Skip to main content

The White House Petition has reached it's goal. Will the DOD listen?

On March 12, 2012 ThinkProgress reported they "obtained an internal memo from Premiere Radio Networks listing 96 national companies that have “specifically asked” their advertisments not be played during the Rush Limbaugh Show."

They then released a list of 50 additional companies who have since requested all advertising be pulled from Limbaugh's show. Listed among those additional 50 just released is the United States Army.

You read that right. The US Army has pulled all advertising spots from Rush Limbaugh's show.

Why hasn't the Department of Defense yet pulled Rush's show from the American Forces Network (Armed Forces Network, or AFN)?

A bit of pondering below the fold...

Here is the list released by ThinkProgress yesterday:

21st Century Insurance • Hotels.com • Rite Aid • Ace Hardware • Honda • Robitussin • Acura • IBM • Sam Adams • Advance Auto Parts • Icy Hot • Sam’s Club • Advil (All products) • Intuit/Small Business • Schiff – Digestive Advantage • Alacer/Emergen-C • Schiff – Mega Red • Allegra (all products) • Johnson & Johnson (All Brands) • Schiff – Move Free • Kohl’s • Schiff – Sustenex • Ally Bank • La Quinta • Scotts Miracle-Gro (all products) • American Express • Lifetime • Autozone • Little Caesars • Sony • Lowe’s • State Farm • British Petroleum • Luxottica • Staples • Bullfrog Sunblock • Macy’s • Sterling/Kay Jared Jewelers • Caltrate • MasterCard • Subway • Centrum • McDonalds • Takeda Uloric • Chapstick • Midas • The Home Depot • Clorox (Pinesol/Homecare) • Napa Auto Parts • ThermaCare • Cortizone • National Realtor • Toyota • DeVry • NBC-TV • Discover Card • Office Depot • Twinings of London • Domino’s Pizza • Office Max • Tyson/Wright Brand Bacon • Exxon/Exxon Mobil • One Main Financial • Unisom • Farmers Insurance • United Healthcare • Ford • Orkin • U.S. Army • Outback • U. S. Postal Service • General Motors (All products -GM Certified Service • Chevy • Onstar • Cadillac • etc) • Preparation H • Visa • Gold Bond (all products • ProNutrients (all products) • Walgreens • Grainger • Progressive Insurance • Wal-Mart • Green Mountain Coffee • Prudential • Wells Fargo • Hallmark • Radio Shack • Wrigley • H&R Block • Rent-A-Center • Yahoo!
As proven in my last diary entry, the Department of Defense, by continuing to allow Limbaugh's show to air on AFN, especially after receiving a wealth of complaints from active duty servicewomen and servicemen, is not only actively condoning sexual harassment in direct contradiction with their "zero tolerance" policy, but they are also breaking the law, per USC Title 10, Section 136, by not enforcing the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) policies they instituted.

Dude!

Actively condoning sexual harassment from the highest level of the Defense Department sends a clear message to many within the rank and file; that it's okay to sexually harass your military co-workers and peers, regardless of what the MEO policy says.

Hey, screw that. If Rush can say that, so can I, yo!

This also causes a problem within the Command structure. Commanders adjudicate claims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape (unless these cases actually make it to an Article 15 trial under the USMJ, which most don't.)

The DOD is actively telling Commanders, "Hey, bro... don't worry about it. Ain't no big deal. It's just sticks and stones, you know? Tell her to go back to work, pull herself up by her bootstraps, just shut the hell up, and do her job like a good girl."

The DOD is also complicit in sexual assaults and rapes by not taking active steps to end this mess. As already pointed out within my last entry, the General Accounting Office report published September 21, 2011 has specifically linked sexual harassment with sexual assault and rape:

Moreover, a 2010 DOD survey, the most recent available, found that, of the active duty servicemembers who reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact during the preceding 12 months, about half of women and a third of men reported they were also sexually harassed or stalked by the alleged offender before or after the incident.
So, the US Army got wise and pulled their advertising spots from the show. Good job, Army!

When will the Department of Defense finally get a clue?

I've no idea.

The White House petition is over 25,000 signatures. The goal has been reached. Let's see if the DOD will listen and wise up like the US Army did.

Originally posted to RoseWeaver on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:03 PM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (192+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette, kerplunk, JeffW, Isara, MKSinSA, Ice Blue, jayden, jan4insight, Thinking Fella, gchaucer2, businessdem, indres, nellgwen, Fury, Steveningen, RickBoston, politik, Canis Aureus, Crabby Abbey, Gowrie Gal, mrsgoo, Chaddiwicker, plembo, grannycarol, Ginny in CO, jdld, Timaeus, Mogolori, SCFrog, Amber6541, BarackStarObama, susanWAstate, Shirl In Idaho, ybruti, catly, Neon Mama, brainwave, edsbrooklyn, madhaus, darthburger, mrkvica, ColoTim, harlinchi, petulans, sawgrass727, rage, Oaktown Girl, alnep, Bule Betawi, HappyinNM, uciguy30, Odysseus, buckstop, antirove, JVolvo, majcmb1, Jeff Y, Damnit Janet, asilomar, GMFORD, Noodles, fiddlingnero, eeff, TX Freethinker, reflectionsv37, gloriana, blueoasis, Seneca Doane, Jake Williams, Annalize5, bronte17, kaliope, YaNevaNo, bellyofthesun, elwior, MartyM, Overseas, southern and liberal, Empower Ink, rebel ga, bkamr, drawingporno, zhimbo, riverlover, ask, real world chick, adrianrf, msdobie, Emerson, OleHippieChick, Melanie in IA, jadt65, DRo, Preston S, marleycat, most peculiar mama, commonscribe, Matt Z, sagansong, broths, Aquarius40, Pinto Pony, DefendOurConstitution, Sylv, bostonjay, parsonsbeach, Texknight, Matt Esler, Bach50b3, California06, semiot, BasharH, CanyonWren, AllDemsOnBoard, freeport beach PA, Carol in San Antonio, Its a New Day, flavor411, fcvaguy, LillithMc, KnotIookin, NM Ray, JBL55, sunny skies, GeorgeXVIII, kathny, Nebraskablue, Tinfoil Hat, Front Toward Enemy, tytalus, jamess, cybersaur, Brooke In Seattle, S F Hippie, Words In Action, Clytemnestra, pixxer, Shadowmage36, 2thanks, Marjmar, exNYinTX, dmhlt 66, legendmn, roses, tarheelblue, AllanTBG, Cronesense, Yellow Canary, magicsister, Powered Grace, Dvalkure, gypsytoo, Militarytracy, KiB, number nine dream, middleagedhousewife, idahojim, OIL GUY, DianeNYS, kjoftherock, janmtairy, 3goldens, Lefty Coaster, PBen, Statusquomustgo, sockpuppet, dksbook, MarkInSanFran, brook, mikeconwell, josmndsn, Gottlieb, where4art, science nerd, helpImdrowning, rubyr, jolux, sebastianguy99, DiegoUK, maybeeso in michigan, seefleur, tegrat, JayBat, orangecurtainlib, Actbriniel, Laughing Vergil, CitizenOfEarth, lysias, Iron Spider, JamieG from Md, Oh Mary Oh, splashy

    "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

    by RoseWeaver on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:03:51 PM PDT

  •  where's GEICO in all this? (20+ / 0-)

    I still see their ads on WMAL's website

    SUNTRUST too

    PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

    by RumsfeldResign on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:10:42 PM PDT

    •  Can't answer that. Hopefully (9+ / 0-)

      they'll also get a clue and the cute little lizard will slink away from the show as well.

