Rape in the military

[DC9]

I explained the process to you and asked how you'd make it better.

 

Asking a question isn't an answer.

[China]

Hagel aims to curb unlawful influence arguments in trials

 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is pressing military juries and others involved in military criminal proceedings to exercise their own judgment based on facts, a message that comes as claims of unlawful command influence by senior officials are being made in some sexual assault trials.

Comments by President Barack Obama, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos and others have been cited for the appearance of improperly influencing military jurors and command authorities, who some argue may interpret “get-tough” comments on sexual assault as directives.

“Central to military justice is the trust that those involved in the process base their decisions on their independent judgment,” Hagel wrote in an Aug. 6 memo slated for wide distribution. That judgment “must be based purely on the facts of each individual case, not ... an effort to produce what is thought to be the outcome desired by senior officials, military or civilian.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[NavyDave]

I get your point, but are you really going to claim that men are raped as frequently as women in the military?

It's not.

 

While I was in, I knew of several Same Sex Assaults in Alameda, California and Mare Island, California not being reported but the sexual deviants being "taken care of."

 

The ones I knew of that were reported resulted in a Lt getting Admiral's Mast  and retribution by family members.

 

Then there are the females assaulted by their supervisors of the stereotypical Lady Truck driver demographic

[SemperFi Skins]

Where is the 'eating popcorn' symbol?

[sacase]

 

I did answer.  I asked that those who are familiar with the process to suggest some solutions, to use the continuous improvement process to solve the issue.  You just didn't like my answer/questions posed because you might have to do some work to solve the problem.  I can't solve the problem, I'm not in the military like you are.  Make a new model.

 

Talking about false accusations and so on is obfuscation of the issue away from the real problem of sexual assault and rape in the military, why people won't report and how to increase reporting, leading to more prosecuation and conviction.  And taking the option to dismiss the case regardless of conviction out of the chain of command.

 

I am going to jump in on this. You are basically dismissing what an expert is telling you. You are asking for a 100% solution. When you look at the numbers Military numbers are statistically even with College numbers. Now does that make it right? No. However, there is not some super increased risk by virtue of being in the military. But the military is always under a microscope. To be quite frank, I think the reason they are addressing this is that the military is moving back to a garrison force. But on to your questions.

The Army provides mandatory SHARP training on a quarterly basis. What organization or college campus does something similar. No civilians go through this training.  What more do you think they could do? Educate yourself, here is a link for you.

http://www.preventsexualassault.army.mil/ProgMgr_Tng.cfm

In your opinion what you think the army can do more as far as training goes?

Here is the Army report, I think  you should familiarize yourself with this if you want to be such a strong advocate.

http://www.preventsexualassault.army.mil/annual_reports.cfm

 

2) The chain of command has no influence over the investigative process. I was an investigator when I was in the Army. As a Sergeant I was the lead investigator on several investigations. The Chain of Command had no influence over me or my actions. I remember one case I was working I had a Major call me up and request a meeting. I met with him and he demanded I tell him my rank (Special Agent was all he got) and tell me that I had to tell him what was going on in his command. My response to him was this is an active investigation and I cannot tell you what is going on with the investigation. He said he knew my Battalion Commander and he would call him. I said he was more than welcome to and provided him with the contact info for my BC and my operations officer. He made the phone call and got the same response that I gave him. During the course of the interview I found out that he was an others knowledgeable.  Commands have no influence, even if they want to. In this case I don’t think he wanted to influence the investigation, he just wanted to know what was happening in his command and what we were doing with it. But the fact is, military investigators are independent from the commands.

3) here is the Army’s definition of sexual assault:

1. What is sexual assault?

Sexual Assault is a crime. Sexual assault is defined as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, physical threat or abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. Consent should not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the victim to offer physical resistance. Additionally, consent is not given when a person uses force, threat of force, coercion or when the victim is asleep, incapacitated, or unconscious

Sexual assault includes rape, nonconsensual sodomy (oral or anal sex), indecent assault (e.g., unwanted and inappropriate sexual contact or fondling), or attempts to commits these acts. Sexual assault can occur without regard to gender, spousal relationship, or age of victim.*

http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/content/faqs.cfm

That’s pretty broad right there and includes more than just rape.  Without researching it, I would

bet that it is a more broad definition than what civilians use.  I still wonder what you want the military to do. I think DC9 said it best, they prosecute crimes that AUSA’s won’t touch and local DA’s are hesitant to. Right now I work with AUSA’s on a regular basis. I have seen a AUSA turn down prosecuting someone because the dollar amount was not high enough. I believe the threshold the AUSA wanted was around 4 million before he would touch it. AUSA’s want to be handed a sure win, they won’t touch anything that isn’t a sure win. That is why they have a high conviction rate. State DA’s are much easier, but you know it’s a bad case if they state DA won’t touch it. Yet we have the military prosecuting these offenses that other DA’s won’t. What more do you want them to do?

