Continuing the rage: victim blaming: military sexual assault

[sushi]

My head is only allowed to explode a few times a day, and I've already reached my limit. I'm almost more disgusted with this than with House Republicans.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324021104578549891063938034.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

Lt. Gen. Susan Helms is a pioneering woman who finds her career stalled because of a war on men—a political campaign against sexual assault in the military that shows signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality.

Gen. Helms is a 1980 graduate of the Air Force Academy who became an astronaut in 1990. She was a crewman on four space-shuttle missions and a passenger on two, traveling to the International Space Station and back 5½ months later. Two days after arriving at the station in 2001, she, along with fellow astronaut Jim Voss, conducted history's longest spacewalk—8 hours, 56 minutes—to work on a docking device.

In March, President Obama nominated Gen. Helms to serve as vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. But Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat who sits on the Armed Services Committee, has placed a "permanent hold" on the nomination.

At issue is the general's decision in February 2012 to grant clemency to an officer under her command. Capt. Matthew Herrera had been convicted by a court-martial of aggravated sexual assault. Ms. McCaskill said earlier this month that the clemency decision "sent a damaging message to survivors of sexual assault who are seeking justice in the military justice system."

To describe the accuser in the Herrera case as a "survivor" is more than a little histrionic. The trial was a he-said/she-said dispute between Capt. Herrera and a female second lieutenant about a drunken October 2009 sexual advance in the back seat of a moving car. The accuser testified that she fell asleep, then awoke to find her pants undone and Capt. Herrera touching her genitals. He testified that she was awake, undid her own pants, and responded to his touching by resting her head on his shoulder.

Two other officers were present—the designated driver and a front-seat passenger, both lieutenants—but neither noticed the hanky-panky. Thus on the central questions of initiation and consent, it was her word against his.

On several other disputed points, however, the driver, Lt. Michelle Dickinson, corroborated Capt. Herrera's testimony and contradicted his accuser's.

Capt. Herrera testified that he and the accuser had flirted earlier in the evening; she denied it. Lt. Dickinson agreed with him. The accuser testified that she had told Lt. Dickinson before getting into the car that she found Capt. Herrera "kind of creepy" and didn't want to share the back seat with him; Lt. Dickinson testified that she had said no such thing. And the accuser denied ever resting her head on Capt. Herrera's shoulder (although she acknowledged putting it in his lap). Lt. Dickinson testified that at one point during the trip, she looked back and saw the accuser asleep with her head on Capt. Herrera's shoulder.

In addition, the accuser exchanged text messages with Capt. Herrera after the incident. She initially claimed to have done so only a "couple times" but changed her testimony after logs of the text traffic revealed there were 116 messages, 51 of them sent by her.

Based on all this, Gen. Helms concluded that the defendant was a more reliable witness than the accuser, and that prosecutors had failed to prove [to Holms, not to a jury] beyond a reasonable doubt that Capt. Herrera did not reasonably believe the accuser had consented. [Sushi note: This is the crux of why Congress is addressing this. A non-legal commander has it in his/her power to countermand what the court-martial concludes]  He did not escape punishment: Gen. Helms accepted a reduced plea of guilty to an "indecent act." Capt. Herrera was thereby spared the lifelong stigma of being listed on a sex-offender registry—but not of involuntary discharge from the service, which took effect in December.

"Immediately after this incident, there was no indication by any party that a sexual assault had taken place," Gen. Helms wrote in a Feb. 24, 2012, memo explaining her decision. "The time delay between the event and the court-martial was approximately two years, and none of the witnesses, including the accused and the [alleged] victim, knew for at least a year that a court-martial would be convened for it."

In the interim, another servicewoman, Staff Sgt. Jennifer Robinson, had come forward to accuse Capt. Herrera of sexual assault. In her case, the incident had occurred in his bedroom, where she voluntarily accompanied him. The court-martial acquitted him of that charge on the ground that she had consented. (Sgt. Robinson, who has since been promoted to technical sergeant, revealed her identity in a March interview with the Air Force Times.)

It's fair to say that Capt. Herrera seems to have a tendency toward sexual recklessness. Perhaps that makes him unsuitable to serve as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. But his accusers acted recklessly too. The presumption that reckless men are criminals while reckless women are victims makes a mockery of any notion that the sexes are equal.

More important, Sen. McCaskill's blocking of Gen. Helms's nomination makes a mockery of basic principles of justice. As the general observed in her memo: "Capt Herrera's conviction should not rest on [the accuser's] view of her victimization, but on the law and convincing evidence, consistent with the standards afforded any American who finds him/herself on trial for a crime of this severity."