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:23:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since they are government agencies, that would (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sockpuppet

        really be true censorship. What he said is protected speech under the Constitution.

        Hate speech is not unConstitutional.

        We can pressure sponsors, stations and even his employer, but involving the government scares me.

        It can become a two edged sword and used against us. It's government thought control.

        Remember burning the flag during the war protests?

        Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

        by auapplemac on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:35:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wait whut? (44+ / 0-)

          He can spew his hate speech all he wants.  But he doesn't have a constitutional right to spew it on Armed Forces Radio.

          Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

          by lostboyjim on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:00:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  AFR is a government agency (I would think) If it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sockpuppet

            is than taking him off would be government censorship. That would be against the 1st amendment - free speech. As long as his speech does not incite a danger to others such as hollering fire in a crowded theater.

            Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

            by auapplemac on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:32:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pleazzz...spare me the Bullshit... (28+ / 0-)

              Rush is hate speech radio personified.

              "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

              by Mr SeeMore on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:02:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This whole diary is about sexual harassment (21+ / 0-)

              and rape in the military. If what he says encourages these actions, and a case can be made that it does (it's okay to be disrespectful to women), then his "free speech" does cause harm to others. And I'm not sure hate speech isn't illegal. If it incites others to commit crimes, I think it's illegal.

              Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

              by HappyinNM on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:30:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wouldn't you have to prove cause and effect? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SquirrelWhisperer, HappyinNM

                Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

                by auapplemac on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:56:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not re: hostile work environment (6+ / 0-)

                  His speech fits the definition; also sexual harassment. Proving a link to behavior is iffy, though, and his removal can't be advocated on those grounds.

                  Also, remember, Rush is still free to say whatever he wants. No one is obligated to provide him a large platform from which to do it, though (eg, radio, TV, a podium and soundsystem in the middle of Times Square). Removing him from Armed Forces Radio is not the same thing as silencing him.

                  •  Link to behavior has been shown. Read again. /nt (0+ / 0-)

                    "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                    by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:18:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There's evidence that links Rush's speech (0+ / 0-)

                      to recorded crimes within the military? If that's true, please, provide a link.

                      Otherwise, in a court of law, it's only supposition. Not proven fact. Until it is proven fact, we shouldn't, IMO, make the claim that Rush's language is responsible for the commission of felonies.

                      I don't disbelieve that Rush's language constitutes a hostile work environment & sexual harassment. I don't disbelieve that it can help create an atmosphere in which sexual assault/rape is more likely than otherwise.

                      I do not believe that, currently, there exists proof of a causal link between Rush's speech and a specific rape. If you could, then Rush would no longer be on Armed Forces Radio.

                      I believe Rush is a shithead. I believe his speech is dangerous. I do not belief that my beliefs are constitute proof of anything.

                      I do believe that there is a legal case to be made for getting Rush off the air because of regs related to sexual harassment/hostile work environment and until and unless the other kind of proof is verified, I do not think that is a reason we should call for his removal

                      •  Please read what is written, not... (0+ / 0-)

                        what you want. I never said their was evidence that links Rush's speech to recorded crimes within the military.

                        As I said, I do wish people would read clearly what is actually written. The GAO report from September 21, 2011 states, as in the article and linked within the previous diary also linked within the article above, the following:

                        Moreover, a 2010 DOD survey, the most recent available, found that, of the active duty servicemembers who reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact during the preceding 12 months, about half of women and a third of men reported they were also sexually harassed or stalked by the alleged offender before or after the incident.
                        What about this is so difficult to comprehend?

                        There is more I can quote if you like. The DOD's own investigation linked sexual harassment to incidents of sexual assault and rape.

                        However, never did I say reported crimes.

                        "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                        by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:43:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're still making a leap, IMO (0+ / 0-)

                          between sexual harassment in situations where people have DIRECT contact (are in the same place/community/culture) and sexual harassment in the form of a radio broadcast.

                          You also seem to be discounting the fact that the culture within the armed forces exists independently of Rush Limbaugh and his broadcasts.

                          No matter how much Rush's broadcasts may support/reinforce a culture in which sexual harassment occurs and is tacitly allowed, in my opinion you are not comparing apples to apples.

                          In my view what you are saying is

                          Rush Limbaugh's broadcasts may contain speech that constitute sexual harassment. [I'd argue that they always contain idiocy, but do they always constitute sexual harassment?]

                          Unchallenged/tacitly allowed sexual harassment can create a  culture in which sexual assault and rapes occur.

                          Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is to blame, at least in part, for sexual assaults/rape within the armed forces.

                          Based on the FACTS as I  understand them, the best you can say at this point is "Rush Limbaugh's speech can contribute to a culture of sexual harassment. And, as you know, sexual harassment can lead to sexual assault/rape. Rush Limbaugh is likely helping to reinforce the existing culture, and perhaps even making a bad situation worse."

                          Because the underlying culture of sexual harassment within the armed forces is a much larger systemic problem than Rush Limbaugh. He may be a contributory factor, but he is not the underlying cause.

                          It may even be true that his speech HAS contributed to the commission of sex crimes, but, again, there is no actual evidence of that. And until there is, it's not a claim that I think we should even try to make. Because it's theorizing in advance of the facts; lays our logic open to riducule, and can be used to undermine our LEGITIMATE argument that Rush doesn't belong on Armed Forces Radio because his speech constitutes sexual harassment/can help create a hostile work environment.

                          •  Please read this... (0+ / 0-)

                            Rush v The Constitution v Military Policy;
                            In an earlier diary, I quoted from the GAO which studied the effects of sexual harassment and linked it to sexual assault and rape.

                            In this diary, I've provided the link to that report again, quoted the report more extensively, and explained via a couple of my own experiences as a Survivor of MST that the GAO's conclusions are correct.

                            In the civilian world, his comments are free speech, I do agree, though they border on "obscene" according to Supreme Court rulings, as also explained in this diary.

                            In the military world, due to military policy, his comments are sexual harassment. Period.

