An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Letting the Big Fish Go To Catch The Little One
A servicewoman with the Air Force filed a rape complaint against three men, but then refused to testify after being subjected to “harsh interrogation” by defense attorneys without her own representation present (a violation of military policy). So the Air Force decided to charge her with “committing indecent acts” instead. They even had the foresight to grant the three men immunity from sexual assault prosecution so they would testify against her.
And people wonder why women are sometimes reluctant to file rape complaints in the first place.
And people also wonder why the Air Force has a long-standing reputation for tolerating sexual assault.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “Letting the Big Fish Go To Catch The Little One”
This simply baffles the mind.
Well, at least she wasn’t gay!
Unbelievable.
Yup, it’s scandalous. And also it’s totally dumb of the Air Force brass to let the story escalate even further. As if it’s not harming enough for their image that they violated the rights of the victim and let the offenders of the hook, they even go after the woman subsequently. That’s the best way to bring the story into the headlines. Dumb dumb dumb.
Let’s hope that the consequent negative public feedback will force some heads to roll. If this really happened like it was reported (I’m just careful after all those misleading stories recently), the responible officers shouldn’t have a place in the forces of any civilized nation. And lets hope that there will be a second investigation where the victim will find justice.
Bringing charges like that then not testifying on her own behalf was really, really stupid. The only thing for the 3 rapists, and the airforce that backs them, could do to salvage the appearance of integrity after a failed rape charge is to counter the charge with one of their own. Her lawyers are idiots or shills to have let her take that course, and also to have let her be interogated without them. I’m sure lots of weight was brought to bear on her but whatever they used could not have been as bad as being raped again in court.
She probably didn’t have a lawyer when she made the accusations.
I think it is really callous to call a woman stupid for charging someone for rape. Not exactly the easiest thing to do and woman can often be intimidated into withdrawing the charges.
I fail to see why the Air Force has a horse in this race. Airwoman accuses 3 airmen with rape. She withdraws the charge. End of story. How does the Air Force need to do anything?
Charging the woman with lewd conduct because of what she told the Air Force?
The only thing this does is tell other woman in the Air Force that you better have a airtight case otherwise the Air Force is going to come after you.
Sam, It sounds like she was interrogated w/o her representatives knowledge. In fact it sounds like she was interrogated prior to even getting any kind of representation. And if this is against military policy, I would hope that the interrogation is tossed out as well as the interrogator and the immunity. Knowing the Air Force and the history with this stuff, I’d wager none of those things will happen unless this gets into the mainstream media and becomes to much of a public relations fiasco for them.
The only way that would happen is if someone from the mainstream media asks Gates (Sec Def) about it.
“The only thing for the 3 rapists, and the airforce that backs them, could do to salvage the appearance of integrity after a failed rape charge is to counter the charge with one of their own.”
I understand that the three offenders had an interest to save their reputation by countercharging.But I fail to see why the air force should support them. The military would have been much better off by taking the stand that there’s an insuffcient lack of evidence and hoping this won’t get much attention. Charging the victim is a sure way to raise media interest. Didn’t the responsible air force advocate have some leeway in weighing the evidence? Or was some kind of judicial automatic triggered?
“insuffcient lack of evidence” Uh. Pls read “lack of evidence”, ok?
|-/
Also, as a veteran I can tell you that if the military decides to start charging folks for “committing indecent acts†we aren’t going to have many people left serving.
“I think it is really callous to call a woman stupid for charging someone for rape.”
I didn’t say she was stupid for reporting it. I said she was stupid for reporting it, and then not testifying on her own behalf thus ensuring that she is automatically on the hook to prove she wasn’t laying down a false accusation. Thats how rape cases go. Rape is incredibly an incredibly serious crime, and since both parties are still around(unlike murder), it needs to get resolved one way or the other once the process gets rolling.
As for the Air Force charging her with fault, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, when the 3 men decided to file counter charges it happens in under military jurisdiction so technically its the Air Force doing the charging. Also, according to the rules she did participate in some lewd act, and if she isn’t willing to prove it was rape then its a violation of the Air Force rules regarding conduct and something must be done since she presumably went on record when she filed her charges. Although it would seem to me that the 3 men would also be brought up on the same charges, rape or no.
