If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Lt. General: "There are no rapists in foxholes" Congress: "Oh yeah? Let's check that out, shall we?" Military: "Well...fark" Congress: "Exactly"   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 126
    More: Interesting, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Uniform Code of Military Justice, court martial, Jackie Speier, inspector generals, rapists, U.S. Naval, reasonable doubt  
•       •       •

5689 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 09:37:12 AM  
If it weren't a foxhole, it wouldn't be rapeworthy.
 
2013-03-14 09:38:18 AM  
Ah, hello. Well first of all I'd like to apologize for the behaviour of certain of my colleagues you may have seen earlier, but they are from broken homes, circus families and so on and they are in no way representative of the new modern improved British Navy US Air Force. They are a small vociferous minority; and may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy US Air Force. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And, finally, necrophilia is right out.
 
2013-03-14 09:39:58 AM  
Uhhh, yeah.  There's a lot of racists in foxholes.  There's enough that women on military bases are regularly cautioned to not walk to the bathrooms alone at night.

 An Air Force general's decision to reverse a guilty verdict in a sexual assault case
Oh ... Air Force.  Well, why didn't subby say that?  They're the rapiest.  And the preachiest.
 
2013-03-14 09:40:34 AM  
DOH, rapists, that is.
Racists get shown the door right quick.
 
2013-03-14 09:41:12 AM  
The former Mrs. MFAWG (Cpt, USA recently retired) says it has gotten really, really bad.
 
2013-03-14 09:43:40 AM  
Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...
 
2013-03-14 09:45:15 AM  
I wonder what the specifics were in the cases that didn't go to trial.  And the article doesn't really detail the "problem" with the investigative process.  From my personal experience and having given statements in two separate harassment incidents and having to give formal counseling to an enlistee in my charge, I can tell you, at least, the USAF investigates the shait out of every little claim once a complain is made. I can also tell you that because it is taken care of with great detail and quick action, that it is horribly abused by those who would complain.  That isn't to say that every claim should be given the same diligence, but this should be considered when comparing the number of claims verses the number that went to trial.

Units that are not properly investigating will, in my opinion, stand out against the norm.  And this should be easily seen when examining the details of incidents across units.
 
2013-03-14 09:45:31 AM  
Am I the only one who finds the headline really strange in light of the contents of TFA?
 
2013-03-14 09:45:49 AM  
But Hagel told Boxer neither he nor the Air Force secretary is empowered to overrule Franklin, who is the commander of the 3rd Air Force at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

They probably can't over-overturn the sexual assualt conviction.  But it sounds like they have damn good grounds to convene a court-martial against Franklin, saying that by letting that guy slide he violated article 134 of the UCMJ.
 
2013-03-14 09:45:57 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...


We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.
 
2013-03-14 09:48:42 AM  

MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.


Does RIF = Rape In Full?
 
2013-03-14 09:49:35 AM  

bdub77: MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.

Does RIF = Rape In Full?


Reduction in force.  Basically firing anyone who complains about UPIV.
 
2013-03-14 09:52:01 AM  

MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.


You'll have to explain a bit - I was not yet a teenager when Tailhook hit the news, so all I really remember is sexual harassment/assault among carrier-plane pilots (who I think are Navy?). I thought a major part of that scandal (like so many others) was that they had tried sweeping it under the rug.

You can't seriously tell me we're getting worse at handling rape/sex assault cases in the last 20 years (not that we're great shakes at it now, either).

// "we were serving together then"?
 
2013-03-14 09:57:38 AM  
Best and brightest
 
2013-03-14 10:02:48 AM  

Karac: bdub77: MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.

Does RIF = Rape In Full?

Reduction in force.  Basically firing anyone who complains about UPIV.


Glad you explained that. I thought reduction in force was when you pull out to avoid rape babies.
 
2013-03-14 10:06:06 AM  

bdub77: Karac: bdub77: MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.

Does RIF = Rape In Full?

Reduction in force.  Basically firing anyone who complains about UPIV.

Glad you explained that. I thought reduction in force was when you pull out to avoid rape babies.


That's strategic withdrawal.
 
2013-03-14 10:08:40 AM  
and this is why women shouldn't serve in the military
 
2013-03-14 10:12:29 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: and this is why women shouldn't serve in the military


Any large organization that consists of less than about 40% women (including in top positions of authority) will tend to treat women badly.

As a modern primitive, you of all people should know this.
 
2013-03-14 10:15:16 AM  
There is a simple solution that the military is very capable of introducing at any time.

Vagina mines.
 
2013-03-14 10:15:44 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: and this is why women shouldn't serve in the military


Women aren't the ones doing all the rape.