What bothers me about your approach is you are basically saying that the military is not doing anything or not taking this serious. That is far from the truth. What I find ironic is you have such a large cross section of people from different background and education levels who are put into a

high stress environment with sexually charged men and women and the rates are essentially

the same as they are in a college environment where you have better educated people who are not under the same stressors as our military members. This is a testament to their professionalism.  The military is doing something the college campuses are not doing. They are putting an emphasis

on it and training the force.  Like anything this takes time. I don’t know why you think they commands are pushing this under the rug. No commander wants to have a rapist in their command. It negatively affects moral. You don’t keep secrets like that in a unit, it’s impossible. Someone will find out and once they do, everyone is going to know about it. It would have a serious negative affect on personnel.

You say that when people say there are a lot of false accusations, they are not taking it serious. You are wrong. False accusations are a fact of life in the service. I will give you an example. When I was at my first duty location. I was on investigative status so I could not live in the barracks. One of my coworkers who was showing me around the area and taking me to look at apartments asked if I would be willing to be roommates so we could get a super nice apartment (it was a 3br condo in a country club in Hawaii) I said sure as I had no interest in her. Eventually our place became the meeting

point of get together with other agents from my unit. One of the guys in my unit was married, but he was far from faithful (plus he was the victim of spousal abuse). Her and him liked each other and every time they were around each other they were all over each other. Long story short they slept together multiple times. However, once it got out that they were messing around, she started telling people that she was raped by him. Nothing ever happened because it never got to the command, but there was no rape. This same woman also alleged that one of our Warrant Officers was interested in her. That almost got her an Article 15. As soon as he heard what was being said, he squashed it

right then.  This type of thing happens regularly and to say it doesn’t matter is preposterous.

Another point you like to make that is ridiculous is that if a person is found not guilty then they should be able to resume their career. Let me tell you this right now. Whether the Army wants to admit to it or not, it is a zero defect Army. If you have any blemish on you, you are not getting promoted. Why are they going to promote someone who was accused of a crime even if they are found not guilty? The Army will still assume that they are guilty of something including bad judgment. Why promote a guy who has been accused of a crime when you have a guy with the same credentials who was not accused. That is how competitive promotions are. Anything negative affects your career even

if you are not guilty. Hell, DC9 just showed you that are doing administrative separations to people who have not even been found guilty. What more can you ask for. The Army has decided they rather lose a soldier than retain one that may commit a sexual assault in the future. They are erring on the side of caution. What college campus is doing something similar? What company or business? What more do you want?

[China]

Have You Heard The Story of LaVena Johnson?

 

LaVena Johnson was a soldier who enlisted in the Army in 2003. She was the first woman from Missouri to die in Iraq. What happened to this young black woman was appalling.  She was found in her tent with a gunshot wound to the head, a broken nose, black eye, loose teeth, acid burns on her genitals, and a trail of blood leading away from her tent.  What’s even more appalling is the Department of Defense has officially ruled her death a suicide.

 

Click on the link for the full story

[Slateman]

There have been a lot of stories on this recently, but I didn't see it brought up here (sorry if I missed).

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/04/live-updates-sex-assault-hearing/#liveblog-entry-44586

 

Seriously? Gen. James Amos, the U.S. Marine Corps Commandant said,“Roughly 2 percent of our Marine population” is responsible for sexual assault in the ranks, meaning that most Marines are “keeping their honor clean.”

Um...that's 1 in 50.  There are a lot of marines, and I hope the numbers are far far better than what he is saying.

I'd also like to voice more than a little disgust at a policy where one of the outcomes when the defendant is convicted results in only a discharge.  Thanks for releasing the rapist into the general population.

 

That 2% line has been used for a lot of things. It's a euphemism. He doesn't actually know the numbers. There are  ~180k active duty Marines currently. 2% would mean that there have been ~3600 Marines who have committed acts of sexual assault. I find this hard to believe considering the DoD had under 4000 sexual assault complaints for all of 2013. So, as you can see, General Amos is using a military euphemism that the civilian world is not familiar with.

 

This is the same 2% number that gets thrown out for DUIs. The same number that gets thrown out for hazing. The same 2% of worthless bags of garbage that think it's okay to sleep on post.

[JMS]

If sexual assault and rape in the military was addressed with prosecution results, there wouldn't be hearing in Congress.

