Skip to main content

View Diary: Pentagon lobbies hard to be allowed to keep failing on military sexual assault (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Comparisons are odious. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alpaca farmer, randomfacts, Kevskos

    We assume that members of the military services, having been recruited for their talents, expertise and good character are respectful of other human being, especially their co-workers.
    Those assumptions are probably false. The U.S. military is the coercive arm of a culture of obedience, an abusive form of social organization. And, if an organization is abusive at its core, it is unrealistic to expect that abusive behavior won't surface in personal relationships. Making respect for individual human rights a top priority risks undermining the culture of obedience, just as the expression of sexual preference does. It is going to be almost impossible to maintain the culture of obedience if abusive behaviors are ruled out of order.
    The distinction between "sexual assaults" and "lower level sexual acts" is telling. That every unwelcome physical encounter should be considered abusive does not seem to register. It is not surprising. After all, in the civilian world a "simple assault" which does no visible or permanent damage is classified as a misdemeanor and only charged if witnessed by an officer of the law (which suggests that the real 'victim' of such an assault is the official whose authority was insulted by the act of disrespect in his presence, not the person who got hit).
    Indeed, the military's response seems to be predicated on the same kind of thinking -- that an assault on a military person in a non- combat situation is an insult to the good order of the force and need not be concerning if order can be restored, if need be, by removing the injured individual.
    If women tempt men to misbehave, then they should be gone. Because, you know, self-control is actually inimical to good order. When compliance is the order of the day, voluntary compliance is not appreciated. Real obedience has to be coerced. That's why the orders issued in a culture of obedience are often irrational.
    Coercion, like power, has to be felt and, to be felt, it has to hurt. Letting subordinates hurt each other makes it easier for the guy at the top.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:40:54 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  ideally yes (0+ / 0-)

      but reality it's a mixed bag.  There are few institutions that reflect general society more than the military.  I've been enlisted, non-commissioned officer, and now for the last decade or so an officer spanning 20+ years.

      I can't speak for the entire military obviously, but from my view, I see folks who are truly outstanding, just as you say.  Then I see folks lost, without direction, who are looking to the military for it.  And everything in between.  I've seen evil people, mean people, atheists and bible thumpers.

      The "culture of obedience" only goes so far.  There is plenty of individualism in the military.

      No, I don't believe differentiating between sexual assaults (rape, sexual assault, etc) and wrongful contact (pinches and pokes) is indicative of anything different than differentiating between murder and assault.  

      The fact that we recognize that they are different, and gradiate them does not mean we think one is not abusive, it just means that the other is more serious.

      It's why we have different sentences.  And yes, in the civilian world, what the military calls wrongful sexual contact, would often be called an assault at most...if not ignored completely.

      And no, the wrongful contact in the military doesn't have to be witnessed to be dealt with.

      Self-control is not inimical to good order, it's absolutely required to have good order.  I don't see how you have good order without self-control.

      I think your view of the military and how it works is quite different from my experience being a part of it. There are PLENTY of things wrong.  Way too many conservatives, way too much religion, I could go on and on.

      But in this narrow area, criminal prosecutions, I've not yet seen concrete differences between how the military prosecutes and how the civilians do in such a way that show specifics of what the military should do differently.

      •  The civilian criminal justice system sucks. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        randomfacts, Kevskos, gffish

        We'd like the military to be better.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:16:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  fair enough (0+ / 0-)

          on that point.  My argument is that it is better already.  The military provides advocates for alleged victims, it prosecutes cases the civilians don't, has special victim prosecutors that basically do nothing but sexual assault cases, and it's constantly tweaking not only the people involved but the laws themselves.

          We are on our third set of sexual assault laws in the last 5 years in part because the middle set was ruled too biased against the accused by the courts.

          I think we probably need a fourth set quite frankly to get some definitions sussed out.

          I guess my point is, military bad, do better isn't particularly helpful.  And saying military commanders bad so put lawyers in charge and that will make it better, won't result in a significant change in the numbers of cases that go forward because the vast majority of the time, commander already listen to their lawyers.

          Putting it in the hands of the civilians in the form of a commission won't necessarily make things better.

          From my pov, if folks really want more convictions, don't change the process, change one of the two things:

          1. human beings and their biases and prejudices
          2. the beyond reasonable doubt standard to something lower

          I prefer the former over the latter by far, but the latter is way easier than the former (although not impossible, just gonna take time).

