your Midol dose. If everyone understands what she says to mean the same absurd thing, then somehow we're the problem, not her apparent inability to express herself clearly/anger at being called on her shit. The only time you won't be accused of anything or have your words blatantly mischaracterised is when she considers you to be in complete agreement with her.
I wrote to my Senator (Sherrod Brown of Ohio). Hopefully something will happen.
kid_icarus, thanks so much for your letter. I've sent it on to my Senators - Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker.
Wait.. the "indecent acts" thing is confusing me. By the definition you found, would that mean orgies are illegal? That couldn't be possible.
I'll try not to post three times this time.....
The military has a completely different set of laws, UCMJ, that hold service members to "a higher standard".
Oral sex is illegal (between straight AND gay) adultry is illegal and a whole host of other things.
The tricky part is when does it get enforced?
In this case it looks as though its getting enforced to punish this woman. When it is enforced is up to your commanders discretion, just like Don't Ask Don't Tell is.
This leaves the military open to personal opinion and not a set standard throughout.
Once again, one more reason for peole to know the truth about the military BEFORE they get recruited.
War Resisters League along with SWAN (Service Womens Action Network) have a great brouchure out for women who are thinking of joining the military.
I'll try not to post three times this time.....
The military has a completely different set of laws, UCMJ, that hold service members to "a higher standard".
Oral sex is illegal (between straight AND gay) adultry is illegal and a whole host of other things.
The tricky part is when does it get enforced?
In this case it looks as though its getting enforced to punish this women. When it is enforced is up to your commanders discretion, just like Don't Ask Don't Tell is.
This leaves the military open to personal opinion and not a set standard throughout.
Once again, one more reason for peole to know the truth about the military BEFORE they get recruited.
War Resisters League along with SWAN (Service Womens Action Network) have a great brouchure out for women who are thinking of joining the military.
Why aren't the men (alleged rapists) being charged with indecent acts as well?
Sarah: Because the charges are optional. The state doesn't NEED to charge anyone. The men have been given the opportunity to turn state's witness in exchange for immunity.
FWIW, if the woman had elected to pursue charges, the reverse would probably be true. Then, she would be the state's witness, and she would be offered immunity in exchange for testimony.
This is working out to be an unusually bizarre case, especially given the flipped sides. Either (1) the people who are making the decisions are very, very screwed up, or (2) there are some very unusual facts that none of us know about.
Elise - When they dropped the case, the AG said she still wanted to proceed.
It does seem highly suspect that of four people who allegedly committed "indecent acts", only the woman is being charged, but I'm reluctant to comment any further on this particular case without knowing all the facts.
I'm curious about marle and oenophile's contention that false rape allegations are rare. Does anyone have a source for this? 5 minutes of Googling turned up one study, which found at least 41% of allegations in one small town were false.
I also found a mention of the 2% figure which claimed it was often quoted but poorly sourced.
None of this has much bearing on Hernandez or any one particular case, as each must be tried on its merits. However, the claim is often made that false accusations are rare compared to genuine ones, and this needs to be backed up. If it's not true, asserting it repeatedly will do no good to genuine rape victims, as it will damage the credibility of those who believe their claims.
It does seem highly suspect that of four people who allegedly committed "indecent acts", only the woman is being charged, but I'm reluctant to comment any further on this particular case without knowing all the facts.
I'm curious about marle and oenophile's contention that false rape allegations are rare. Does anyone have a source for this? 5 minutes of Googling turned up one study, which found at least 41% of allegations in one small town were false.
I also found a mention of the 2% figure which claimed it was often quoted but poorly sourced.
None of this has much bearing on Hernandez or any one particular case, as each must be tried on its merits. However, the claim is often made that false accusations are rare compared to genuine ones, and this needs to be backed up. If it's not true, asserting it repeatedly will do no good to genuine rape victims, as it will damage the credibility of those who believe their claims.
Apologies for double post. The site hanged and didn't appear to have posted.