Basically, if you’re going to file a rape charge you better be prepared to go the distance. Justice doesn’t just happen. I really feel bad for this woman, her life isn’t going to get any less hellish anytime soon.
I don’t think the men filed the “counter charges.” I don’t think “indecent acts” is a crime committed against someone–it’d be like me filing a charge against someone for smoking a joint. The men’s position has always been that all the sex was consensual. It’s the Air Force, not the men, who elected to bring the counter charges–it was entirely their discretion.
Exactly, David.
That’s why I think it is absurd to say she was stupid.
“That’s why I think it is absurd to say she was stupid.”
Yup. More likely she was in an emotional and psychological trauma and did know next to nothing about the judicial process that started with her accusation, and even less about its problems and consequences. That the air force leaves a soldier in such a situation alone, without guidance and support, would be enough for a scandal, but that they let the situation boomerang against the victim is absolutely cynical.
I was a member of the USAF for 15 years, ending in 2001. Since that time, my research has focused on the United States military, including topics closely related to the military laws governing sexual behavior.
If there was no merit to the original rape allegation (false charges DO occur in the real world, though it would be odd if that were the case not to see the female airman here also charged with false reporting) OR if the victim is refusing to stand behind the original allegation (the violation of procedure would give her a procedural defense to the charges that have been brought, btw), then the charges against her may actually be supported by the current state of military law. There are several sexual acts that are prohibited by the UCMJ that is currently in force. These acts are usually associated with homosexuality but the military sometimes seeks to enforce them more broadly in order to demonstrate non-discriminatory application.
Those who disapprove of such laws should join the movement (far larger than many assume) seeking to change it instead of just assuming that it is being improperly applied. Tilting at the windmill by proceeding on easy assumptions instead of the messier facts only serves to undermine the power of the movement by allowing defenders of the status quo to simply point out that critics don’t know what they are talking about. This is what undermined the effectiveness of the public reaction to the Kelly Flynn controversy a decade ago.
Just bashing the Air Force on a blanket basis as a refuge for sexual predators is, IMO, counterproductive to any desire to promote real change.
If the facts turn out as they are assumed by David, I don’t think this case will last long. Based on my knowledge and experience, however, I suspect there is more going on than is publicly available right now.
It’s rare, but I agree w Steck.
Also, in light of the Duke farce, can we at least call the three guys ‘alleged’ rapists?
After all, the quotes around ‘harsh interrogation’ suggest that, perhaps, the woman had gaping holes in her testimony, compounded by her drinking. This is not exactly a rare occurrence, esp. considering she was underage.
Fortunately this is not typical, routine, or commonplace, which may have been mistakenly or dishonestly implied at the start of this thread.
I don’t believe that the issue here is that the Air Force is a haven for sexual predators.
I believe the issue is that the Air Force chose to court-martial her on indecent acts while giving the alleged rapists administrative punishments and immunity regarding the original charges.
My question is why is she more important to court-martial than the 2 men. And why exactly should the two men get immunity regarding the rape charges? What value does that serve? They have already been administratively punished for indecent acts so they should be able to testify honestly without fear of any further charges UNLESS they in fact did rape her.
And I hope to God that it was a limited immunity and not a full immunity.
The details are scant on this matter up to this point so it is entirely possible that the details are not accurate. But so far it looks pretty bad for the Air Force, IMO.
“Tilting at the windmill by proceeding on easy assumptions instead of the messier facts only serves to undermine the power of the movement by allowing defenders of the status quo to simply point out that critics don’t know what they are talking about.”
Hmm, it’s a point, but this raises some questions:
Since this in an ongoing investigation and it’s not very likely that more facts will surface soon, doesn’t this result in the movement losing a lot of momentum, reaching a near standstill as long as the air force withholds further informations? And without pressure, why should officials give out more facts, since this wouldn’t be in their interest?
As for the critics, they’ll always find something to use as a counterargument. The question should be, who has the more compelling arguments? A position build on assumptions isn’t very strong, sure, even though the emotional aspect might add some uumph. But isn’t it better to make a stand now than to wait until the case is closed and the whole picture is plain to see, which could take years? Especially regarding possible future victims?