    •  How Coercion Works (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coercion, like power, has to be felt and, to be felt, it has to hurt. Letting subordinates hurt each other makes it easier for the guy at the top.
      To understand the psychology and practice of this principle, read The Lords of Discipline by Pat Conroy.

      Alpacas spit if you annoy them. So don't do that.

      by alpaca farmer on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:47:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is an absolute load of hokum. (0+ / 0-)
      It is going to be almost impossible to maintain the culture of obedience if abusive behaviors are ruled out of order.
      The distinction between "sexual assaults" and "lower level sexual acts" is telling. That every unwelcome physical encounter should be considered abusive does not seem to register.
      Here's the fly in your ointment - it's the eye of the beholder nature of "unwelcome" that renders your point ludicrous.

      This is a question of law.  You can't define "unwelcome" in any fashion other than "each person decides for themselves," which sets up a completely unenforceable standard.   To borrow your civilian example, does that 'officer of the law' file charges if he witnesses behavior that he considers simple assault if the parties involved are laughing and smiling?  No, because the context in which the behavior occurs makes it clear that it isn't really assault, right?  If he were to see the exact same behavior but observe one party saying "no, no," screaming, or trying to escape, then he'd get involved, right?

      If you don't think that similar situations exist in the military, you're sadly mistaken; they're quite universal.  Quick reality check - have you ever said anything like, "you don't know me well enough to say that" or "only my friends can do that"?  We all apply different measures of "welcome"/"unwelcome" based on the context.  How on earth do you expect anyone else to know your measures ahead of time for all instances?

      So, yes, it's completely legitimate to seek a distinction beween "sexual assault" and "lower-level sexual acts."   What you (and many others in this thread across several of Laura's diaries) seem to be espousing is some kind of system in which every soldier gets to define their own version of "unwelcome" and have it enforced by the chain of command or (as Giilbrand would have it) military attorneys.  NOW we get to something that would wreck the "culture of obedience" to which you so critically referred, because it sets up an environment in which no one knows the rules until a violation is named after the fact.

      Before you unload both barrels in my direction, let me give you an example from civilian life.  I'm a friendly guy; I'm one of those folks who nods, smiles and greets people as I walk down the street or enter a business.  Well, I had to walk through the same area of my workplace every day to reach my office; naturally, if I made eye contact with someone or shared an elevator with them, I'd say "good morning!", "how's life?" or "big plans for the weekend?"  Imagine my surprise to learn that a female worker had filed a complaint against me because she "didn't come to work to make small talk."  Her manager specifically asked if I had made any sexual comments or any physical contact; she replied that I had not, and that she didn't feel threatened in any way, but that it was just the small talk that bothered her.  He also asked if she had simply told me that she doesn't like small talk; she replied that she had not.  Here's the kicker: because it was a woman complaining about a man, I was nailed with a sexual harrassment complaint and informed that any further violation would result in immediate termination with no appeal.  In short, her personal definition of "unwelcome" put a huge stumbling block in my career path with that employer, because I apparently crossed a boundary that I didn't even know existed!

      A similar case from my military service (albeit back in the mid-1980s) would be the female 1LT who dressed in a skin-tight tank top and short shorts, walked through the all-male section of Battalion Avenue and then tried to press charges against a soldier who said, "you are looking GOOD, girl!"  I witnessed this firsthand; it came out during the subsequent discussion/investigation that she had no reason to be in that area on a Saturday, and that she had been seen passing through several all-male barracks areas that day.  She was obviously fishing, and the CO thought so as well.  A weaker chain of command would have slapped the kid with an Article 15, killed off his next promotion, and quite possibly ended his enlisted career as a result.

      Yes, military law has to pay more attention to sexual assault.  No, it won't be a simple matter.  Yes, there are obviously physical actions that can reasonably be considered improper in all circumstances.  No, we cannot support some eye-of-the-beholder standard.  Yes, there are both men and women who will abuse the system.  No, we cannot craft a system that will catch them all.  Yes, we need to find a way to improve the current process.  No, we should not bypass or dismantle the chain of command to do it.

      The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

      by wesmorgan1 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:49:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (124)
  • Community (62)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Culture (26)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Environment (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Spam (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Law (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site