                            Military culture is MUCH different. Please read that diary for further explanation. It may help you understand the situation, and ease our miscommunication.

                            "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                            by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:46:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You do realize that... (0+ / 0-)

                            in my initial post, I was not responding to your post, but to someone I disagreed with.

                            Also, in your diary you say:

                            The DOD is also complicit in sexual assaults and rapes by not taking active steps to end this mess.
                            In context of your argument re: getting Rush off AFR, that seems to me to be saying "by not getting Rush of AFR, the DOD is complicit because Rush is helping to create an environment in which rapes occur."

                            Which, again, MAY BE TRUE. But there are not the facts to support it.

                            We really aren't that far apart on this. But you jumping  in and castigating my "reading comprehension" has turned what could have been a productive discussion into one where... Well, let's just I won't be reading or responding to your diaries or posts in future.

                          •  Yes, and yes, but... (0+ / 0-)

                            I've posted facts to support my contention. In addition, you specifically misquoted me... more than once. I will defend myself against things like that.

                            I stand up for myself. I'm sorry you don't care for that, but in all honesty, that isn't my issue.

                            "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                            by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:32:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You fail (0+ / 0-)

                            To realize that in BOTH instances I was not (initially) replying to you. I was replying to someone who was trying to argue that this was not a good thing to do.

                            Once you jumped in with YOUR accusations, I responded in light of what I originally wrote to the person I was arguing with.

                            You do realize that conversations, within threads, sometimes stray from the orginal topic, yes?

                            As for "specifically misquoting you, more than once" that's horseshit.

                            I quoted you, exactly once, verbatim. In blockquotes, which should make it easily findable for you.

                            In all my time here on dkos, I have never gotten into such a stupid frickin' argument with anyone that, at bottom, I more or less AGREE with.

                            Take a step back, look at what I wrote and realize that initially, my initial  posts were NOT AIMED AT YOU and aimed at someone else.

                            Talk about the need for reading comprehension.

                          •  No, you fail, here's why, your quotes... (0+ / 0-)

                            I understand your initial comment was directed to another. However, I disagreed with the content of that comment and I pointed out why. I pointed you to the GAO report within my diary which linked sexual harassment with sexual assault and rape, which is the point of the diary. Under DOD policies, Rush's speech is sexual harassment. The DOD is condoning his speech. It is sending allowing this sexually harassing speech to be heard which can possibly add to an already volatile environment, although I didn't state things that way.

                            You then asked,"There's evidence that links Rush's speech to recorded crimes within the military?"

                            To which I replied, "Please read what is written, not what you want. I never said their was evidence that links Rush's speech to recorded crimes within the military." I once again directed you to the quoted GAO report which linked sexual harassment with sexual assault and rape.

                            You then replied with: You're still making a leap, IMO between sexual harassment in situations where people have DIRECT contact (are in the same place/community/culture) and sexual harassment in the form of a radio broadcast.

                            To which I explained that I am not the one making that leap. Again, the GAO has made that connection, and the GAO is the DOD's own investigative branch and was asked to investigate the rise in sexual harassment.

                            You fail.

                            "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                            by RoseWeaver on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 08:47:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In all my time on DKos... (0+ / 0-)

                            I have never had to stand up for myself and the content of my posts or my comments so firmly due to individuals who misquote or misread me.

                            But I'll continue to do so if I must.

                            "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                            by RoseWeaver on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 08:49:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Read the diary again. Proved. /nt (0+ / 0-)

                  "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                  by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:17:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  There is no evidence that Rush's speech (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KiB, elwior, SquirrelWhisperer, HappyinNM

                leads to rape/sexual harassment. So, I'd stay away from that because there is no data to support it. It may very well be true, but until that data exists, it's not a claim worth making.

                That Rush's speech creates a hostile work environment/is hate speech/qualifies as sexual harassment is a very different argument, and one that CAN (and should) be made.

                Up to the arbiters, alas, as to whether they find it convincing based on current law/regs.

                •  I'm beginning to wonder ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HappyinNM

                  about the reading comprehension levels here.

                  The DOD's own GAO report cited and quoted within both of my latest diaries has shown the link between sexual harassment and sexual assaults and rape.

                  And, as a survivor of Military Sexual Trauma, I can definitely vouch that link exists.

                  "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                  by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:20:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's one thing to claim that there's a link (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    auapplemac

                    between sexual harassment and rape, and another thing to PROVE that Rush Limbaugh incited rape.

                    Does the GAO report specifically say that "Rush Limbaugh's speech incited sexual assaults/rape"? If it did, I'd imagine Rush Limbaugh would no longer be on Armed Force's Radio.

                    The general statement "sexual harassment can lead to sexual assault/rape" isn't enough to link a specific individual's speech -- no matter how loathsome -- to the commission of specific/actual felonies.

                    •  I did not say this. Neither did the DOD GAO... (0+ / 0-)

                      Please do not put words in my mouth. I quoted and linked the report within this diary and my last diary.

                      Read it for yourself, but do not ever put words in my mouth or accuse me of saying things I did not.

                      Read my diary again, please because what you are accusing me of saying simply was never said, period.

                      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                      by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:46:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am not accusing you of anything. (0+ / 0-)

                        I am posing questions (legitimate ones) based on  your call for me to exercise my reading comprehension.

                        And I am explaining my position on what the right tack to take is based on the FACTS as they currently stand.

                        Based on that, I think that pursuing Rush's exclusion  from Armed Forces Radio due to regs re: sexual harassment/hostile work environment is the legitimate course to take.

                        Claiming that Rush has directly inspired specific instances of sexual assault/harassment is not.

                        •  Once again, I never claimed any such thing. (0+ / 0-)

                          You keep saying I claimed Rush directly inspired specific instances of sexual assault/harassment.

                          I have never done so.

                          Will you please quote where I have?

                          Thank you.

                          "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                          by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:49:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  And if you're not accusing me... (0+ / 0-)

                          Then could you please explain where you are getting this idea that anyone has suggested Rush has directly inspired specific instances of sexual assault/harassment?

                          This has not been the point of ANY of my diaries here.

                          At all.

                          You have missed my point completely.

                          This is my assertion and I stick by it.

                          "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                          by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:52:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  The difference is CIVILIAN V MILITARY ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JayBat, HappyinNM, Iron Spider

                The civilian world and it's laws and policies is FAR different than the military world and it's laws and policies.

                What is happening here is that, while his comments certainly are allowed as "free speech" under the First Amendment" within the civilian sector, in accordance with DOD directives and policies, they constitute sexual harassment.

                As such, the DOD is not following their own policies by allowing him to remain on AFN, especially when thousands of military have already called for his removal from a military run radio network.

                I fail to understand why so many cannot fathom this difference.

