I’ve been around long enough to understand that you take what you read in major media with at least a grain of salt, especially if it concerns the military, and most especially if a defense lawyer is a source for the story. But if this tale is even 10% true, you have to wonder who’s driving the bus over in bus driver land.
To summarize, the Washington Post writes that a USAF airman who had accused three fellow servicemen of raping her decided not to cooperate in the investigation, citing the stress of the judicial process. The Air Force dropped rape charges against the three, choosing instead to punish them through a non-judicial, or administrative process. They then turned around and immunized the accused from further punishment so long as they agree to testify against – wait for it – the woman who had accused them of raping her.
I certainly hope there’s more to this, because, as a Texas jurist once opined, we do not hang men for stealing horses – we hang them that horses might not be stolen. The UCMJ exists to maintain good order and discipline in the service, and with that in mind it seems clear to me that there can only be one set of victims here: Either the woman fraudulently accused the men of an assault for which she – and she alone – should be punished, or having been assaulted she has chosen not to press charges, which is her perfect right and the Air Force, having been denied a provable legal case, instead pursued administrative punishment against her attackers.
But by punishing the men administratively and then turning around and subjecting their accuser to court martial proceedings, the service is trying to have it both ways – on its face, this seems mere petulance. It may be legally defensible, but it’s a public relations disaster, not to mention the message that it sends to both to predators and any their future victims.
At the very best, the service has provided the “Law and Order” television franchise with fodder for its six billionth episode. At worst, it seems to me, it’s shooting itself in the foot.
What a mess.
Unfortunate situation. The truth may never see the light, consensual or no.
Cheap shot if you ask me. I wonder what the result of the NJP was for the other Airmen.
Similar incident, sorry to say, happened to me back in 86. Was accused of drug use by a female sailor at Barbers Point NAS Sosus terminal.
I was at the time,TDY shore duty and dating one of my instructors, same rank, so no frat issues.
Either she was jealous or hated my paramour, I and she were investigated and subjected to Mast, at which the finding was Not Guilty, after passing the UA. The accuser however, was subjected to a SCM and found guilty of filing a false official statement.
Which I think might have some bearing on this situation.
But unkawill, your accuser was charged with fiing a false report which would make sense if she was lying. But that’s not what they’re charging the girl here with. Making this look like payback for not playing ball and testifying against the two she accused. Am I missing something?
“Either the woman fraudulently accused the men of an assault for which she – and she alone – should be punished”. I agree, but we we’ve seen the Navy “have it both ways” in the past…
…Former Navy Academy quarterback Lamar Owens. Found innocent of rape charges by the jury and he was still hammered by the Navy and discharged over it (along with other punishment).
Patrick
Tu quoque Patrick?
OK, but it’s not, it seems to me, an answer to the issue at hand. Nor is it a precise parallel, I doubt. We might plausibly claim, “double jeopardy” on the Owens case and have an entertaining discussion. I don’t know that we can say that the Navy “had it both ways” by pursuing him all regardless.
Maybe it’s a function of where we sit.
Could be, Lex, and I see your point.
The AF Times has picked up this story and offers a few more details:
The three airmen and the woman “were all referred for nonjudicial punishment on charges that they willingly participated in indecent acts”.
The three other airmen accepted the Article 15, but the woman “declined the Article 15 because, she said, she did not want to admit to indecent acts when, in fact, she was raped”.
“She instead requested trial by court martial.”
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/08/airforce_rape_controversy_070808/
Patrick
Shore duty vs Sea Duty
on sea duty – you can not refuse Mast.
on shore duty – you can refuse Mast and ‘challenge’ the command to Courts Martial you.
She requested the CM.
the AF now has to prove she willingly committed the alleged acts..
She does not have to testify..
The other 3 were granted immunity, so they would testify against her — Why do they need immunity?
James Webb warned us about this kind of thing.
That said, I think particular AF policies and traditions are rising up to bite them.
Sgt. Mom, the blogger, said that when she joined up in the AF, back when, gals wishing to enlist had to submit a picture, to prove that they were good-lookin’. And then there was that boy-vs.-girl scandal at the Air Force Academy a while back. I think the AF is just being all mental and twitchy about this, not knowing which way to jump betweend Political Correctness, UCMJ, common sense, and Public Relations.
Oh, yeah, there are minor considerations like Justice, and The Good of the Service, but I think they are way down the priority list
If they weren’t granted immunity, and testified against the accuser for something they were not originally charged with, would that not have them testifying against themselves?
At this point I expect only those who heard the evidence during administrative punishment know how far this story really goes… But I expect it will be on Springer in time for sweeps week.
– Max
I’m suprised she didn’t get an AF Commendation Medal…….
Sounds to me like she thinks she can beat it at a court martial..in a trial that will make O.J’s look tame.
By requesting CM she is gambling big, but she stands to walk away scot free if her lawyer can discredit the men. Of course the other side will paint her as the biggest whore since Delilah.
Unkawill – I’m surprised, in the Army it didn’t matter if you were the same rank, since an instructor was in a position of authority over you it would be fraternization, period.
When I went to BNCOC at Ft. Huachuca (semi-advanced leadership school for NCOs) in ‘93 we had to tell the instructors about anyone we knew that was stationed there so if we were seen with them we wouldn’t get tagged for fraternization with permanent party.
Sgt Jeff, It wasn’t a formal school setting, more like cross training/familiarization. SOSUS gear was long range,low freq. My surface gear was higher freq, Short/med range.
I also got to ride along on a couple of P-3 missions, Very Cool!
Michelle, please pardon my lazy ignorance, as I neglected to read the provided link.
You’re forgiven.
Just be sure it don’t happen again.