On Friday the House passed a defense bill that would strip commanders of the authority to grant clemency. That would be a mistake. The Herrera case demonstrates that the authority offers crucial protection for the accused.

Military officers and lawmakers alike swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." In the case of Matthew Herrera, Gen. Helms lived up to that commitment. Will Sen. McCaskill? [see? My head's exploded too many times]

Mr. Taranto, a member of the Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for WSJ.com.

[ttt]

Come on sushi, men just can't help themselves! Stop demonizing male sexuality!

[Deleted]

Thing is these assholes make the rest of males, who would never think of raping a women look bad, its time they spoke out and told them to STFU

[cattledogkisses]

Gee, who knew that being in someone's bedroom = consent?   ^o)

[wawa]

Jun 19, 2013 7:30:27 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

Gee, who knew that being in someone's bedroom = consent?  

Also resting your head on somebody's shoulder while half asleep = consent.  So I guess I could have started groping that chubby guy on the plane next me a few years ago who fell asleep and slowly fell over toward me until he was resting his head on my shoulder.  (Instead I just gently pushed him back upright)  Missed my chance!

But I'm really trying to understand this - so in the military somebody can get court martialed, get convicted and then have their sentence set aside/lessened because some random upper ranks person decides they don't like it??  Like how governors and POTUS can pardon people?

So...how many people have that kind of authority?  And if it's more than like...3...why even have the court martial system?  why not just let that person be in charge and hand down whatever sentence they think is reasonable since they can just make whatever decision they please anyway?

[secretlyevil]

I haven't had enough caffeine yet for this bullshit.

[IIOY]

Jun 19, 2013 7:38:31 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jun 19, 2013 7:30:27 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

Gee, who knew that being in someone's bedroom = consent?  

Also resting your head on somebody's shoulder while half asleep = consent.  So I guess I could have started groping that chubby guy on the plane next me a few years ago who fell asleep and slowly fell over toward me until he was resting his head on my shoulder.  (Instead I just gently pushed him back upright)  Missed my chance!

But I'm really trying to understand this - so in the military somebody can get court martialed, get convicted and then have their sentence set aside/lessened because some random upper ranks person decides they don't like it??  Like how governors and POTUS can pardon people?

So...how many people have that kind of authority?  And if it's more than like...3...why even have the court martial system?  why not just let that person be in charge and hand down whatever sentence they think is reasonable since they can just make whatever decision they please anyway?

This is what Congress has been addressing recently but naturally the military is pushing back, as are some members of Congress, including some traditional liberals such as Sen. Carl Levin. Some are saying that military folks lack the legal experience to second guess these punishments and their doing so undermines confidence in victims, who choose instead not to report crimes, while others are saying that military oversight is necessary to protect the chain of command.

[sushi]

Yes, wawa. Look up the case of lt col Wilkerson. It's the recent one that sparked this conversation. I posted on here about it a couple times.

Yes, it's sort of like a governor's pardon. The idea behind it, as much as I can understand, is that a commander should have room to essentially ignore law in the interest of cohesion, expediency, and morale.

[wawa]

Jun 19, 2013 10:07:37 GMT -5 sushi said:

Yes, wawa. Look up the case of lt col Wilkerson. It's the recent one that sparked this conversation. I posted on here about it a couple times.

Yes, it's sort of like a governor's pardon. The idea behind it, as much as I can understand, is that a commander should have room to essentially ignore law in the interest of cohesion, expediency, and morale.

How high up the food chain does the CO have to be in order to do this?

[sushi]

Jun 19, 2013 10:11:29 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jun 19, 2013 10:07:37 GMT -5 sushi said:

Yes, wawa. Look up the case of lt col Wilkerson. It's the recent one that sparked this conversation. I posted on here about it a couple times.

Yes, it's sort of like a governor's pardon. The idea behind it, as much as I can understand, is that a commander should have room to essentially ignore law in the interest of cohesion, expediency, and morale.

How high up the food chain does the CO have to be in order to do this?

Not very high. The aviano/Wilkerson case was overturned by the usafe commander which is fairly high, I think a one star. But I think they can do it at the base command level.

[wawa]

Jun 19, 2013 11:01:47 GMT -5 sushi said:

Jun 19, 2013 10:11:29 GMT -5 wawa said:

How high up the food chain does the CO have to be in order to do this?

Not very high. The aviano/Wilkerson case was overturned by the usafe commander which is fairly high, I think a one star. But I think they can do it at the base command level.

So it's really more like...the mayor a small city being able to overturn a conviction.  That's fucking ridiculous.

[sushi]

Stan @ojo Can you confirm or correct for wawa? I honestly don't remember at what level they have this authority. I'm presuming, also, it varies by branch?