                "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:16:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The AFR doesn't carry my radio show... (34+ / 0-)

              ...so can I file a first amendment complaint?  AFR can only carry a limited number of programs, deciding to drop Limbaugh is not a first amendment violation.

              •  I want my 3 Hours and $40 Million, Too! (7+ / 0-)

                I want my 3 Hours of National Talk Radio and $40 Million a Year.

                If Sarah Palin and the GOP need my address to mail my check, just tell them to Call.  They may not like my message.

                I may not insult every woman in America every day with my foul mouth.  I may not insult every thinking individual by telling them how brilliant I am.  I may ask people to think for think for themselves and turn off the radio and fox news.  I may ask them to push the scan button on their radio to listen to a few other opinions - even some opinions other than my own.

                In fact, during the three hour show that Sarah and the GOP think that I have a Constitutional Right  to - just like Rush - I think that I would like to invite some leaders from both the Republican and Democratic Parties to express their opinions.  I don't see any reason that in my 3 hour show I should monopolize the time by bragging about my own intellectual superiority even though I have at least 3 more university degrees than Rush does.

                As far as the $40 Million Dollars a year that the GOP leaders think that I have a Constitutional right to - just like Rush - I think that I will ask the Republican and the Democratic Leaders why they think I shouldn't pay more taxes for sitting on my fat A$$ and talking for 3 hours a day.  Surely, they don't  think that Rush and I could be working harder than the school teachers trying to manage a classroom of 30 - 35 students 7 hours a day, 5 days a week and then grading papers every night and writing lesson plans for the next day.  Surely, they don't think that Rush and I could be working harder during that3 hour stint than any police officer, sheriff's deputy or other law enforcement officer working an 8- 10 shift, 40 - 50 hours a week.  Surely, none of these political leaders can justify why Rush and I and our employers don't pay Social Security w/h on the entirety of our $40 Million each year.

                Yep, I agree with Sarah and all these clowns in the GOP.  The more I think about it!

                I just can't wait until they call and tell me when my Radio Show starts and where I can start collecting my checks.

                But, Sarah, I promise you one thing.  I don't want any of Rush's Viagara or Oxycontin.  I just don't  have any need of it.  I want to be using all of my mental facilities during my 3 hours of Talk Radio.

                Golly, Gee Whiz!  I can hardlyWait!

                Impeach Grover Norquist! Defeat a Republican!

                by NM Ray on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 06:48:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  This is a Military issue, not civilian... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Russycle

                For this reason, this post is NOT about First Amendment rights.

                This post is about sexual harassment as defined by the DOD. Rush's comments fall under that definition. Since they do, and the DOD claim's zero tolerance, his show should be pulled.

                Period.

                "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:23:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  By that logic, nigger jokes would be ok on AFN. (17+ / 0-)

              I mean, why censor them if they are just jokes.  Free speech rocks, right?  Isn't that what men and women are dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan?  To defend our way of life?

              "Rick Santorum wants a government so small that it will fit inside a woman’s uterus." -- Alan Grayson

              by 8ackgr0und N015e on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:59:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Does Rachel Maddow have the same right (24+ / 0-)

              to be broadcast on AFR, then?  Kewl!

              Democrats must
              Earn the trust
              Of the 99% --
              That's our intent!

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky OCcupy!

              by Seneca Doane on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:20:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wait a minute. (13+ / 0-)

              The 99.9999999999999% of the country NOT on a radio show that is carried by AFR are having their constitutional rights trampled?

              There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who fit into one of two mutually exclusive categories, and those who don't.

              by zhimbo on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:18:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Face meet palm (17+ / 0-)

              Rush has a constitutional right to be broadcast on government operated radio stations???

              That's inane.
              Does everyone else with a program have the same right?

              Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

              by ask on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:35:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  auapplemac, you seen unusually dense. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, elwior, boadicea, RoseWeaver

              Did you read the diary? The part near the end about the 2010 DOD study? Rush promotes sexual harassement. Sexual harassment has been linked to RAPE.

              Seems like 'hollering fire in a crowded theater' to me as a causal effect to damage.

              If you do not believe that there is an ongoing war on women, then you aren't paying attention. h/t The Pootie Potentate

              by glorificus on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

              They don't let Noam Chomsky on the AFRN, is it your position that they are thus censoring him?

              Bullshit.

              Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at Texas Kaos.

              by boadicea on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:48:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No! Within a military environment, due to (0+ / 0-)

              the nature of his comments, they are clearly classified as sexual harassment by the DOD's own policies.

              What about this do you not understand?

              The civilian sector and military sector are two completely different monsters.

              Seriously. It is time for this country to wake up and understand that the military is NOT taking care of its servicemen and servicewomen because the DOD and various other military entities are NOT following their own policies.

              "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

              by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:13:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, the military denies active (34+ / 0-)

          duty members rights that citizens are free to express. It also does not have to carry anyone on AFN that it chooses not to.

          Given the rampant problems with sexual abuse in the military, getting anyone that could trigger more by their comments out of military airspace, is a basic expectation.

          Employers all over the country decide what radio, internet, TV and cable broadcasts are allowed in their workplaces. Why would the US military be any different?

          No one is taking this to a court of law. Just the court of public opinion.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:35:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Where's my show (14+ / 0-)

          on Armed Forces Radio? Why am I being censored? I have tons of 'Top Gun' quotes!

        •  wtf? (5+ / 0-)

          blown away by this comment.

          You are not serious.

          •  Should we be handing out donuts? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KiB, elwior

            I'm not sure.  auapplemac's comment is so backasswards, I can't tell if it's just clueless, or intentional misdirection to distract from and excuse Rushimofftheplanet's disgusting behavior.  

            I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

            by tle on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 06:28:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, auapplemac's comments are truth! Read the... (0+ / 0-)

              diary again! And if you must, read the diary posted prior to this one which contains the link to the GAO report cited.

              The link is proven.

              Sorry if you can't handle the truth.

              And as a survivor of Military Sexual Assault, I can definitely vouch this link between sexual harassment and sexual assault and rape DOES exist!

              "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

              by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:31:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What the hell are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RoseWeaver

                lostboyjim said it best:

                He can spew his hate speech all he wants.  But he doesn't have a constitutional right to spew it on Armed Forces Radio.
                auapplemac was claiming that kicking Rush off ARN would be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech.  Which I assert is arrant BS.
                And as a survivor of Military Sexual Assault, I can definitely vouch this link between sexual harassment and sexual assault and rape DOES exist!
                Where in my comment did I say anything about that?  In any case, I need neither personal testimony nor academic studies to be firmly convinced of the link between harassment and assault.

                I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

                by tle on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:56:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Because soldiers enjoy so many Constitutional (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus, elwior, RoseWeaver

          rights? Haaahaha ..

