‘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.

The claim is that the accused were given blanket immunity. That is separate from an unwillingness to prosecute.

There is no such thing as blanket immunity. Not at least in the way you are describing.

Sorry, you are 100% dead wrong. Period.

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.

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.

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.

Because they’re asinine bureaucrats? But that’s separate from rape allegations.

Why on God’s green Earth do you continue to go back to the frigging rape allegations. They DON’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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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?

. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As I’ve shown, immunity in no way equates with guilt for a specific crime- in this case rape.

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

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…

After all, folk like you are already assuming their guilt w/zero evidence.

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.

‘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.

Yup, indeed, Cosmo, why not wait some months or even years before calling for improvements? Women in the air force sure will understand.
|-(

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. 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.