Skip to main content

View Diary: 60 troops fired after military record checks turn up sexual assault, other convictions (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You raise another interesting point... (11+ / 0-)

    Which is whether or not any of the Os and senior NCOs had their names checked against the databases?

    Anyway, 60 people committing like 20,000 sexual assaults - are either super human or we've only barely scratched the surface - don't you think?

    •  26,000 (12+ / 0-)

      26,000 reported sexual assaults last year, the Pentagon itself told the Senate committee.

      And they only managed to round up 60 perps?

      The command failure continues.

      Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

      by deben on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 06:48:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Birds of a feather and such (3+ / 0-)

        a culture has been created.  A long time ago.  Under wraps.  They know it is without acceptance in the general populace so great lengths are taken to hide it, but there is a disproportionate number of them to the rest of the population.  Therefore, nurtured.  Like pedophilia among the clergy.  

        Now that citizens are squawking, what to do?  There are your paltry 60.  Makes it look like they care.  They don't.

        Please save a child's life. www.signon.org/sign/sarasota-sheriffs-office

        by kmfmstar on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 07:12:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Navy Wife for 15 years. (8+ / 0-)

          For 9 of those years, I lived on bases.  While I fit in badly (my husband was an E, and I was childless by choice, a feminist, a Wiccan, a published author with 2 graduate degrees)  I did meet some incredible people in that time. MOST military people do NOT consider rape or harassment acceptable--but it is more tolerated in some palces than others.  My husband's first P3 squadron was such a place.  Before women could go on carriers, they mostly did their sea duty overseas on land bases or in P3 squadrons which deploy on land.  This one was heavy with young women, and a lot of dirty older (CPOs and above) men in positions of power.  People made plans to screw around on deployments.  My husband doesn't indulge, and people accused him of being gay. No rapes, and it was all consensual, but it was pretty tacky. The XO and the skipper tried to clean up their acts--but got nowhere. That squadron was filled of people who'd move from it to another squadron in the same palce and back again. They had a network--kinda like the bishops moving around  the pedophile priests--and they covered for each other. There were some rally great Os and NCOs, but the bad apples were numerous enough that a lot got hidden from the good guys.

          My husband his 4 years there were the worst 4 of his life.

          I used to read Pacific S&S when we were in Japan for 7 years--the other choice was USA Today, and I wanted something that was written above the third grade level.  At least once a month there'd be a trail for adultery, sexual harassment or rape.  It was always very young  female sailors, usually no older than 13 -25, and many just out of A school.  Inevitably the defense was "WHo do you beleive, this fine understanding CPO with ten years of excellent service--ior these girls who didn't like that he made them do their jobs?"  It often worked. Sadly, thezse are the guys who get away with it. And too often the next step the chain of command views their duty as supporting the guy underneath him.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:05:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You are an idiot (0+ / 0-)

        Of the 26,000 reported 23,000 were ANONYMOUS.  Of the remaining ~3000 the vast majority ended up in criminal charges.

        The 60 removed from duties today included people with "alcohol related" incidents.  Now since you are an idiot you have no way of knowing that that could mean being fall down drunk or it could mean you were at a party where there was alcohol and someone punched you even if you had not had a drink in your life.  

        And considering we are talking about 60 from a population of over 30,000 records the number is incredibly low.  I doubt we will ever know how many of those were alcohol related but I would guess over half meaning the number who committed serous offenses is even smaller.  And even "child abuse" can mean different things in the military.  I charged someone with child abuse for leaving their child unattended in a car for 5 minutes.  I have seen child abuse charges for children missing school.  But of course none of that fits with your pre-decisions so dont let it get in the way of you being an idiot.

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:46:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess, from all the honking coming from you (4+ / 0-)

          about me being an idiot, that you're calling me out.

          26,000 casualties is obviously mostly an illusion to you and anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot. And all the ruckus over victims of rape and assault in our military is a waste of time by idiots.

          How seriously taken are accusations of rape and sexual assault in the military? By you, not much, clearly. Also by the Pentagon, which is why there have been hearings in Congress by outraged Senators. The Pentagon has been retaliating against rape victims. So, under those circumstances, who's going to report them?