 

I had a friend of mine in college probable 30 years ago now...  In the mid 1980s...   Anyway she was a Marine on Okinawa.  She was raped.   She was telling me there were fewer than 100 women stationed on the base when she was there, also mid 1980's.   There were tens of thousands of Marines on this very strategic base...   Her words, "the likely hood of women being raped while stationed on that base was systemically above 95%".   She learned this after her attack.  The women slept in a converted stockade with bars on the windows, and had armed guards...    and the percentages were still that high.   I came away from that conversation believing her completely as her experience in the Marine Corps continued to affect her in her college life long after she left the service.

 

There is no question in my mind that Congressional over-site  is a good thing,  and convictions alone are not an answer to organizational systemic problems in the military.    The military command system isn't set up to deal with such things.    The fail-safe  is to bring such disgraceful systemic problems before the congress...  and ultimately before the American people.

[Larry]

JMS, you seriously suggesting that bringing something before CONGRESS is an effective way to solve it?

[Popeman38]

I had a friend of mine in college probable 30 years ago now...  In the mid 1980s...   Anyway she was a Marine on Okinawa.  She was raped.   She was telling me there were fewer than 100 women stationed on the base when she was there, also mid 1980's.   There were tens of thousands of Marines on this very strategic base...   Her words, "the likely hood of women being raped while stationed on that base was systemically above 95%".   She learned this after her attack.  The women slept in a converted stockade with bars on the windows, and had armed guards...    and the percentages were still that high.   I came away from that conversation believing her completely as her experience in the Marine Corps continued to affect her in her college life long after she left the service.

 

There is no question in my mind that Congressional over-site  is a good thing,  and convictions alone are not an answer to organizational systemic problems in the military.    The military command system isn't set up to deal with such things.    The fail-safe  is to bring such disgraceful systemic problems before the congress...  and ultimately before the American people.

I had a friend that joined the Army the same time I did, and we were stationed together for almost 6 years.  In those years of being stationed together, she was deployed to Bosnia with me, where the male to female ration was ~ 9:1. In all the time we spent together -- sharing tents, sleeping in the back of HMMWVs together, sleeping n the field, going on R&R in Budapest for 4 days with an entire infantry platoon, she was never sexually assaulted.  The chances that she would have been raped were less than 5%, and I believe her lack of being raped really impacted the way she lived her life to this day.  Therefore, I think Congressional oversight is not required and the existing laws we have on the books are sufficient.  I also know a guy that was raped and refused to report it -- not for fear of being ignored but for fear of ending up a national headline.

 

See, anecdotal personal experiences work both way.

[JMS]

JMS, you seriously suggesting that bringing something before CONGRESS is an effective way to solve it?

 

I think that military officers care more about the jobs they were trained to do.  Preparing for war,  security,  training  and they don't give a **** about dealing with huge systemic problems in their ranks which they didn't create and really can't hope to address in a two year posting.    That's what I think.

 

I think that if American history over the last 100 years has taught us anything it's that the Military isn't really answerable to anybody. but they are answerable to everybody.   Congress is the fulcrum of public opinion.   The fact this this is a hot button issue for women congressmen today is frankly terrific.   That they are pushing for prosecutions is great.   The idea that prosecuting sexual assault perpetraters would or could hurt military effectiveness says more about the broken pentagon policies here than I could ever say..   Yeah I think congress has a role to play and I'm glade they are actively trying to play it.

[JMS]

I had a friend that joined the Army the same time I did, and we were stationed together for almost 6 years. 

 

Yuck it up chuckles.   Sexual assaults are systemic problem in the military today due to exactly the type of laxidasical concern you demonstrate here.   As women get into more and more MOS's the systemic problems are coming more and more to light..  and they will be getting addressed.   Not because the military demands it... but because the public won't tolerate the business as usual attitude of  military personnel who stooped maturing mentally in late adolescents.

 

Why don't you crack a few jokes about the suicide in the ranks too...   genius.

 

 

The Pentagon estimated in a recent report that as many as 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year, based on an anonymous survey of military personnel. While the number of sexual assaults that members of the military actually reported rose 6 percent to 3,374 in 2012, thousands of victims were still unwilling to come forward despite new oversight and assistance programs aimed at curbing the crimes, the report said.

 

 

In 2013 the numbers are just out of control.

 

Reported sexual assaults in US military jumped by 50% in 2013

http://rt.com/usa/sexual-assault-military-increase-899/

 

That sexual assault by a fellow service member is such a dire threat for female troops, that a disgusted Sen. John McCain memorably said earlier this week he could not fully support advising women to enter the military at this time.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130607/NEWS/706079916

 

[Kindred]

This matter boils down to a simple universal rule of thumb.  DO NOT SLEEP WITH COWORKERS. Do not **** where you eat. Just dont.