          CENSORSHIP is choosing a handful of programs off of a list of tens of thousands of available shows. They CHOSE Limbaugh over Randi Rhodes, an actual veteran who did not get a deferment from 'Nam over an ass pimple.

        •  I agree... to a point, however... (0+ / 0-)

          when it comes to the Department of Defense policies, they are clear. We are not talking about speech within a civilian environment. If we were, this would fall under the First Amendment as you correctly point out, and any complaints within a civilian work environment would be dealt with under EEO statutes.

          This isn't the case here. Military servicewomen and servicemen are calling for the removal of his show from a military radio show produced by a military entity purported to raise military moral.

          Within a military work environment, his comments, as already mentioned, are classified as sexual harassment, plain and simple.

          His comments within a military environment are NOT protected under the First Amendment.

          Therefore, as requested by those being affected by his show within military work environments, his show should be pulled from AFN.

          Period.

          "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

          by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:10:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  dunno about Rush's show (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        I have been looking at ads that appear on the station's website only....not on the air...that's where I saw the GEICO ad

        PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

        by RumsfeldResign on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:39:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  GEICO pulled their radio spots the other day n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Democrats: The party of "We The People"

      by DannyB on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:17:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Uh oh. We'll have to call them up. They insure (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      our cars. At the moment...

      "Maybe this is how empires die - their citizens just don't deserve to be world leaders anymore." -Kossack Puddytat, In a Comment 18 Sept 2011

      by pixxer on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 07:42:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm thinking that they are thinking (10+ / 0-)

    that it would be bad optics to pull him right now. The wingnut scream machine is already blaring that Obama is trying to censor critics. Maybe they figure that this would give Limbaugh a boost as a martyr. Since he's not getting many boosts in that direction they might be letting the public outcry take care of the blowhard.  That's just my guess, ymmv.

    At any rate, great news from the Army!

    Score Card: Marriages won by me, 1. Marriages destroyed by me, 0.

    by Steven Payne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:40:07 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for articulating this compelling new angle (27+ / 0-)

    on the DOD's lack of response.

    Rush Limbaugh is an embarassment for America and we should not be broadcasting his bigotted and hateful messages around the world with US Armed Services radio.

    How many believe he speaks for America, represents typical American views and values, or we, as a country, tacitly support his vile and disrespectful attitude?

    And, what about undermining our national security goals? Part of our counter-insurgency goals are to win the hearts and minds of the people in areas of conflict.  Then we broadcast messages that people in other parts of the world will find just as vile, bigotted, and disrespectual of woman as we do, not even to mention his attiudes about foriegners and those of different religions.

    Let's smarten up and "get with the program" DOD.  Even the fact we have had to wait for this crisis to prompt this discussion raises questions about our top military leadership.

     

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:42:16 PM PDT

    •  TY HoundDog... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog

      You bring up another incredibly important point I did not.

      The fact our country rails against others who are so vile and disrespectful against women in their actions, behaviors, and words, and yet, within our own country and our own military, seem to care not.

      Beautifully stated reply. Thank you!

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:38:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That is great news. Yay! Sluts Win One!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, OleHippieChick, RoseWeaver

    Sig seen on Redstate: ABO Anybody But Obama. Sorry, I'm stealing that.... Another Barack Opportunity. Vote Obama/Biden 2012!

    by mrsgoo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:09:20 PM PDT

  •  If he can't be pulled off the air (18+ / 0-)

    then at least disclaimers should be run every fifteen minutes stating that the opinions on this show are not to be construed as truth and listeners discretion is advised.

    Sort of like the ratings they put out for movies.

    The following program contains...well, crap.

    Growing old is inevitable...Growing up is purely optional

    by grannycarol on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:21:33 PM PDT

  •  Where the "rubber" hits the road on this is (4+ / 0-)

    really at the local station level. The national advertisers place ads in rotation for maybe 5-10 minutes of the hour. The other ads are local. If you really want to exert pressure, do it on local advertisers and ask them politely to reconsider their support for this moss-backed knuckle dragging mouth breathing troglodyte mass of protoplasmic cellulite laden Oxy addled piece of shit.

    Too often the tuition for wisdom is paid in blood. Compassion is a practice, please make some time.

    by RvgAqs on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:06:58 PM PDT

  •  One of the whines they have been using (18+ / 0-)

    for a long time, to keep our troops dying in Afghanistan, is that we can't leave until we make it safe for Afghan women.  

    Our troops need to come home and defend our US women from invasive probes of their vaginas MANDATED by sexist bigots in Texas and elsewhere --- our  own Koch brother sponsored talibangelists.    

    Abortion is legal.  It is self defense. It is scientific necessity for many.  Women die from pregnancy.    Church dogma should NOT be "established" as state law to prevent scientific health care.  

    Gonad governance is unAmerican.  It violates our signed agreements to take action against international human rights violations against women.    

    We will save women around the world by saving our moms and sisters and daughters and granddaughters and cousins FIRST.  

    We can't save them if we can't even protect our own. Armed forces radio doesn't need to broadcast hate speech to preserve free speech.  Rush is bad for unit cohesion IMHO.    

    If all women were smart they'd be marching this March instead of sitting in pews of sexism salesmen posing as
     clerics  representing a loving god.  Equal reproductive healthcare NOW.    Some of our lives depend on it.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:17:24 PM PDT

  •  link (8+ / 0-)

    Here is a fixed link to the petition.

    Just Win, Baby. -- Al Rodgers, Feb. 24, 2012

    by OLinda on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:19:26 PM PDT

  •  I've Never Listened to Rush, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GOPGO2H3LL, elwior, RoseWeaver

    but I would imagine that he is often disparaging of Muslims.  Why would you have troops engaged in fighting in Afghanistan listening to his racist, hate-filled contempt for Muslims?

    •  Here's my personal fave (0+ / 0-)

      During the Abu Graib debacle, when it was reported that Iraqi prisoners were made to lie in their own feces, Rush opined, no big deal, they like that kind of thing.

    •  Well, exactly... same goes for his sexist comments (0+ / 0-)

      It is simply wrong and bad for moral. Horrible for unit cohesion.

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:43:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mean-spirited bombast parading as manliness (8+ / 0-)

    should probably be reconsidered as appropriate entertainment on AFR given some of the recent tragic events in combat areas.  Limbaugh encourages a kind of attitude and a lack of intellectual and moral seriousness that is precisely the opposite of the responsible, respectful self-discipline that the armed forces work so hard to encourage.

  •  It's the military (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    There's probably some absurd amount of bureaucracy needed in order to drop the guy.

  •  Petition to Levin and McCain... we need to spread (9+ / 0-)

    the pressure to as many elected officials as possible:

    https://www.change.org/...