Really, imho sometimes there is an urgent need for fast action when faced with a problematic situation. With your inside knowledge of air force procedures, do you have some ideas what could be done on a short notice to prohibit more women becoming double victims in similar cases?
“sometimes there is an urgent need for fast action when faced with a problematic situation.”
To avoid misunderstandings, I guess its better to say what I see as problematic here:
- That the victim had an interview with the defense lawyers without judicial support of her own. Was she told that she didn’t have to do this and was she offered a lawyer? Can there be additional safeguards to keep victims from placing themselfes in such an unfortunate situation?
- That the refusal to participate in the investigation backfired on the vicitm. Regardless if this is meritted in this special case or not, but is there sufficient guidance to make victims aware of this danger? Can more be done?
- That the offenders received immunity from the rape charges. Why would this be necessary at all, when the men should have some personal interest in telling the truth so to clean up their reputation? And is it really in the air force’s best interest to grant a waiver of future prosecution of wrongdoings, no matter what facts turn up in this case?
- That this case now is actually sending a totally wrong signal to the troops: That victims should think twice before going official in such situations, and that offenders have a good chance at coming away with it. Especially if they outnumber the victim(s), so that the weight of testimony is on their side. What can be done quickly to counter this (false?) message?
Thanks to flyerhawk for using ‘alleged.’
Here’s a novel idea: why not let the facts of the case come out before any of us jump to conclusions. In looking at the link, and other sources, there seems to be nothing in the media that points to these guys having ‘gotten away’ with anything.
There is a claim, denials, ans then the military going gonzo. It seems the Gonzo part is what is shining a dark light on the alleged rapists, as if the military is hiding their guilt.
But, there is nothing in public to suggest that this was rape, consensual, guys on a rampage, a girl with a vendetta (think the Kobe Bryant case- girl sleeps with more than one guy, tries to extort $ from famous rich guy), or what not.
Whereas once rape charges were too easily dismissed, now rape charges are accepted as word.
Women have made up rape claims for years- many a black man was lynched in this country, y’know.
So, let the facts come out. And all that is known now is that the military overreacted on an alleged crime. Period.
cosmoetic,
The rape charges were dismissed because she refused to testify. And absent overwhelming physical evidence you can’t prosecute someone for rape if the victim isn’t willing to testify.
If the guys didn’t rape her why did they request immunity from rape charges?
“Here’s a novel idea: why not let the facts of the case come out before any of us jump to conclusions.”
Yup, indeed, Cosmo, why not wait some months or even years before calling for improvements? Women in the air force sure will understand.
|-(
To make my (maybe to long) comments above shorter:
I sincerely belief that something can be done to improve the situation of rape victims. And it should be in the air force’s own best interest to implement procedures that ensure that victims have the best possible chance to get justice.
Flyer:
‘The rape charges were dismissed because she refused to testify.’
***This suggests that she possibly was unsure of details, saying yes or no, etc. Again, she seems to have been drunk- all of them likely were. There is no clue as to why she refused. You are assuming something that is unclear. Perhaps, like the Duke woman, she realized that it wasn’t really rape (although the Duke gal was a clear nut).
‘And absent overwhelming physical evidence you can’t prosecute someone for rape if the victim isn’t willing to testify.’
***Words 2-5 in this sentence support my opinion above. And, since she was unwilling to testify, she’s an ‘alleged’ victim, just as the guys are ‘alleged’ rapists. Recall, the alleged Duke rapists were just alleged. Turns out they didn’t rape her. And, dozens of supposed rapists have been let loose in the last decade because of DNA evidence. Again, let’s not assume that all women tell the truth and are victims, and that all men are cavemen and liars.
‘If the guys didn’t rape her why did they request immunity from rape charges?’
Think they might’ve seen how the very allegedness of the Duke rapists denied them college entry and jobs, and that they did not want their names associated with possibly spurious charges. After all, folk like you are already assuming their guilt w/zero evidence.
Gray: Your brrf is with the military handling of whatever ‘incident’ occurred, not with whether a crime occurred or not. These are separate issues.