[Slateman]

This matter boils down to a simple universal rule of thumb.  DO NOT SLEEP WITH COWORKERS. Do not **** where you eat. Just dont.

You generally don't live with your coworkers either.

[Popeman38]

Yuck it up chuckles.   Sexual assaults are systemic problem in the military today due to exactly the type of laxidasical concern you demonstrate here.   As women get into more and more MOS's the systemic problems are coming more and more to light..  and they will be getting addressed.   Not because the military demands it... but because the public won't tolerate the business as usual attitude of  military personnel who stooped maturing mentally in late adolescents.

 

Why don't you crack a few jokes about the suicide in the ranks too...   genius.

 

 

 

In 2013 the numbers are just out of control.

JMS, read the god damned thread. There are statistics that demonstrate that a) the military is MUCH more aggressive in prosecuting sexual assaults and sexual assault in the military is on par with the rest of the country. Meaning humans are human.  My post wasn't a joke, and it wasn't for laughs. It was to demonstrate that personal anecdotal evidence (i.e. your story about a woman stationed on Okinawa and the "95% chance she would be raped" statistic) is nothing more than hearsay. There is not, in fact, a 95% rape incidence among females stationed in Okinawa. In fact, I would wager it was under 5%. And to combat your post, I used 2 anecdotal personal stories from my time in the service, one of a woman who was never raped, and one of a man who was raped.

 

 

...in the last 30 years since Okinawa reverted to Japan, U.S. servicemen in Okinawa have committed 5,000 "serious crimes." 

 

Serious, of course, as defined by the NPA. Enter the bull hamster factor again. Of these 5,000 crimes, 90 percent can be immediately dismissed as misdemeanors: car accidents, drunken driving (a serious matter in Japan), shoplifting, drug possession and drug sale, and of course barroom brawls. The remaining 10 percent of incidents are what Americans would consider truly serious crimes, the rapes, the murders, the assaults, and the armed robberies.

 

Altogether, about 160 of what are considered "serious" crimes (once again, the NPA definition) are committed in Okinawa every year by U.S. servicemen.

[JMS]

JMS, read the god damned thread. There are statistics that demonstrate that a) the military is MUCH more aggressive in prosecuting sexual assaults and sexual assault in the military is on par with the rest of the country.

 

Well that's one take on it.   

 

26000  cases of sexual assault in the military in 2012  up 11% from 2010.  

Only 11% were reported.  

Only  6% were investigated

Only 0.9 result in a conviction

 

 

An anonymous survey on gender relations that found that 26,000 service members who received “unwanted sexual contact” in 2012. The second is the U.S. Department of Defense's annual report on sexual assault, which found that a fraction of victims — 11 percent — reported the crime.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130607/NEWS/706079916

 

 

Of 1,714 sexual assault suspects investigated in 2012 by the military, 238 were convicted.

 http://www.omaha.com/article/20130607/NEWS/706079916

 

 

Reported sexual assaults in US military jumped by 50% in 2013

http://rt.com/usa/se...y-increase-899/

 

 

My post wasn't a joke, and it wasn't for laughs. It was to demonstrate that personal anecdotal evidence (i.e. your story about a woman stationed on Okinawa and the "95% chance she would be raped" statistic) is nothing more than hearsay

 

Your post was flipant and dismissive.

[Kindred]

You generally don't live with your coworkers either.

 

because that suddenly makes it a good idea?

[LadySkinsFan]

Bump for an article re: an Air Force colonel/prosecutor who resigned after case he prosecuted was successful in convicting a sexual predator that was overturned by a convening authority (higher up who had those powers to overturn a conviction just because)

 

http://news.yahoo.com/former-chief-air-force-prosecutor--outraged--by-military-s-handling-of-sexual-assault-cases-001143572.html

 

Beginning paragraphs:

 

The former chief prosecutor for the Air Force said in a Yahoo News interview that he was “put out to pasture” after he criticized top commanders for interfering with his efforts to convict officers who committed sexual assaults.

 

Col. Don Christensen served for four years as the Air Force’s top prosecutor, winning a series of major sexual-assault cases, including the high-profile conviction of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, a decorated F-16 pilot and the inspector general of Aviano Air Force Base in Italy.

 

But Christensen, 53, said he recently made an agonizing decision to retire — and accept a new job as president of a civilian advocacy group, Protect Our Defenders — after being reassigned to a new position following a series of clashes with Air Force brass.