Once again, the military is a completely different animal. Look up figures for the military, look up Suzanne Swift, look up Levena Johnson, Pfc. Tina M. Priest both who died under "mysterious" circumstances. They are not the only two.
There is no "state" in the military and there is even more pressure to just shut up and drive on.
Was that in reply to my post SgtHogg? The military's different in many ways, but I think most of the claims on this thread of rare false rape were referring to civvie life or civilian and military. I've tried to look up figures for the military too, I found one study mentioned online, of the US air force in 1985, which found that 27% of allegations were eventually admitted false, and there was strong evidence that the true figure was 65%. I couldn't find the original study, "falserape.net" claims it was buried and the author reassigned.
I had a quick look at the names you mentioned, they sound like tragic cases but don't tell us anything about the frequency of false rape allegations so I'd rather not get sidetracked with them.
Again, I'd ask anyone with evidence that false rape charges are rare to post it. Everything I've found in a cursory search of the internet suggests they are about as common as genuine allegations. None of this diminishes the seriousness of rape; rather it is the minimising of false allegations that will ultimately hurt rape victims and hurt feminism. This is getting away from the Hernandez case now (although discussion of that seems to have ground to a halt), maybe the bloggers here could see their way to making a separate post on this, e.g. a rebuttal of falserape.net?
Mushroom I think you are missing my point. It ties directly into both Hernadez and "false rape" claims.
Look at the three cases I pointed out. I only had time to point out three so lets stick to those.
Swift was command raped in Iraq. Reported it. Went through the chain of command and was eventually going to be REDEPLOYED to Iraq with the very same people who threatened her with missions designed to make her think she would surely die or be raped again in them. Later when she went AWOL she herself was punished, spent time in the brig and demoted. She now is serving the rest of her contract out.
What kind of message do you think this sends to women who want to even report thier rape. It makes it look like its easier to just shut up and drive on, meaning, if you DON"T say anything you are better off.
With Both Johnson and Priest it looks as though in one was raped and killed and one reported the rape and either was killed or killed herself. This once again is taking place in Iraq where you options run even lower for a hope of a listening ear.
The point is that the system as a whole encourages women not to speak out and when they have the courage to do so it often works very hard to push them back to being quiet or you get what Swift did (if you are lucky) or worse you could get what Johnson did.
Address this BEFORE you start to say there are lots of false allegations.
I'll be more concerned about rebutting falserape.net "facts" when they start working to highlight all the factors that go into low reporting numbers and withdrawals of testimony such as Hernadez. What some may call a false allegation can often be self protection for the accuser. Why would someone find it safer to recant then pursue charges? When this problem is taken care of I'll look into false rape charges as a serious problem. As it stand now the statistics are tainted.
That site can list a few guys who were falsely accused but I can list at least that many plus 10 women I know personally who have been raped both within and without the military.
Also the site does not offer proof or a siting for many of its statistics. The study you mention is by Mcdowell, a name infamous due to a "checklist" he developed to determine if a woman is lying.
I'll quote it here:
One of the campaign's demands is an end to the use of the so-called McDowell checklist to determine whether rape reports are valid. The checklist, developed by retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charles McDowell, is made up of 57 questions that are scored with .5 to 5 points for each answer. A score of over 16 points means a woman's rape charge is "probably false," over 36 is "false" and over 76 is "overkill." If a woman is having problems with her husband or boyfriend, she gets three points. Financial problems earn one point. Even "demanding" to be given medical treatment by a female earns her a point.
"There is no way any rape victim can pass this test," said Mackey. Considering the seeming irrelevance and bias of the questions, it is not surprising that the McDowell checklist turns up a 60 percent incidence of "false" rape reports, compared to a national average of about eight percent (according to FBI numbers).
http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/RapeNation.html
*When was the last time you heard about a robbery with no witnesses besides the two involved and thought: "hmm, I wonder if they are lying".*
Thanks for your detailed reply SgtHogg. I had missed your point, although you also seem to have missed mine. If what you say about those three cases is true, it's horrifying and paints an appalling picture of life in the military. I could well believe that in the McDowell study, some of the 27% of recanted allegations were genuine rapes in which the victim was intimidated into saying she was lying. Whether it was probably only a few or all of them, we have no way of knowing.