Beef not brrf.
cosmoetica,
I will fully agree with you that we don’t know the reasons why the woman decided to not testify. Regardless of her comments right now there are numerous possible reasons why she has changed her tune. She may have become unsure of the details because she was drunk at the time or the lawyers rattled her or both or some unrelated reason.
I don’t know if a rape was committed or not. I really don’t think that is relevant at this juncture. The woman has decided not to press charges.
The questions for me are about how the Air Force handled the matter. Specifically.
1. Why did the 2 men receive administrative punishments while she is being court-martialed for the same crime.
2. Why did the Air Force grant immunity to the 2 men? As I said upthread I hope it is limited immunity and not full immunity. But I don’t see why they couldn’t have compelled the men to testify. They had already been punished so self-incrimination is not pertinent.
I don’t accept your premise regarding their asking for immunity. Asking for immunity is an implication of wrongdoing, otherwise you wouldn’t need the immunity.
As for this comment…
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have never said that the men in question were guilty of anything, although the Air Force has punished them for indecent conduct apparently. I have repeatedly said that there isn’t enough evidence to come to any sort of conclusions regarding them.
You keep trying to make this the Duke case Part II when it doesn’t appear that anyone is even discussing whether the guys raped her or not. It doesn’t matter. I asked why they asked for immunity simply because asking for immunity does give the appearance of an admission of guilt.
Please try to stick to the topic and not project beliefs onto others.
I agree that the problem revolves around the handling of the ‘case, whatever it is.
‘I don’t accept your premise regarding their asking for immunity. Asking for immunity is an implication of wrongdoing, otherwise you wouldn’t need the immunity.’
Simple, it could be a blanket immunity for drinking on duty, use of other drugs, the lewd acts, etc. This is not a difficult thing to understand. If a Mob informant is given immunity to testify against a hitman, it does not mean the informant was also a hitman, but may have engaged in other petty crimes.
You then end the comment with, ‘I asked why they asked for immunity simply because asking for immunity does give the appearance of an admission of guilt.’
That plus your prior comment implies you already accept a premise unestablished, whether you state it directly or tiptoe around it.
As I’ve shown, immunity in no way equates with guilt for a specific crime- in this case rape.
I would ask that you not project your assumptions- ‘simply because asking for immunity does give the appearance’- on to folk that have yet to be tried, much less convicted of any crime- rape or elsewise.
No matter what you are determined to make this about whether the airman raped the girl.
This simply isn’t true. No one is given blanket immunity for everything. You can either be given full immunity, in which you are promised that you will not be charged for specific crimes, or you are given limited immunity, in which you can testify but anything you say cannot be used against you. A mob informant isn’t given carte blanche immunity. That would be insane. They are given immunity regarding specific acts.
So in this case the airman in question were either given limited immunity in which their testimony could not be used in a criminal prosecution regarding the alleged rape of the woman. Or they were given full immunity in which the Air Force has promised not to charge them with the rape.
If it is the former then I can understand why the men asked for it despite the bad appearance.
Where did I say otherwise? In a court of law immunity doesn’t equate to guilt. But in the court of public opinion it is pretty damning.
This is getting a bit ridiculous.
Do you believe that asking for immunity does, in some way, give the appearance of guilt? Simple yes or no question.
“Gray: Your brrf is with the military handling of whatever ‘incident’ occurred, not with whether a crime occurred or not. These are separate issues.”
Yup, you got my point. Jason and many others are right, it would be premature to try to find a final opinion on who’s the victim and who the offender in this specific case. But the way this evolved so far seems to show that the procedures in place for handling rape claims are far from perfect, and this could result in true victims not finding justice. Again, I’m sure there’s room for improvements.
“Do you believe that asking for immunity does, in some way, give the appearance of guilt? Simple yes or no question.”
This question isn’t directed at me (right?), but I would say sure it does! Just like a defendant not taking the stand. This might not be fair, it might not be rational, but imho that’s the way most people tick.
Flyer:
Above I typed, ‘There is a claim, denials, ans then the military going gonzo. It seems the Gonzo part is what is shining a dark light on the alleged rapists, as if the military is hiding their guilt.’