  •  Go Army! nt (6+ / 0-)

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 05:32:31 AM PDT

  •  Minor correction to the diary... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DianeNYS, SquirrelWhisperer, elwior

    "Commanders adjudicate claims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape (unless these cases actually make it to an Article 15 trial under the USMJ, which most don't.)"

    You seem a bit confused on this point.  We need to break things down a bit, due to the nature of military justice.  The three offenses are not treated equally under military law.

    Rape and sexual assault are specifically defined in Article 120 of the UCMJ.  The maximum punishment for rape is the death penalty; for sexual assault, the maximum punishment is 30 years' confinement.  These punishments can only be imposed by a general court-martial, and are subject to judicial review.

    (A general court martial requires, as a prerequisite, an Article 32 investigation to determine the facts of the case and recommend whether a court martial should be convened.  The Article 32 investigation is conducted by an impartial officer (almost always outside the accused's chain of command), and the accused has the right of legal counsel and cross-examination of witnesses during Article 32 proceedings.)

    Sexual harassment is more nebulous.  Since it is NOT specifically defined/addressed by the UCMJ, it is less likely to result in a court martial.  There are several "catch-all" Articles in the UCMJ, most notably Article 134, the 'good order and discipline' Article; however, there's a pretty high bar to court martial under the "catch-all" articles (as there should be, in my opinion).  Thus, sexual harassment is more likely to be addressed by Article 15 nonjudicial punishment.  Article 15 proceedings are NOT trials.  The accused does NOT have the right to military counsel, and there is no jury; the local commander/OIC determines the facts of the case and chooses one of three possible outcomes:

    * Dismissal of charges
    * Nonjudicial punishment (limited by both the rank of the accused and that of the imposing officer)
    * Referral of the case for a court martial (if referred for a general court martial, an Article 32 investigation will be required, as described above)

    Article 15 punishments can be appealed once, to the next-highest command authority, but are NOT subject to judicial review.  It should be noted that the accused has the right to refuse Article 15 proceedings and demand trial by court martial.

    In closing, I'll offer two opinions:

    1) During my military service, I directly witnessed the abuse of sexual harassment policy by female service members.  (Thankfully, the Article 15 proceeding exposed that abuse, and the charges were dismissed.)  By its very eye-of-the-beholder nature, sexual harassment is just too nebulous for a court martial.  I think that such questions are better left to the discretion of the local commander(s), with Article 15 nonjudicial punishments available for one-time offenses AND the ability to remand serious instances or 'repeat offenders' to courts martial.

    2) Allegations of rape or sexual assault are FAR more serious, and should almost always result in (at a minimum) an Article 32 investigation as described above.  Any commander found to have 'covered up' rape or sexual assault allegations should be cashiered.

    •  NOT necessarily. IN FACT... (0+ / 0-)

      DOD policy states, and all services have implemented the policy, that ALL offences of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and rape will be solved at the lowest level first.

      Commanders, always, in every case, decide if a case of rape and/or sexual assault, is valid and should be sent to court martial under the UCMJ.

      From Stars and Stripes:

      “Commander influence is the crux of this problem,” Bhagwati said in a news release. “Spending an extra $10 million training military lawyers to try these cases does no good if commanders are not preferring sexual assault cases to trial.”

      Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., praised Panetta’s emphasis of the problem but called his actions “not bold enough.”

      The decision to prosecute should be taken out of the chain of command, Speier said, as required by legislation she introduced in Congress last fall.

      “The core of the flawed system remains in place — unit commanders will continue to have complete and total discretion over incidents of assault in their unit,” Speier said in a written statement. “A commander can choose to investigate a case or sweep it under the rug.”

      Bhagwati said regulations introduced last year that allow servicemembers reporting a sex assault to quickly transfer to another unit are not always followed by commanders.

      She called it “a waste of time” to carry out another of Panetta’s newly-announced measures, studying how commanders are trained to deal with sexual assault cases.

      “In the past 16 years there have been 18 studies by the DOD on sexual assaults,” she said. “It is time for the Secretary to change the military justice system which continues to deny justice to sexual assault survivors.”

      And read this: Conduct unbecoming.

      The latest stats from the DOD as reported by Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine Captain:

      According to DoD, last year [2010] only 3,158 of total sexual assaults were reported. Of those, only 529 were preferred for court-martial. Of those, only 53% were convicted. This dreadfully low conviction number, 280, or 8.8% of the original reported offenses, is part of the reason so few women and men report.
      Of those convicted, only 2% were kicked out of the military.

      And, as stated, Commanders make the decision whether or not to send any case to Court Martial under the provisions of the UCMJ.

      THIS is why I am speaking out.

      The ignorance on this topic is simply astounding.

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:11:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Apologies for late reply: Re: Sexual harassment (0+ / 0-)

      Though this needs to be discussed, it is a difficult topic for me, so I've taken a couple days away to regain objectivity.

      You have a valid point regarding sexual harassment. However, as you point out, a large problem with sexual harassment is that it can be "subjective", although with the way the DOD policy is now written, subjectivity isn't as bad as it used to be.

      Still, since sexual harassment is subjective, what you may consider harassment, I may experience simply as an immature joke and shrug it off. When sexual harassment is of this nature, more mild, yes, I've also seen witnessed the abuse of the policy.

      Everyone experiences it differently, as we know, but we also have to realize that each individual's past history may make one more sensitive than another, so it can be difficult to say if someone is abusing the policy, or is honestly feeling harassed when others believe the situation is mild in comparison.

      It's different when the harassment is more severe, however. Consider the perspective of a female service member who may be the only female in the work environment and experiences varying degrees of sexual harassment daily, along with discrimination. From jokes, to cat-calls, to unwanted sexual advances, etc... every day during her whole assignment.

      That's a different issue. And I do agree, it isn't an issue that is court material. It must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

      But, the point of this diary is to illuminate the fact that sexual harassment, especially when it becomes extreme, whether within a work environment as a result of multiple co-workers, or perpetrated by one individual, can escalate to sexual assault and/or rape.

      I've also witnessed this, have been told far too many stories of this, and have been on the receiving end of this ... and in conjunction with the GAO's report stating this same connection, it is an issue which must no longer be tolerated.

      I know it can be done. As a government contractor, while working on an AF base with co-workers who were primarily veterans, all of us serving mostly active duty personnel, I rarely experienced sexual harassment at all. The rare occasions I did, it wasn't anything like what I experienced my first three years serving active duty.

      What happens within the work environment has to do with how the supervision acts and reacts. If they walk the walk and don't simply talk the talk, sexual harassment will rarely be a problem... and when it does happen, it won't be severe.

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 08:03:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It should be a two pronged attack (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DianeNYS, elwior, RoseWeaver

    in terms of getting Rush off AFR.  The misogyny is enough that he should be dumped but it's worth pointing out the insanity of broadcasting anti-Muslim hate speech to our troops who are on a basically impossible Hearts and Minds mission in the Middle East.  