Falserape.net mentioned the McDowell checklist was used in the original study to obtain the 65% estimate, which I agree is questionably useful. It didn't say, which seems to be implied by your quote, that the checklist was used in new criminal investigations - that would be extreme negligence on the part of the police if true, each case should be investigated on its own, and I would certainly support abandoning the list. However, the 27% figure was not derived using the checklist, and only included cases where the accuser later said she was lying. As I conceded, a culture of fear may have inflated this figure, but we have no way of knowing how much.
Now, on to you missing my point. You misconstrued my claim, and did not address evidence relating to civilian cases.
Why can't we address both? False accusations hurt rape victims, perhaps as much as a culture of intimidation. And please note that I'm not (yet) saying "there are lots of false allegations". I'm questioning the assertion made by several on this thread that they know false allegations to be much rarer than true ones, and pointing out that the first things you find with a bit of Googling suggest this is not the case. Google's not a final authority, so I'd be very hesitant to say that false allegations are actually a common problem based on the evidence so far, but I would be keen to hear the opposing evidence. What I've found so far stacks up mainly on one side.Furthermore, the people claiming that accusers are rarely lying seemed to be speaking in general terms, not just about the military, so even if you are right about the armed forces, we would still need evidence for civvie street. The civilian study I linked found a higher incidence of accusers admitting to lying than McDowell, when presumably any culture of intimidation would have been less than that found among the troops.
In answer to the rest of your points...
Agreed, the low reporting rate is a terrible problem. But this should not blind us to the existence of other terrible problems. In fact, it makes high figures for false reporting all the more believable: the fewer genuine rapes get reported, the more likely a given report is to be false. This in turn damages the credibility of genuine victims who are able to come forward.Yes, that almost certainly happens. But how much? Again, for the sake of victims, we need to know, in order to better combat the problem. Until we know, we have reasonable grounds for suspecting, based on the studies I linked, that false charges are a significant problem, and if we cannot refute this, defendants and the media will have a better chance of undermining victims' credibility.
The original statistics were the 2% figure quoted by others here. I'd still like to see backup for that, even if it is tainted. I'm sure false robbery reports are made too, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about false rape reports.Websites like falserape.net are not there to clear the air of false rape alleagations so victims of rape can stop having to face the media backlash and despicable practices in law. They are there to prove that rape allegations have a good chance of being false. They have no concern for women and men that are raped. One may use some fuzzy logic to try to distantly connect the two but the tone and drive of those sites remain the same, to discredit allegations of rape as false. I do not find these site relaiable nor much anyone who visits them as looking out for the welfare of people who have been raped.
I'll address both when the number of rape cases drop to the number of false allegations. In the meantime there are thousands more cases of rape and much more stigma on the rape victim than a person who is accused and then has the charges dismissed (yet not even cleared in a court of law).
It seems as though false allegations are more of a distraction than a real phenomenon that the average man has to worry about.
Nearly every two minutes a woman is sexually assulted.
I don't personally know one man that has had a false rape charge, I can't count on two hands how many women I personally know who have been raped.
If people cared as much about all those women actually being raped as they do for a small number of men they see in the news being so called falsely accused then we may not have the rape problems in the world that we do.
If one needs the false robbery report analogy explained then I think they may need a few books and talks with people much more than my explanation.
Mushroom:
First, go read this to understand what "false" can means in the context of rape.
In this context, it means 'malicious', not 'incorrect.'
Now you're ready for the next explanation:
As far as most research has shown, maliciously false accusations represent about 2% of all accusations (not just rape).
We have no particular reason to believe that rape accusers are any different from accusers in general. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that there are more maliciously false accusations of rape than there are for other crimes.
ALSO, even if this was wrong, and there was a difference, the maliciously false accusations would still be a tiny minority of all accusations. If you increased the number of false accusations by 50%--which, I want to make clear again, is NOT supported by evidence--it'd still be only 3% of all accusations.