          I'd appreciate your not calling me an idiot any more, or you may find yourself earning some donuts.

          Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

          by deben on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:12:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope you are still an idiot (0+ / 0-)

            Have you eve had to impose punishment on someone for a sexual assault?  I have.

            Have you ever sat on a Courts Martial for a rape?  I have.

            Have you ever had to try to convince someone to file a formal complaint instead of an anonymous one?  I have.

            Dont talk to me about being serious about stoping and reporting sex crimes.

            Did you know that over half of the anonymous complaints were male and male?  Those male on male complaints increased dramatically just before and since the repeal of DADT.  They are being used as an information operations campaign to paint a picture of gay men suddenly raping straight men.  Those opposed to the repeal of DADT and opposed to homosexuals in general are abusing the reporting system and hiding behind anonymous reports.  Liberals and a few Senators have been fooled by what is essentially gay bashing.

            Oh and HR away IDIOT.  I dont take kindly to threats.

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:34:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I won't hide rate you (0+ / 0-)

              But others should.

              Sure, the vast majority of sexual assaults are made up to discredit gays. You know this how?

              And the military never had a problem with sexual assaults before Don't Ask Don't Tell was ending. Right. The problem is all about gay people, isn't it?

              You are red-hot about something. If you keep venting bile at me, I might figure out what it is. Robert E. Lee... Is he a hero or yours?

              Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

              by deben on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:50:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ARGH (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                seriously70, irishwitch

                Ive been in the military for 27 years.  Bottom line is that people are pretty much the same now as they have ever been.  We have allowed anonymous reporting for a number of years and have a good baseline for they types of assaults.  We also know that for every X anonymous complaint we will see Y formal complaints.

                Prior to 2001 the most common sexual assault was in the date rape category.  Perp and victim known to each other, some level of consensual activity, perp doesnt stop at no.

                After 2001 we see a sharp rise in "pure violence" types of assaults.  Call them stress induced, rage induced, PTSD induced but instead of a date gone wrong the perp and victim had very little pre-assult contact.

                Male on Male reports have been around forever.  But as the debate about repealing DADT started to heat up we saw a hike in male on male ANONYMOUS complaints without a corresponding hike in formal complaints.  

                Now a bit about the two reporting systems.  Anonymous complaints are just that - anonymous.  Sometimes the "victim" does not even name the perpetrator.  In any case NO action can be taken.  Thats the regulation.  NO ACTION.  It allows the victim to get assistance and the command to become aware of an overall issue but they cannot punish anyone for the report.  This also extends to submitting false reports.

                Formal reports REQUIRE action.  They must be forwarded to the proper authority (normally Commander).  In most cases the Service specific Criminal Investigative service is also notified (CID/NCIS/OSI).  One aspect of the formal complaint is that submitting a false complaint is punishable.

                Now when we see a sharp rise in complaints of a certain type its a concern.  When we see a sharp rise in anonymous complaints with no corresponding increase in formal complaints it can mean a few things.  There may be a command climate issue where people think they will not be believed, retaliated against, etc.  it may be that the assaults are occurring during other activities that are illegal like Raves or sex parties.  But when you see something as specific as male on male assaults suddenly going through the roof at multiple locations in multiple commands  and all of the reports in anonymous side what you have is a concerted campaign to give the impression that "The Gays" are on a rape rampage.  

                Changes in crime statistics are normally gradual and reflect the 3-5 year groupings of enlistees.  There is no way that we suddenly, before DADT was actually repealed, recruited thousands of gay rapist and there is no way that the mere prospect of DADT triggered sudden urges to commit rape in gay soldiers.  Of course the anonymous nature of the reporting severely hinders the ability to identify what is going on and where it is coming from.  And even if we could nail down an exact source like a web site and PROOVE the reports were false the regulations set up to protect victims would prevent punishing people for making false reports.  