Kick the men out.
 
2013-03-14 10:17:14 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: and this is why women shouldn't serve in the military


OR, you know, dudes could stop being rapists.

/not saying all dudes are rapists
 
2013-03-14 10:18:32 AM  

MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.


It sounds like you watch too many Lifetime Original movies.

Stop it.
 
2013-03-14 10:24:45 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...


Who was raped at tailhook?
 
2013-03-14 10:33:48 AM  
Rape is a problem. It was a problem when I served in the Army in the late 70s.

That said, women do sometimes accuse men of rape when they in fact were not raped.

That is all.
 
2013-03-14 10:38:46 AM  

Dr Dreidel: MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.

You'll have to explain a bit - I was not yet a teenager when Tailhook hit the news, so all I really remember is sexual harassment/assault among carrier-plane pilots (who I think are Navy?). I thought a major part of that scandal (like so many others) was that they had tried sweeping it under the rug.

You can't seriously tell me we're getting worse at handling rape/sex assault cases in the last 20 years (not that we're great shakes at it now, either).

// "we were serving together then"?


I'm seriously telling you that (according to her) we appear to have gotten worse at it.

In those days the tendency was to try to ignore it and hope it blew over. Now the tendency is to actively cover it up and avoid prosecutions.

Yes, we served together. Is that difficult to grasp?
 
2013-03-14 10:47:36 AM  
The former Army Sergeant who testified is my hero.
 
2013-03-14 10:47:58 AM  
This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for RAPE.
 
2013-03-14 10:48:00 AM  

markfara: Rape is a problem. It was a problem when I served in the Army in the late 70s.

That said, women do sometimes accuse men of rape when they in fact were not raped.

That is all.


The number of women that are raped in the military far, far outweighs the number of false accusations. Like 100,000:1 or more. Seems you being quite disingenuous.

For anyone who is interested in this topic I highly recommend the recent documentary The Invisible War. The actions by the military will astound and anger you where they protect the rapist/abuser and blame the victim.  The estimate is that over 500,000 women AND MEN have been raped or sexually assaulted in the last 25-30 years (I don't remember the exact timeline).  Many go unreported because the perpetrators are those who you have to report the assault/rape to or their friends.  Investigations are closed with no action taken and victims punished all the time. It is really scary and incredibly how protected serial rapists are in the military, especially to this day.
 
2013-03-14 10:58:15 AM  
If only those women wouldn't dress in such slutty attire, those rapists wouldn't go after them!

images.military.com

Just look at all that exposed neck. She probably just had regret and wanted to get revenge.
 
2013-03-14 10:58:55 AM  

Ed Finnerty: There is a simple solution that the military is very capable of introducing at any time.

Vagina mines.


There once lived a woman named Jill,
who tried dynamite for a thrill.
They found her vagina
in North Carolina
and bits of her tits in Brazil.
 
m00
2013-03-14 10:58:58 AM  

bdub77: Glad you explained that. I thought reduction in force was when you pull out to avoid rape babies.


Well, it's typical procedure right after a troop surge.
 
2013-03-14 11:02:11 AM  

rjakobi: MFAWG: Dr Dreidel: Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago...

We were serving together then, and it's different. Nowadays every attempt would be made to sweep that shiat under the rug, or RIF the victims.

It sounds like you watch too many Lifetime Original movies.

Stop it.


It sounds like you're disappointed that the people the Right Wing Noise Machine tell you to worship turn out to be fairly ordinary, fallible human beings.
 
2013-03-14 11:02:57 AM  

Stimied in a Rut: markfara: Rape is a problem. It was a problem when I served in the Army in the late 70s.

That said, women do sometimes accuse men of rape when they in fact were not raped.

That is all.

The number of women that are raped in the military far, far outweighs the number of false accusations. Like 100,000:1 or more. Seems you being quite disingenuous.

For anyone who is interested in this topic I highly recommend the recent documentary The Invisible War. The actions by the military will astound and anger you where they protect the rapist/abuser and blame the victim.  The estimate is that over 500,000 women AND MEN have been raped or sexually assaulted in the last 25-30 years (I don't remember the exact timeline).  Many go unreported because the perpetrators are those who you have to report the assault/rape to or their friends.  Investigations are closed with no action taken and victims punished all the time. It is really scary and incredibly how protected serial rapists are in the military, especially to this day.


I watched that documentary a couple of nights ago. I thought it was excellent, and I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying (tho I'd like to know where you got the 100,000 to 1 stat, and exactly how that was arrived at). And no, I'm not being disingenuous. In the military, just as in society as a whole, there are women who falsely accuse men of rape. These men can and do have their lives ruined.