The study you quoted is not really on point, as it's talking about something else.
For the purposes of the 2% statistic, an accusation is false only if the woman believes it to be false at the time of the accusation. That's what "malicious" means.
If the woman later is convinced that the behavior does not constitute legal rape, that does NOT make the accusation "instantly false."
By citing to that study, you are trying to claim that "agreeing in retrospect that you were incorrect" is equivalent to "making a malicious accusation." That's not true. And BTW, don't discount the probable effect of police pressure there.
It's also highly edited and doesn't appear to have been published, both of which render the quited findings highly suspect. The devil is in the details for any study, and we don't see the details.
Moreover, the study limits itself to women who agreed that they "were not raped". But the missing word there, which is pretty damn crucial, is whether they agreed they they were not subjected to behavior which LEGALLY constitutes rape. I suspect this was in fact true.
Go read the link again if you don't get the difference. It's a big, big difference.
Mushroom:
First, go read this to understand what "false" can means in the context of rape.
In this context, it means 'malicious', not 'incorrect.'
Now you're ready for the next explanation:
As far as most research has shown, maliciously false accusations represent about 2% of all accusations (not just rape).
We have no particular reason to believe that rape accusers are any different from accusers in general. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that there are more maliciously false accusations of rape than there are for other crimes.
ALSO, even if this was wrong, and there was a difference, the maliciously false accusations would still be a tiny minority of all accusations. If you increased the number of false accusations by 50%--which, I want to make clear again, is NOT supported by evidence--it'd still be only 3% of all accusations.
The study you quoted is not really on point, as it's talking about something else.
For the purposes of the 2% statistic, an accusation is false only if the woman believes it to be false at the time of the accusation. That's what "malicious" means.
If the woman later is convinced that the behavior does not constitute legal rape, that does NOT make the accusation "instantly false."
By citing to that study, you are trying to claim that "agreeing in retrospect that you were incorrect" is equivalent to "making a malicious accusation." That's not true. And BTW, don't discount the probable effect of police pressure there.
It's also highly edited and doesn't appear to have been published, both of which render the quited findings highly suspect. The devil is in the details for any study, and we don't see the details.
Moreover, the study limits itself to women who agreed that they "were not raped". But the missing word there, which is pretty damn crucial, is whether they agreed they they were not subjected to behavior which LEGALLY constitutes rape. I suspect this was in fact true.
Go read the link again if you don't get the difference. It's a big, big difference.
...not to mention the fact that the "true" allegations (as opposed to "false" ones) only account for a small amount of rapes that actually occur.
Just 'cause she didn't bring charges doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who can say that none of my friends who've been victims of rape have brought charges.
Joe: No matter how you try to parse it, the AF is screwing her over. Why? Because they are offering immunity to the three men. That means the AF believes they committed a violation of the UCMJ. Since they are being offered immunity from the same charges they are prosecuting her for, I assume it's an Art 125 (sodomy) violation.
ouyangdan: I'm an Army Staff Sergeant (petty officer 1st class, were I in the Navy) On the subject of what is/isn't allowed (per Art 125) You are wrong.
Penile/vaginal, and manual sex are allowed. Any position you want. What's prohibited is oral/anal penetration, be it giving, or receiving, and any sexual contact between members of the same sex.
ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
As for your assertion here
one more thing...
in the military...sadly...under the UCMJ, which takes priority over civilian law, you are basically guilty until you can defend yourself out of the big shit heap you are in.
Nonsense. 1: The UCMJ doesn't take precedence. There are test for jurisdiction. If Airman Jones/Private Snuffy/Seaman Smith commit armed robbery of a bank off post, the civil authorities have jurisdiction.
Some things only apply when one is on active duty (this matters to Guard members/Reserve Members, because they can't be prosecuted under the UCMJ, for anything they do when not on Drill/ADT/ODT status. So blowjobs on drill weekends are verboten, but come 0001 hours on Monday, anything goes.