Others have tried to focus it on the alleged rape.
Re: immunity. I’ve known folk who’ve gone into Witness Protection, w the gov’t fully aware of crimes- up to murder, that were absolved. The most famous name was Sammy ‘The Bull’ Gravano, who finked out John Gotti, and then avoided prosecution for years, for other crimes. So, when you state, ‘This simply isn’t true. No one is given blanket immunity for everything. You can either be given full immunity, in which you are promised that you will not be charged for specific crimes, or you are given limited immunity, in which you can testify but anything you say cannot be used against you. A mob informant isn’t given carte blanche immunity. That would be insane. They are given immunity regarding specific acts,’ you are evidencing you do not understand the current legal system, and how immunity works.
Is it insane? Perhaps. But that’s different than denying it exists. Therefore, the alleged perpetrators can be given blanket immunity not only for an alleged rape, but lesser crimes that prosecutors might retro and go ‘Gotcha’ for.
I agree, the whole thing is silly, and given the woman’s refusal, it shd be dropped.
And, no, asking for immunity does not equate with guilt for the main or specific crime, but as with the mob informant example, he could ask for blanket immunity on racketeering, gaming, prostitution charges, in turn for finking on the hitman. That does not mean he’s a killer.
Similarly, the alleged rapists cd ask for blanket immunity for any criimes- such as giving alcohol to a minor, to avoid being ‘Gotcha’d.’ It’s really easy to understand when you know how or system works- even if that working is dysfunctional.
Thus, when you state- as in my quote of you- ’simply because asking for immunity does give the appearance’- you are manifestly believing that the burden falls on the accused, not the accuser.
Again, this is how the criminal justice system works. You are simply not understanding it, and mixing up different parts of it, and then trying to piece it into a narrative that does not cohere.
There is an accusation, a denial, a recantation (aka refusal- for whatever reasons), then the military goofing up, and the guys who are rightly worried of their reps accepting immunity because they may have committed a crime- ala alcohol to a minor, but that does not equate with their guilt in a rape.
Might they be guilty? Of course. Where’s the evidence? This lack is why the many assumptions put forth in this thread are so McCarthyistic, esp. in light of the recent Duke nonsense.
Gray: The q was for me, and while I have shown that logically it is not an acknowledgement of guilt, you are right in that most people see it that way, lest Flyer wd not have framed the q- much less in the manner he did.
OK. Clearly you are not willing to follow along with the discssion.
I asked you whether asking for immunity gives the appearance of guilt and you respond with “immunity does not equate with guilt”. Yeah, we all know that. Why you keep rehashing this point I have no idea. Here’s an idea. How bout you answer my actual question?
You are confusing an unwillingness of the DoJ to prosecute with being given a blanket immunity. What your argument implies is that Gravano could rob a liquor store, shooting the cashier, and be immune to prosecution. I hope your realize that simply isn’t the case.
Appearance is a legally insignificant matter. OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a court of law. However a notable majority of Americans consider guilty of the crimes based on the appearance of wrongdoing.
Once again the issue isn’t whether the guys in question are guilty or not guilty. The question is why did the air Force grant them immunity? Why did they choose to court-martial the woman but not the men for engaging in the SAME ACTS?
You can keep trying to deflect this to a debate about whether the guys are guilty or not but that doesn’t matter.
“OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a court of law.”
Oh, yes, he was! By a civil court, after he was quitted by the jury of the criminal court. That’s why the victim’s family is able to take always all this income from the book deal and that game license, remember?
I know thhis point isn’t central to your argument, just wanted to correct this…
Fair enough. Civil courts have a much lighter burden of proof. As a matter of fact civil courts are far more susceptible to the Court of Public Opinion than criminal courts.
Flyer:
I have answered point by point. You asked about the equation of appearance of guilt w immunity. I stated , ‘The q was for me, and while I have shown that logically it is not an acknowledgement of guilt, you are right in that most people see it that way, lest Flyer wd not have framed the q- much less in the manner he did.’
Who cares the appearance? Guilt is determined by reality.
Read the whole text of what someone states, do not cherrypick.