In our long-overdue campaign to deal with sexual assault in the military, some mind needs to be given to the falsely accused as well, is all I'm saying.
 
2013-03-14 11:04:53 AM  

MFAWG: I'm seriously telling you that (according to her) we appear to have gotten worse at it.

In those days the tendency was to try to ignore it and hope it blew over. Now the tendency is to actively cover it up and avoid prosecutions.

Yes, we served together. Is that difficult to grasp?


Wow. We actually have gotten worse at it. That's...good to know, I guess, but I'm not happy I know it. (I suppose an argument could be made that avoiding prosecution at least acknowledges the crime, whereas ignoring it doesn't, but it hurts to know we still suck that bad at prosecuting sex crimes in the military after a 25-year focus on it.)

// repeating the same phrase doesn't help my understanding of it - who is "we"? what does it mean to be "serving together" (I assume you mean "served in the military", not "served dinner" or "beat someone in a dance competition", but since they only allowed women in combat roles a few weeks ago, do you mean "after they allowed women as pilots"? "after they allowed women in the Navy/Marines period"?)?  when is "then"? why does it matter to the discussion that "y'all" were serving together "then"?
// I'm inquiring, not attacking
 
2013-03-14 11:06:16 AM  
We were both on active duty in the same place at the same time.
 
2013-03-14 11:07:27 AM  
The general who overturned the conviction cannot be overruled, but he can be relieved of duty. Sadly, it's likely nothing will happen to him. But it would certainly seem like women would and should be wary to have said officer in their chain of command, if nothing does happen.
 
2013-03-14 11:14:16 AM  

MFAWG: We were both on active duty in the same place at the same time.


My OP: "Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago..."

There is no "we" mentioned; unless you mean you and I, but I've never served in the military. "Both" of whom? You and the mouse in your pocket? You and the wife? You and someone you accused of rape? You and Markos Moulitsas? You and the Tailhookers?

You've now explained that "serving together" meant you and [REDACTED] were active duty "at the time". I assume we're still talking about Tailhook, yes? So the 1991ish time-frame is the "when"?

Were you serving at the time at Ft Dix, Ft Drum, Ft Hood, etc; were you some officer's escort in Vegas during the conference; were you one of the officers on the court-martial (could you tell us if you were?); were you in one of the accused's CoC?

I just want to know what you meant and why you brought it up, but I feel like I'm cross-examining a hostile witness. If it's sensitive, just say so - I'm not need to know on lots of stuff; one more won't kill me.

// avoid pronouns if you can
// they're only in it for the money anyway - amateur nouns play with heart
 
2013-03-14 11:14:53 AM  

UberDave: I wonder what the specifics were in the cases that didn't go to trial.  And the article doesn't really detail the "problem" with the investigative process.  From my personal experience and having given statements in two separate harassment incidents and having to give formal counseling to an enlistee in my charge, I can tell you, at least, the USAF investigates the shait out of every little claim once a complain is made. I can also tell you that because it is taken care of with great detail and quick action, that it is horribly abused by those who would complain.  That isn't to say that every claim should be given the same diligence, but this should be considered when comparing the number of claims verses the number that went to trial.

Units that are not properly investigating will, in my opinion, stand out against the norm.  And this should be easily seen when examining the details of incidents across units.


Yes, I've heard their TOP MEN are on it.

epguides.com
 
2013-03-14 11:18:51 AM  

Dr Dreidel: MFAWG: I'm seriously telling you that (according to her) we appear to have gotten worse at it.

In those days the tendency was to try to ignore it and hope it blew over. Now the tendency is to actively cover it up and avoid prosecutions.

Yes, we served together. Is that difficult to grasp?

Wow. We actually have gotten worse at it. That's...good to know, I guess, but I'm not happy I know it. (I suppose an argument could be made that avoiding prosecution at least acknowledges the crime, whereas ignoring it doesn't, but it hurts to know we still suck that bad at prosecuting sex crimes in the military after a 25-year focus on it.)

// repeating the same phrase doesn't help my understanding of it - who is "we"? what does it mean to be "serving together" (I assume you mean "served in the military", not "served dinner" or "beat someone in a dance competition", but since they only allowed women in combat roles a few weeks ago, do you mean "after they allowed women as pilots"? "after they allowed women in the Navy/Marines period"?)?  when is "then"? why does it matter to the discussion that "y'all" were serving together "then"?
// I'm inquiring, not attacking


I think he means he was serving with the now Ex-Mrs MFAWG...
 