    When the truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:13:43 AM PDT

  •  Panetta, you fucking wanker. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chris Jay, RoseWeaver

    Pull the shit already.

    Obama is at war with radical anti-American terrorists. The radical GOP is at war with American women. Take that and run with it DNC, you inept fucking pikers.

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:26:02 AM PDT

  •  Some corrections (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DianeNYS, elwior

    "Commanders adjudicate claims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape (unless these cases actually make it to an Article 15 trial under the USMJ, which most don't.)"

    1. Commanders rarely adjudicate sexual assault claims. If they do it would either be at an Article 15 hearing (which is not a trial under the UCMJ but non-judicial) or by basically kicking them out of the military administratively, what we call in the Army a Chapter).

    2. Most cases of sexual assault that involve more than gropings get investigated if they are reported (obviously reporting is one area we need to improve on), unless it is reported by the alleged victim as a restricted report, which means they get help, but do not want to go to trial.

    3. Once a sexual assault is reported, they usually have charges "preferred" or brought and then an Article 32 hearing is set. This hearing is a probable cause hearing but much more expansive, basically a mini trial where the evidence is laid out before a neutral officer who decides whether there are reasonable grounds (basically probable cause) to go to trial. That decision is a recommendation to the commanding general who makes the final call.

    Whatever problems the military has, I can definitely tell you that no commander is being told "don't worry about sexual assaults" in fact they are being definitively told to worry about it. The training is quarterly, we have revamp our sexual assault program twice in the last two years, and we are expanding our special victim prosecutors significantly.

    I hope Rush is taken off AFN. About time. Although it's rather usless if Hannity or Beck or someone like that just replaces him.

    Do I think it means that the military justice system is affected one way or the other? Not from where I'm sitting.

    •  As a female veteran and survivor... (0+ / 0-)

      qazplm, I can't deny what you are saying, but I can tell you that I know what is happening within the system now, and has been happening within the system for quite some time.

      I can tell you the perspective of women and men in the military who have experienced sexual assault and rape don't see what you're saying here.

      I can tell you the figures provided by the DOD most definitely don't match up to what you're saying either.

      Am I saying you are providing false information? Certainly not.

      What I'm saying is that something is definitely wrong, and it is a systemic problem from the top down.

      I would encourage you to watch "The Invisible War" as soon as you hear of a screening in your area, or as soon as it is released in theaters in your area.

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:17:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dont deny there are problems (0+ / 0-)

        but they are societal problems in my mind. The difference is that the numbers in the military are public, vetted, detailed, and poured over.

        But look at a comparable age cohort, universities. What do the stats look like there?

        Do they have dedicated victim advocates? Do they have special victim prosecutors? Do they even keep stats like the military does? Do they have quarterly sexual assault classes and training that is mandatory for everyone? Do they have the President of the university sitting on monthly reports of all the allegations, however slight, of sexual assault at the school? Because the Army at least has all of those things, and more.

        I've been both a defense attorney and a prosecuting attorney in the military system for almost a decade. I am absolutely not providing false information. I know the discussions that are had about how cases that the civilians would absolutely not go forward on, that in fact the local civilians in my area have on multiple occasions declined to prosecute, that the Army takes up, prosecutes or at the very least charges and has an Article 32 hearing. I've been frustrated as a defense attorney seeing a case that shouldn't go to trial go, and get an acquittal. I've been frustrated as a prosecutor about cases going forward where I am fairly sure the alleged victim is lying. I've also been frustrated simultaneously at cases that DIDNT go forward, so it's a mixed bag. But I question whether the same vigorous analysis of the numbers in the military have been given to the civilian sector...particularly the university cohort, which matches roughly the ages of most of our alleged rapists and victims.

        But the vast majority of our cases involving off base allegations of sexual assault are cases that the civilians first investigated, and then declined to prosecute. In several of those cases, the police were pitiful, ignoring real, valid claims simply because alcohol was involved, or because they had a dating relationship in the past. That isnt to say our investigators are necessarily better, it's a real mixed bag unfortunately, but all in all, I'd rather have them then the local town folks most of the time.

        The problem is never going to be fully solved, because the problem exists in the manner in which those who are prone to commit sexual assault and those who are victims of sexual assault interact, in how they are educated, and in societal mores and socialization.

        We certainly can work to improve things. And that is happening. In addition to all of the other stuff we changed our rape laws in 2007 to make it easier to get convictions. Unfortunately, we changed them too much to the detriment of the accused and now we have to change it again to compensate for legal decisions that we'd placed the burden too much on the accused.

        Now they are talking about having civilian panels decide sexual assault prosecutions...but let me tell you, it won't result in an increased conviction rate. It might result in increased prosecutions, but the reality is that sexual assault cases are very hard to prosecute...and when you talk to the High Quality Experts, civilian sexual assault experts we hired to help us prosecute, and there are no more true believers then they, they will tell that the military takes cases to trial that the civilian world wouldn't touch.

        and I have seen that first hand. There's plenty of sexism in the military unfortunately, and education needs to continue both for panels (juries) and for Soldiers. I firmly do not believe that in the vast majority of cases, the problem lies on the criminal justice side, the problem in my opinion is at a more base level, and it is a societal and systemic problem.

        •  I stopped when you said military numbers vetted... (0+ / 0-)

          I have the last GAO report and the investigation conducted by the DOD's own investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, actually states that the DOD CANNOT provide actual numbers.

          In fact, I sent the report to SWAN, the Service Women's Action Network, who currently has an active FOIA suit against the DOD requesting complete numbers and stats.

          The DOD has refused to provide "vetted" numbers. Why? Because as this GAO report specifically states, it can't.

          Would you like the link to the report so you can download it for yourself? This is also the report which states:

          Moreover, a 2010 DOD survey, the most recent available, found that, of the active duty servicemembers who reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact during the preceding 12 months, about half of women and a third of men reported they were also sexually harassed or stalked by the alleged offender before or after the incident.

          This is a direct link (as the report also admits) between sexual harassment and sexual assaults and rape.

          The link to this report is in my previous diary entry linked within this entry above, but hey, I'll make it easy for you.

          GAO Report

          As for an unwillingness to report, I completely agree. Do you have an understanding as to why? They know the reprecussions they'll suffer if they do.

          In addition, there are many who do report, but rather than justice being served, the victims are punished, not the perpetrators.

          I'm very sorry, Sir, you while I respect what you do, you do not understand the truth of the issue. If you would like to truly understand, I urge you to watch "The Invisible War"as soon as it is released, or as soon as it is shown on PBS.

          No kidding. I have no desire to sound rude. Honestly. But as a survivor from the '80's era, knowing this is still happening and actually getting worse, not better, I am incredibly disturbed by it.

          I would also suggest you read my previous entry on this issue.