Generally, these sections apply.
ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.
Secondly, the protections of the UCMJ are actually stronger than that of civil law.
Art 31 prohibits any form of self-incrimination
(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.
(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
(c) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence in not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.
(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
The most important difference in the UCMJ, when compared to civil law is the Art. 32 Hearing. often compared to a Grand Jury it has a huge difference.
(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.
(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.
(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.
In a grand jury the accused has no right to present evidence. The accused counsel is only allowed to give advice to the accused.
All in all, I'd rather be guilty in front of a civil court, and innocent in a military one (assuming it wasn't something where the politics of it make it hard to get a really fair shake. In that vein, I know some of the people who have been convicted of prisoner abuse; they got off easy. My cynical self says this is because going after them with the diligence I think the cases deserve would have caused some of that shit to roll uphill, but I digress).
All of that said, this thing is a travesty. Ignoring the inanity of Art 125, and accepting, arguendo, that it has some validity, to say that none of the males involved are worth prosecuting, and she is... it's retributive.
More to the point, it's an attempt to stifle the reporting of assaults (which is a larger problem in the AF than it want's to admit), and that's an abomnination. It's a disservice to the AF, and a violation of the contract to protect the personnel in the service.
my apologies for not being clear. i used generalities, and that is my fault. i didn't quote articles, and spoke vaguely.
i did say, 'pretty much' any thing that wasn't regular sex, and used missionary as a hyperbole. but then i did list the same things you did. even in the articles you cited, what i was trying to convey lined up. i did also have to witness a young girl, separated from her husband for two years, almost divorced and awaiting her final paperwork, tried for adultery when her SSgt (AF) turned her in for having a boyfriend. he saw them holding hands at the mall. she was also discharged.
my apologies, also, when i said UCMJ takes presidence, i meant that things are considered 'indecent' in a military court would not seem that bad in a civilian one. many states don't have such stringent laws regarding sodomy, oral, etc. i meant for active duty, of course, the UCMJ applies first, and, i will have to ask you now, aren't they turned over to civilian authorities once the military is finished w/ the case? i am not sure here. i do know that w/ my shipmates, the navy has ALWAYS gotten first crack, but they have always worked alongside the civilians on serious matters.
(on a light note, most of this was at a training command, i don't really spend all my time w/ law breakers)
i must have also confused a NAVY policy for being actual UCMJ. the navy's policy on underage drinking is zero tolerance. no matter where you are stationed. this is big navy, not command, directed, and it is tried under Article 92. it doesn't matter if you are in japan or canada, if you are US property, which as i understand it, we are, you drink at 21, and not a day sooner. i have known more people than i can count in my short(er) career who have been administratively discharged for underage drinking. it is probably since i have always worked in joint service settings, w/ the upper echelon leadership being navy, and enforcing navy policies, that i assumed it was the same among all branches. i intended to spread no nonsense.
i apologize for any perceived exaggeration, and any misunderstanding. but that has been my training and experience thus far. thank-you for clearing a few matters up for me, though. and i am relieved to see that there are other military feminists around. i swear, i begin to feel as though i am the only one.
She is not being charged for sodomy. She is being charged for indecent acts. The indecent acts, it has been released, was engaging in sexual relations, while two others watched. That was from the Air Force statement.
Also, does anyone know how to get this get case more coverage? I just wish there was more I could do.
For clarification, she is being court-martialed under Article 134, I believe. The military's catchall.
ouyangdan: Thanks for the clarification. I probably jumped too hard. I spend a lot of time hearing people (even in the service) who actually believe that the only "authorised" position is missionary. Being that I happen to really like the Army (even though I know all about its warts... in a small way I try to be a small dose of Compound W) I tend to overreact. I need to work on that.
I'll make a quibble. The Navy is being more command driven than the Army on drinking. If they are making a General Order that no drinking, even where it is legal, is the policy, that's harsh.
incitewxriot: An Art 134 case is harder to make; which is a good sign, assuming she can get a decent lawyer.
b>ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
The underlined portion is the only grounds they have. A decent lawyer can make a case (and reasonably compelling) that, absent her being in uniform, there's no discredit to the service, ispo facto from her being seen in public having sex.