                So the false reporting goes on.  And here is the kicker - because the media and most everyone else associates sexual assault with women there has been a backlash against them as we all troop off to our mandatory training/focus groups/sensitivity sessions.  I have personally witnessed a sharp decrease in mixed gender socialization both inside and outside of work.  Men are simply not inviting female peers and if females show up the men leave.  No big deal right?  It is a big deal because for better or worse a lot of life occurs over a bear at the club or on the golf course.  Being excluded from those things has long term impacts on careers.  

                I apologize for being rude.  It was wrong.  You are not what I called you (I dont want to say it again).  But it is frustrating when I see what is happening and it is so obvious to me and others and yet that is not the headline.  There are thousands of us who have worked for years to root out the bad actors with absolute zero tolerance for sexual assaults.  We will never get them all but we have gotten a lot and more importantly raised leaders who think the same way.  But instead the headline is 26,000.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:38:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  Why, though, didn't the Joint Chiefs of Staff know what you claim to know about the big picture and set the Senate Committee straight?

                  Saxby Chambliss blamed the increase in assaults on "exposing horny young men to female bodies." Why didn't the Joint Chiefs tell him the problem is not real and is due only to those upset about the ending of DADT?

                  The outraged women Senators citing huge numbers of sexual assaults reported by the Pentagon itself, and citing victims who report rapes being retaliated against instead of helped... Why didn't the Generals tell them the problem is actually mostly about gays in the military and it's all a big fabrication by people who hate gays?

                  What I saw of the Generals was a herd of deer in the headlights.

                  Apology accepted, btw.

                  Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                  by deben on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:15:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

                    Given the current political climate do you really think ANYONE on either side would want to hear the explanation?  What I would ask instead is why no Senator asked why more than half of the reports (about 17000) were male on male and how that tracked with historic figures.  The numbers were available to the Senators.

                    No one really wants to talk about rape (well except some Rethuglicans) but even fewer are comfortable talking about male on male rape.  And since there is no real proof that the numbers are bogus and no way to ever prove they are and no way to punish anyone for reporting falsely there is no point in even trying.  And even if they did they would be accused of trying to cover up something or carrying water for the President or the gay lobby blah blah Benghazi blah blah IRS.

                    I will tell you that like many other Congressional hearings I think the Chiefs went into the hearing knowing they were going to get beat to hell and knowing the best thing was to just sit there and take it.  They don't always do that (http://www.youtube.com/...) but most of the time its the best way to go because most of the time Congresspersons have already decided what to hear.  Nothing good was going to come from four male Generals arguing with female senators about sexual assaults.  Think Sandra Fluke in reverse.  Its a pitch in the dirt.  

                    What the Army Chief said was exactly right - we took our eye off the ball when it came to sexual assaults.  Not out of laziness.  We thought we had the problem beat.  Not eliminated, that will never happen, but reduced to the point where we couldn't do better.  When you look at our numbers of actual reported (formally) crimes we are far below any city of comparable size.  If the 26,000 were all true assaults we would be running an 8-1 unreported to unreported and while not good it would still be under the 10-1 we used to assume.  Personally I think it is closer to 5-1 which is still horrible but I dont know if we will ever do better.  The nature of the act will always prevent 100% reporting.

                    And of course we will always have our 1% who make everything look worse.  Like the AF LTC how was part of the problem being put in charge of Sexual Assault reporting.  Or the commanders who only believe one side no matter what.  I have seen false accusations believed despite overwhelming evidence and true accusations dismissed despite even more evidence.  We do our best to weed them out but its hard and slow and sometimes you lose.

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 01:01:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Let me add one thing (0+ / 0-)

                    Im looking at numbers for active military only.  And I do not include the Service Academies in those.  The Academies have a serious issue that seems to come back whack a mole style every few years.  The AF seems to be the worst followed by the Navy and then Army but the gaps are small.  I believe the slow rate of progress at the Academies is due to the large number of former students who become instructors.  It fosters the "this is how it has always been" attitude and instead of stomping out the problem it is being retaught.  Like cicadas when instructors come back from a class that had issues they infect a new batch that then takes 10-12 years to return as instructors and repeat the cycle.  If I had to take a swag unreported cases run 20-1 at the Academies.  

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 01:11:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks for your responses (0+ / 0-)

                      (once we got past the unpleasantries) and for your service.