And can you give a good analogy for where usafe level fits in the hierarchy. Maybe like a large county? With eucom the state?

[sushi]

What level unit? Isn't that a non specific term? I've only heard it in af parlance to refer to something below the flight (platoon) level.

[meltoine]

Am I crazy or doesn't alcohol mean the person can't consent, according to the UCMJ? I seem to remember H saying something about how having sex under the influence is a violation because consent can't be obtained, in which case dude was in the wrong regardless of whether her head was on his shoulder.

[sushi]

Jun 19, 2013 11:56:25 GMT -5 meltoine said:

Am I crazy or doesn't alcohol mean the person can't consent, according to the UCMJ? I seem to remember H saying something about how having sex under the influence is a violation because consent can't be obtained, in which case dude was in the wrong regardless of whether her head was on his shoulder.

h has been taught, and even I've attended fine of these briefings, that any alcohol means no consent possible. I don't think that's ucmj, though. It's probably more vague, talking about impairment. In practice, I'm going to guess no one is convicted because the victim had a glass of wine with dinner, and that's her only evidence, beyond he did she said, of assault.

[Deleted]

A little OT, but does anyone know where I can find info showing how AF bases compare to each other for reports/convictions of sexual assault?

Just curious because my H is a civilian employee of an AFB and I'm interested in knowing how that AFB stacks up to the others, and how well their officers address this issue. Googling yielded nothing on the local level worth noting except an ad for a defense attorney who represents the accused. Everything else that came up is the usual scripted crap "The AF doesn't tolerate sexual assault (pffffft), local AFB is having a sexual assault educational event on this date, blah blah blah......."

[Deleted]

Also, does anyone know why the Air Force is getting more media attention WRT sexual assault than the other branches of the Armed Forces? Is it because fewer cases are reported, or is it that comparable numbers of cases are reported but they are addressed more appropriately than in the AF? I am curious about the culture in the AF as compared to other military branches.

[sushi]

I can think of major sexual assault cases for all branches (well, not coast guard, but they're used to being ignored). Marines in Okinawa affected my life at the other end of the country, at an af base. I think af was just the most recent and specifically the case that set off current discussion.

As for rates, I know there was recently a huge report that i think you can Google for. I don't know if it was af only or military wide. I think the latter. But I doubt it would list official bases rather than the aggregate. Given how transient the community is, I'd be surprised if rates remained stay across locations.

[Deleted]

Thanks for the info.

Marines in Okinawa affected my life at the other end of the country, at an af base.

Can I ask what you mean by the this? I hope nothing like SA. (If you don't want to answer, I understand)


*edited to not quote

[sushi]

I just meant to show that the impact of their actions extended beyond the local situation to other branches in different locations. The story was huge to us at the time, and it was picked up nationally, but it didn't stay in the public eye with such a contentious primary season, so how many people are really going to remember it.

mobile.reuters.com/article/idUST12926820080229?irpc=932

A marine was accused of raping a Japanese teen on an island still very angry over a marine raping a Japanese teen a decade earlier. In response, all forces Japan and their families were restricted from travel, alcohol, and local establishments. Basically you could go home (if you lived off base), to church, and to school. AD had mandatory days of reflection. Ours was lifted quickly after just a few days, but friends in oki were restricted far longer. Until the local businesses lost too much money, and the girl changed her story.

Actually, I think within the last year they've been severely restricted again.

[sushi]

sunmoonstars here's the link to the reports. www.sapr.mil/index.php/annual-reports Do you have time to read 600+ pages? H has read most of it.

wawa I got a bit more of an explanation. When a CO refers a case to court-martial he/she becomes the convening authority, and with that comes the power to negate the case. It's stronger than a pardon, as it completely removes the case from your record. More like a SCOTUS overturn.

We're actually both looking into it now, and it's surprising how non-legal the process can be. As in H, with no legal background whatsoever, can be appointed to be the investigative officer, reviewing the case and examining people, and make the recommendation on whether to even proceed to court-martial. It's called an article 32 hearing. Hopefully in practice they use legal, but there's no guarantee.

As far as who can be a convening authority it's art 22a of the UCMJ. The lowest level that doesn't need special appointment appears to be at the base level. So, yes, kind of like mayor of a city, although COO of a region for a business like Walmart or GE is probably a more apt comparison. Not the mayor of Portlandia usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-22.htm

We think, although we couldn't find the documentation, that the CO has to be separate from the accused or accuser by a certain amount of rank. Also, that certain crimes likely require a higher authority. So, Lt Col required a 3 star to convene (they also need a 3 star for things like promotion recs), but the junior enlisted could be handled more locally. Surely, for many of the courts-martial that happen (DUI, spousal abuse, theft) I can't imagine them going very far up the chain.