Further, if the only other witnesses were her fellow airmen, there is less discredit, and the argument can be made that to allow the other particpant(s) [as I don't know how many are said to have been engaged in sex with her] to testify against her, when at least one of them is, admitted, to have been engaged in conduct at least as discredititting to the AF, is something which can be brougt in. It's likely to be tossed out, but careful timing can get it into the court's mind.
But the best thing is to point all of this out to Reps, and let political pressure be brought to bear. Make the case the discredit.
TK
"Woman" was the last of God's creations; therefore, since the best is always saved for last, He wanted all those who were brought forth first to welcome with Love that most precious gift to man from whom all life emanates - to care for Her, protect Her, respect Her, defend Her, because She is our Wife, our Daughter, our Sister, our Mother. The world has become a very different, often very dangerous place from the Garden of Innocence we once enjoyed. Please see to it that the Woman you love reads these "Nine Important Safety Tips for Women" in the URL which follows, and practices them through repeated visualization, until they become indelible habits that could save her life.
http://www.invisiblepatriots.com/web2/Saftey.html
Steve Savage
"King of the Beasts"
"Woman" was the last of God's creations; therefore, since the best is always saved for last, He wanted all those who were brought forth first to welcome with Love that most precious gift to man from whom all life emanates - to care for Her, protect Her, respect Her, defend Her, because She is our Wife, our Daughter, our Sister, our Mother. The world has become a very different, often very dangerous place from the Garden of Innocence we once enjoyed. Please see to it that the Woman you love reads these "Nine Important Safety Tips for Women" in the URL which follows, and practices them through repeated visualization, until they become indelible habits that could save her life.
http://www.invisiblepatriots.com/web2/Saftey.html
Steve Savage
"King of the Beasts"
Check it!
I sent in a letter about this to my senator, Johnny Isakson, and I got a letter reply.
Thank you for contacting me with your inquiry regarding Cassandra Hernandez. I am forwarding your correspondence to the Department of Defense for review.
SgtHogg - please see Sailorman's post for an example of how to intelligently respond to the issues raised.
Sailorman - thanks for the reply. Do you know where the 2% figure comes from for crimes in general (not just sexual assualts)? Again, the link you provided quotes the figure without evidence. I agree the malicious vs incorrect distinction is an important one, but it seems disingenuous to claim that only 2% of allegations are false when what is meant is that only 2% are malicious. "False" includes unintentionally false, and if you mean malicious, you should say so.
Agreed. See my previous post - this could be used to argue that a given allegation is more likely to be false for rape than for other crimes.
As a survivor of military sexual assault I am not surprise that she decided not to testify. From personal experience I was told that if I "do not drop charges against my rapist that they would throw me in prison for unacceptable behavior" what is unacceptable to them? reporting a shipmate.
I spent over a year thinking that I would be going to prison and an even longer time getting help for the emotional distress that the military put me through. I knew what happened to me but how can you fight the people who you are trained to fight for?
As a survivor of military sexual assault I am not surprise that she decided not to testify. From personal experience I was told that if I "do not drop charges against my rapist that they would throw me in prison for unacceptable behavior" what is unacceptable to them? reporting a shipmate.
I spent over a year thinking that I would be going to prison and an even longer time getting help for the emotional distress that the military put me through. I knew what happened to me but how can you fight the people who you are trained to fight for?
As a survivor of military sexual assault I am not surprise that she decided not to testify. From personal experience I was told that if I "do not drop charges against my rapist that they would throw me in prison for unacceptable behavior" what is unacceptable to them? reporting a shipmate.
I spent over a year thinking that I would be going to prison and an even longer time getting help for the emotional distress that the military put me through. I knew what happened to me but how can you fight the people who you are trained to fight for?
Just wanted to post an update
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/12/airforce_ethicscomplaint_071222/
It says two of the three where punished, but it gives no details.