‘You are confusing an unwillingness of the DoJ to prosecute with being given a blanket immunity. What your argument implies is that Gravano could rob a liquor store, shooting the cashier, and be immune to prosecution. I hope your realize that simply isn’t the case.’
The claim is that the accused were given blanket immunity. That is separate from an unwillingness to prosecute. As for Gravano- the Witness protection people loked the other way for years after he was given immunity, on crimes such as possession and distribution of narcotics, up to allegations of murder. It’s only when things got leaked to the press that they changed their tune. So, again, you simply are not living in the same reality that law and criminal justice are applied. This happens, and on a regular basis, whether you realize it or not. Sorry, you are 100% dead wrong. Period.
‘The question is why did the air Force grant them immunity?’
I answered that with the likely answer, based upon the typical reasons lawyers work out immunity deals: ‘the guys who are rightly worried of their reps accepting immunity because they may have committed a crime- ala alcohol to a minor, but that does not equate with their guilt in a rape’.
Really, Flyer, what do you not get? I’m not saying that that was the reason. None of us know. But is it plausible? Yes, and also likely. It’s done thousands of times a day across the land.
‘Why did they choose to court-martial the woman but not the men for engaging in the SAME ACTS?’
Because they’re asinine bureaucrats? But that’s separate from rape allegations.
‘You can keep trying to deflect this to a debate about whether the guys are guilty or not but that doesn’t matter.’
I have done the exact opposite. I have talked about the reasons for immunity and the processes behind it. I keep explaining things any lawyer would tell you, but you keep pounding away on irrelevancies.
Gray: A civil court has no legal bearing on criminal charges, so it’s not anything that wd be on his criminal record. So, technically, he was found likely to have caused the deaths, but he was not found guilty of murder, nor any crime. Big difference, at least legally.
To clarify, the men were specifically given immunity from sexual assault charges.
David: That does clarify, because it likely means there was nothing that could implicate them in a sexual crime, thus the prosecutors want to keep the case open, and possibly go after them on lesser crimes, like the alcohol to a minor sort of thing, while they go after the gal.
It’s a way to keep the boys in line- i.e.- ‘Shut up and do what we say, or we’ll get you after we get her.’ Yet, it also means that the prosecutors cannot sully the men’s reputations and leave themselves open to personal libel cases, only threaten them with lesser charges if they blink.
That makes sense, from the prosecutors’ perspective. Now, why they wanna make a federal case about the girl is a different matter.
There is no such thing as blanket immunity. Not at least in the way you are describing.
You show me a single immunity agreement ever written that shields the witness from generic crimes and not specific ones. I would love to see it.
What I don’t get is why you keep changing the discussion. Certainly what you say is plausible. What has NOT been explained and what you apparently agree about is that no one understands WHY the Air Force chose to do these things. While you are fine with shrugging your shoulders and pointing to “bureaucracy” many of us are not.
Why on God’s green Earth do you continue to go back to the frigging rape allegations. They DON’T MATTER!!!!
BS. I keep trying to talk about why the Air Force did what they did. You keep brushing off their actions as “bureaucratic” incompetence and going back to why these poor innocents boys are being unfairly condemned.
This entire diary was about the Air Force’s actions NOT the airmen that were accused of rape.
Flyer:
‘You show me a single immunity agreement ever written that shields the witness from generic crimes and not specific ones.’
Ok, now I know you’re being silly. First off, as I showed in the Gravano case, things like that are never written, they are de facto under the table agreements, because if such agreements were ever in writing they could be used as political hammers when DAs were up for elections. Similarly, when the Prez of the US, or the head of the CIA, puts out a request that a leader be toppled, or a counteragent killed, it is never in writing. C’mon, be serious and get real. Have you been watching too much 24 or Alias?
This whole thread has been based on the assumption that a rape occurred, which is WHY others have presumed the military has acted in a coverup.
And, as David’s comment stated, and my last post assented, it makes sense- their actions, in a ‘we’ll cover our asses’ sort of way.
But, asking me or anyone else why some major or general who is running this circus is running it, well dig up Freud, because he may know. But that’s even further off topic.