                      I'm be straightforward and let you know that I shall continue quoting the number of victims at 26,000, as the Pentagon reports. I'm not convinced that the Generals were cowered by Senators from giving straight answers. They looked like they were incapable of any answers, like this problem was mostly new to them.

                      What goes on in the Service Academies is the Generals' responsibility, as is what happens to the case of every victim of assault under their command. This is a command failure. The academies produce commanders.

                      And, frankly, the DADT excuse sounds like the kind of red herring, blame-it-on-the-gays, that gets thought up by some jr. Repug in a cubicle in a right wing think tank and then bounced around the echo chamber.

                      Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                      by deben on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 03:48:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The problems in evidence here were already (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        deben

                        in evidence back in the 90s when the Tailhook scandal rocked the navy.

                        In the supposed investigation there were sexual assault counselors who were trying to sleep with the complainants. I see nothing, absolutely nothing, that suggest the military has made an earnest attempt to change the culture and root out predators.

                        I'm with you that the Generals didn't look cowed. They looked clueless and dumbfounded that any female senators  dared to ask them any direct questions about the problem. As if they expected their job was to go before Congress, answer a few soft ball questions and hear some some atta' boys, all for the camera's sake.

                        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                        by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 04:26:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  I don't hide rate crap like that because I (0+ / 0-)

                don't want the whole following thread to be hidden. Sometimes the rebuttal comments to the HRable comment are the best part.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 04:58:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Please post proof of outrageous claims (0+ / 0-)
          I charged someone with child abuse for leaving their child unattended in a car for 5 minutes.  I have seen child abuse charges for children missing school.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:26:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Cliff notes - "nothing to see hear, folks" nt (0+ / 0-)

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:27:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Um...these aren't perps. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elginblt, ksuwildkat

        Read the linked article, please.

        These were folks who had NOT been charged with any crime, but were serving in 'positions of trust' - drill instructior, recruiter, sexual assault counselor - who were found to have offenses that (now) disqualify them from those positions.

        The review was NOT tied to investigations of specific allegations in any way.  This was a preemptive effort to identify potential problem cases and get them out of those positions.

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

        by wesmorgan1 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:27:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener
          ...they had committed violations ranging from alcohol-related offenses to child abuse and sexual assault...
          So some, at least, of the 60 are perps.

          If you're simply clarifying technically, I'll agree, since these 60 apparently are not being removed for current sexual assaults, but for being untrustworthy due to their pasts. Regardless though, 60 is a pathetic start, I think you'll agree.

          Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

          by deben on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:49:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I won't agree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ksuwildkat

            This was an administrative review, not a crminal proceeding or investigation.

            Put simply, the question was asked, "Hey, does anyone working these jobs have a problem in their history that should disqualiify them?  Let's double-check all their records to make sure we didn't miss anything."

            The answer came back (in the Army's case), "Hey, we did find a few things, but better than 99% of folks in those jobs are clean."

            How on EARTH do you consider that a "pathetic result"?

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

            by wesmorgan1 on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 08:12:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's pathetic because all of the listed offenses (0+ / 0-)

              are grounds for demotion or administrative discharge, even if it's a civil judgment or criminal offense.

              None of those people were ever qualified to be promoted into those roles, and likely lied on the re-enlistment or violated some UCMJ provision by failing to disclose criminal convictions.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 09:54:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

                An "alcohol related incident" can be handled by counseling for minor offenses and Summarized Article 15 for more serious cases.  A Summarized Article 15 stays in your local record and is destroyed once you PCS from the unit and carries no demotion.  It is entirely appropriate for a junior soldier who does something stupid like get drunk and breaking an arm (his own).  It puts them on notice that they are heading down a wrong path and getting off it is a priority.  Repeat offenders might receive a Company Grade Article 15.  The only thing that would raise to the level of a Field Grade Article 15 would be a DUI or under age drinking by law enforcement personnel.  

                What do you know of these people and their qualifications - thats right nothing because you have not reviewed their records.  And no one said anything about criminal convictions being hidden.  