Those clashes began last year when he started speaking out — and briefing members of Congress — about his objections to the controversial decision of a top Air Force general to overturn Wilkerson’s conviction.

 

The case set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill over rules that, at the time, empowered commanders, who served as the “convening authority” in court-martial cases, to overturn jury verdicts.

 

“My reaction was that this was the final straw, that we were going to lose military justice, that Congress would be outraged, I was outraged, and that this was the death knell to the justice system as we knew it,” Christensen said in the interview about the decision by Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, then the commander of the Third Air Force in Europe, to wipe out Wilkerson’s conviction for sexually assaulting a female physician’s assistant in his home.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Tried to explain that this would be a by product of increasing the role of women in the Military.   Nobody wanted to hear it.

[LadySkinsFan]

What, that men can't control themselves to keep from raping women?

 

Keeping women out, keeping them covered from head to toe, keeping them confined to their homes (where they aren't safe from rape there, either) is not the answer.

 

Teaching boys and men to not rape, to hold them accountable is the answer.

 

Men and boys, don't rape.  Just say no to rape. 

 

How many ways do men and boys have to hear this message to get it through their heads?

 

It's male privilege (patriarchy) and male violence that are the problems that men must solve.  The victims aren't the ones in power to stop rape.  Men are.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What, that men can't control themselves to keep from raping women?

 

Keeping women out, keeping them covered from head to toe, keeping them confined to their homes (where they aren't safe from rape there, either) is not the answer.

 

Teaching boys and men to not rape, to hold them accountable is the answer.

 

Men and boys, don't rape.  Just say no to rape. 

 

How many ways to men and boys have to hear this message?

 

It's male privilege (patriarchy) and male violence that are the problems that men must solve.  The victims aren't the ones in power to stop rape.  Men are.

 

 

First of all, it's not just men.  Whomever has the power, man or women, will use it. 

 

You are not going to want to hear the answers to your questions/statements because the dynamics in play here don't fit Societal parameters.  

 

Better to ask the question, how do you fix it?   At this point, I have seen no effective solution to fixing the problem.

[mcsluggo]

Tried to explain that this would be a by product of increasing the role of women in the Military.   Nobody wanted to hear it.

 

that is a worse than terrible argument.   and, by the way, can and HAS been used to support EVERY SINGLE ****ING RACIST OR SEXIST POSITION EVER HELD.

 

After a family's house is burned down... "i told you nothing good would ever happen from letting ****ers move into this neighborghood" 

 

after a teenager is beaten to death... "... "i told you nothing good would ever happen from that abomination letting his feelings out of the closet"   

 

 

 

its a loser position.  Period.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

that is a worse than terrible argument.   and, by the way, can and HAS been used to support EVERY SINGLE ****ING RACIST OR SEXIST POSITION EVER HELD.

 

After a family's house is burned down... "i told you nothing good would ever happen from letting ****ers move into this neighborghood" 

 

after a teenager is beaten to death... "... "i told you nothing good would ever happen from that abomination letting his feelings out of the closet"   

 

 

 

its a loser position.  Period.  

 

Fair enough.  What's the solution?

[PF Chang]

Tried to explain that this would be a by product of increasing the role of women in the Military.   Nobody wanted to hear it.

 

Nobody wanted to hear it because it's irrelevant. Other variables held constant, of course incidents of sexual assault would increase as more women join the military. As with all roads victim-blaming, that doesn't mean the answer is "ban women from the military" or whatever you're implying. 

 

LadySkinsFan gave the solution you're looking for. Don't rape. But as it's somewhat obvious that simple rule can't be followed, seems like the solution is exactly what should have happened in the article she posted. Actual accountability for individual offenders and for superiors involved in coverups. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nobody wanted to hear it because it's irrelevant. Other variables held constant, of course incidents of sexual assault would increase as more women join the military. As with all roads victim-blaming, that doesn't mean the answer is "ban women from the military" or whatever you're implying. 

 

LadySkinsFan gave the solution you're looking for. Don't rape. But as it's somewhat obvious that simple rule can't be followed, seems like the solution is exactly what happened in the article she posted. Actual accountability for individual offenders and for superiors involved in coverups. 

 

Clearly, it is not irrelevant.  You context this in a framework that is common to society.  Common to the life most of us live on a day to day basis.  The dynamics involved in the military, especially in a deployed environment are much different.   This is not a right or wrong discussion.  That's universally understood and accepted but that doesn't really change the fact that it's still a problem and it's far from irrelevant.  You can say it's wrong and you shouldn't do it all day long but that message has been sent by the Military for a very long time and yet we see the numbers still rising.

 

Again I ask, what's the answer?