2013-03-14 11:20:25 AM  

Dr Dreidel: MFAWG: We were both on active duty in the same place at the same time.

My OP: "Whatever, it's not like Tailhook was a quarter-century ago..."

There is no "we" mentioned; unless you mean you and I, but I've never served in the military. "Both" of whom? You and the mouse in your pocket? You and the wife? You and someone you accused of rape? You and Markos Moulitsas? You and the Tailhookers?

You've now explained that "serving together" meant you and [REDACTED] were active duty "at the time". I assume we're still talking about Tailhook, yes? So the 1991ish time-frame is the "when"?

Were you serving at the time at Ft Dix, Ft Drum, Ft Hood, etc; were you some officer's escort in Vegas during the conference; were you one of the officers on the court-martial (could you tell us if you were?); were you in one of the accused's CoC?

I just want to know what you meant and why you brought it up, but I feel like I'm cross-examining a hostile witness. If it's sensitive, just say so - I'm not need to know on lots of stuff; one more won't kill me.

// avoid pronouns if you can
// they're only in it for the money anyway - amateur nouns play with heart


Thatescalatedquicklykpeg.

I was an E5 at Ft Bragg in 35th Signal Brigade, and she was an E6 in the 82d Airborne.

Clear enough?
 
2013-03-14 11:21:03 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Ed Finnerty: There is a simple solution that the military is very capable of introducing at any time.

Vagina mines.

There once lived a woman named Jill,
who tried dynamite for a thrill.
They found her vagina
in North Carolina
and bits of her tits in Brazil.


I hate you, but that was funny.
 
2013-03-14 11:27:18 AM  

markfara: In the military, just as in society as a whole, there are women who falsely accuse men of rape. These men can and do have their lives ruined.


There are people who are falsely accused of stealing and selling drugs and other felonies.  These people can and do have their lives ruined.  Why single out rape?
 
2013-03-14 11:33:52 AM  

MFAWG: Thatescalatedquicklykpeg.

I was an E5 at Ft Bragg in 35th Signal Brigade, and she was an E6 in the 82d Airborne.

Clear enough?


Whoa, I just realized I missed some words of yours (a few lines above my OP). That clears up the confusion.

// I owe you a beer
 
2013-03-14 11:34:58 AM  

Chameleon: ModernPrimitive01: and this is why women shouldn't serve in the military

OR, you know, dudes could stop being rapists.

/not saying all dudes are rapists


The dudes who are doing the raping need to stop raping, and everyone else need to stop looking the other way. If you see a guy repeatedly behaving inappropriately and don't smack him and tell him to farking cut it out, then you're part of the problem. By getting away with aggressive behavior those guys learn they'll get away with more.
 
2013-03-14 11:40:30 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Ed Finnerty: There is a simple solution that the military is very capable of introducing at any time.

Vagina mines.

There once lived a woman named Jill,
who tried dynamite for a thrill.
They found her vagina
in North Carolina
and bits of her tits in Brazil.


Alternately:

There once was a lady named Alice
Who used dynamite as a phallus
They found her vagina
in North Carolina
And the rest of her body in Dallas
 
2013-03-14 11:46:05 AM  
WTH! Somebody doesn't like rape.

How 'Teach Men Not to Rape' Made Fox News Viewers Lose Their Minds

And so it was in this looking glass world that Democratic strategist and rape survivor Zerlina Maxwell entered this week, appearing on the Hannity show with a radical notion: rather than tell women to avoid being raped, how about we teach men not to rape?
 
2013-03-14 11:47:26 AM  

neversubmit: WTH! Somebody doesn't like rape.

How 'Teach Men Not to Rape' Made Fox News Viewers Lose Their Minds

And so it was in this looking glass world that Democratic strategist and rape survivor Zerlina Maxwell entered this week, appearing on the Hannity show with a radical notion: rather than tell women to avoid being raped, how about we teach men not to rape?


Typpical radical FemiNazi; Implying men are wrong when they rape women...
 
2013-03-14 11:56:01 AM  

Dr Dreidel: MFAWG: Thatescalatedquicklykpeg.

I was an E5 at Ft Bragg in 35th Signal Brigade, and she was an E6 in the 82d Airborne.

Clear enough?

Whoa, I just realized I missed some words of yours (a few lines above my OP). That clears up the confusion.

// I owe you a beer


He is just trying to get you drunk so he can rape you.
 
2013-03-14 12:06:07 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: and this is why women shouldn't serve in the military


Because men are completely incapable if controlling their penises. Makes sense.

Cheers
 
2013-03-14 12:06:43 PM  
... of...

Bloody thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report