                Take your conclusions you jumped t and your misplaced indignation and go away.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Puuuleeeeaze, you know as well as I do (0+ / 0-)

                  that we are not talking about some 22 year old PFC, stumbling down drunk and breaking their arm.

                  Try harder to keep up the idea these firings were really not for anything significant.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:01:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  You REALLY need to check your facts. (0+ / 0-)

                Alcohol-related offenses, especially on the civilian/off-post side of things (as opposed to offenses committed on duty or on post) are most certainly NOT universal/automatic grounds for demotion or administrative separation.

                You're (once again) making broad, sweeping generalizations with no substance in fact.  "All of the listed offenses"?  Hardly.

                Not only that, but you're also impugning actions ("[they] likely lied on the re-enlistment") for which you have not one shred of evidence.

                So far in this thread, you've been wrong about:

                * Jurisdictional issues between civilian and military justice,
                * Immunization or "putting on hold" of criminal matters on initial enlistment AND during active duty,
                * Time-in-service requirements (no, these aren't all "mid-career" soldiers), and now
                * Violations triggering automatic demotion/separation procedures.

                It's becoming obvious that your only interest is slamming the military in the broadest, most general fashion possible.  That is not conducive to fixing the serious problems that exist.

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

                by wesmorgan1 on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:31:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bull fucking shit - they just got fired didn't (0+ / 0-)

                  they?

                  All the minor alcohol offenses in the records, those folks are not getting fired. Right?

                  Read, think, apply some logic.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:36:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And no, I don't go around slamming the (0+ / 0-)

                  military. I am a veteran and know many fine people who have served.

                  What I'm slamming is your absurd shilling to minimize the facts of this report.

                  I don't usually make any comments about the military.

                  But you are doing the same trick that the RKBA group does with gun facts. You take a number of incidents that are very  narrowly defined and divide by a large number in an attempt to sway people with simple math, posing as statistical significance.

                  No matter how small the number what's happened in this review is significant.

                  I'll grant you that it's been awhile, but I know from my own experience and the experience of others that minor civilian legal actions for events that occurred prior to enlistment were deferred for many years, because they would not even so much as call a service member for a deposition. I'll grant that the law and application of it has changed, and now service members only get deferrals for one of the justifiable reasons, such as overseas deployment.

                  You'r attempting to minimize the problem - that's all.

                  Cut it out.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:44:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am NOT minimzing the problem of sexual assault. (0+ / 0-)

                    I AM speaking out against the folks who blast the vast majority of soldiers for the failings of what seems to be a minority.

                    It's absolutely true that it's difficult to get a handle on raw numbers in this particular area; even DoD estimates that only 1 in 10 female victims reports sexual assault to the chain of command.  (I haven't seen estimates for reports by male victims.)

                    In this case, however, that doesn't even apply because this records review was unconnected to any current criminal investigation or prosecution.

                    It's also true, however, that we need to acknowledge those soldiers who DO have clean records and DO serve honorably, because they are in the clear majority.

                    So, yeah, I'm pleased to see that 99.8% of the 20,000 recruiters, drill sergeants and sexual assault counselors whose records were reviewed checked out clean.  That's a good start - isn't it?

                    (Incidentally, I'm a veteran as well, with experience in battalion- and division-level personnel/legal operations AND combat arms.)

                    FWIW, I say the same things when people blast "all the cops", "all the gun owners", or pretty much "all [anything]."  We're the reality-based community, and we need to deal in fact as often as possible.  That means, in part, that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

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

                    by wesmorgan1 on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:33:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  All of them are perps - all of the offenses (0+ / 0-)

            were grounds for demotion, UCMJ action, and administrative dismisal, at the time that the offenses occurred.

            None of them should ever have been promoted to these positions. These positions are competitive, highly coveted, career booting spots, where you don't have to wonder if the road is going to blow up today.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:12:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  repeating it (0+ / 0-)

              wont make it true.

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:21:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why can't you admit the obvious (0+ / 0-)

                If any of the ground discovered are ground now for suspension/transfer/discharge, then they were already sufficiently serious grounds back whenever they occurred.

                It's just an easy fix for an amazingly stupid failure to do minimal review back when it should have been done.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:04:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site