          "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

          by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:03:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok it is clear you dont (0+ / 0-)

            want to have a discussion or even consider that you might, just might, not know every single thing about the military justice system in this arena so further discussion is a waste of time.

            This isn't the 80s. This is 2012. Things just might have changed a tiny bit since then.

            •  I agree some things have changed... (0+ / 0-)

              However, while I readily admit I am not privy to all the changes within the UCMJ, it is equally as clear that you are not willing to admit serious problems still exist within the overall military system and the points I'm making are quite valid.

              The UCMJ and military justice simply do not apply when Commanders do not even recommend the majority of sexual assault and rape cases which are reported for adjudication.

              This is my point.

              It seems many have failed to miss this point which is why I wrote another diary entry.

              I'll write yet another if I must.

              Until the military changes how these cases are handled and pulls them out of the Chain of Command completely, justice will not be served.

              This is the reality of the situation.

              "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

              by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:13:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wasnt talking about the (0+ / 0-)

                "overall military system" I was talking about the military JUSTICE system...the serious problems that exist exist in SOCIETY, they are not military specific. The idea that if you are drunk you must have wanted it is a SOCIETAL problem, not merely a military problem.

                and no justice will not be served merely by "pulling them out of the chain of command completely."

                WE ALREADY TRY CASES THE CIVILIANS WILL NOT PROSECUTE!

                In fact, it's a fair percentage of the cases we try. Cases that the civilian police opine no probable cause, cases the civilian DA declines to prosecute on.

                Then we go in, talk to the victim, get the evidence, and we start the process ourselves. Sometimes, there's a good reason why they didn't go forward, sometimes there isn't, but unless you simply pack a civilian panel with folks who say send all claims to trial, you aren't going to see more cases prosecuted.

                You most certainly will not see higher conviction rates. The "easy" rape cases are being tried, it's the "hard" ones that we are talking about.

                You don't know the reality of the legal situation, how cases are tried, how convictions are garnered, how and what type of cases we take vice the civilians. I'm sorry you were victimized, but that doesn't mean you know everything about everything.

                •  A couple of things please... (0+ / 0-)

                  I am also speaking of the military justice system.

                  I also fully agree all of this is a problem within the whole of our society overall. We are in full agreement on this.

                  As for pulling anything out of the Chain of Command, I speak of pulling the very thing SWAN, Senator Jackie Speier, and others are also advocating... to no longer allow Commanders the complete decision of whether or not to even prosecute sexual assault and rape cases.

                  I ask you to watch the following please. Perhaps our miscommunication will end?

                  Democracy Now report

                  In addition, please understand I have been involved in the military system, in one form or another, for 30 years. I am not stuck in the 1980's. I am fully aware it is now 2012 and while things have improved, somewhat, I am also privy to the stories of nearly a hundred (perhaps more) veterans who are of the OIF/OEF era. What they have related is not what you are relating.

                  Quite the opposite.

                  I also personally know veterans who have had Commanders insist they retract their stories, or else, and Commanders who refused to forward their assaults for Court Martial.

                  If you refuse to believe what I'm relating to you, that is your right.

                  However, the truth remains.

                  "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                  by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:43:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and yet I see none of that (0+ / 0-)

                    I see commanders who know that every possible alleged victim could be the one that reports to congress, gets a congressional, and could get them fired.

                    I see cases that wouldn't see the light of day in the civilian world go forward anyways because there is no choice, you go forward unless you can prove the alleged victim is lying or recants.

                    So you are right my reality doesn't match yours at all.

            •  And yes, I'm aware this is 2012... (0+ / 0-)

              Which is exactly why I'm so disturbed.

              Did it ever occur to you that I'm still involved with the military system, know individuals who have been sexually assaulted and/or raped as recently as 2006 and 2008, and who have reported their assaults and rapes to no avail?

              As a veteran, I filed a claim for PTSD due to my own assaults and rapes in 2008 and the VA system stalled my claim, which had more than sufficient proof to award it the first go round.

              My claim was denied twice. A Congressional Inquiry into the problems was initiated; and there were many. Stalling tactics were used. I lost my home and ended up homeless due to what happened.

              I had to engage the services of a lawyer who specializes in the field of VA Claims in order to assist with finally obtaining the award of complete benefits, and when he saw my claim file, he was shocked.

              His words were, "This is an open and shut case!"

              As for the women I personally know who have experienced rape as recently as 2006 and 2008, they were shut down by their Chain of Command when they reported the crimes against them; the perpetrators of the crimes allowed to walk free with no punishment, while they, instead, were not only re-victimized by being blamed for what happened to them, but also punished in the form of verbal and/or written counselling statements and increased sexual harassment.

              THIS is what I've attempted to express to you.

              The military system of justice might work if a Commander deems a case serious enough to forward it for prosecution, but if not (which is the case most of the time), nothing happens and the offender walks.

              Leon Panetta has publicly stated the statistics of over 3000 reported cases of sexual assault. Can you please explain why only 8% of those cases have been prosecuted, and why only 2% of those cases have resulted in expulsion from the military?

              I would appreciate that.

              Thank you!

              "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

              by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:25:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the VA system (0+ / 0-)

                is not the military justice system. Two completely different entities, one solely military, the other primarily run by civilians. Your linking them together suggests a problem that you are not willing to accept that there is anything other than some sort of monolithic opposition to rape victims.

                What kind of sexual assaults make up those 3000 reported cases? Are we talking every butt grab, and grope? Because I can tell you right now, no those are not prosecuted, but then again they aren't prosecuted in the civilian sector either. Numerically these far outweigh the rapes and forcible sodomy type cases by the way.

                What DOES happen is those guys receive nonjudicial punishment/Article 15s. They lose rank and pay, it goes into their files, some are "chaptered" with bad paper (other than honorable discharges in some cases which means no benefits). In the civilian world what happens is pretty much nothing.

                If we are talking claims of rape, forcible sodomy, attempted rape, and stuff of that nature, then I can certainly speak to my area that more than 8 percent of those cases are prosecuted. I have only had two cases in the last year that did not result in bringing charges, and in both cases, they were recantations/clear lying.

                The rest went forward to at least an Article 32, EVEN those we knew it were going to be an acquittal. EVEN those we believed the alleged victim was probably not telling the truth. But unless we have verifiable, darn near video evidence that they are lying, we go forward to the 32 hearing.

                Some were dismissed by that officer, most go forward, then at trial some result in acquittals, some in convictions.

                I don't think you understand who the "commander" is that decides if a case goes forward. It is NOT the company commander, it is not the battalion commander, it is not the brigade commander, it is the post commander, a 1-3 star general in most cases.

                That commander is being advised by a senior attorney, who is more than cognizant that the commander will be in trouble if it comes out that he decided not to go forward on a case that has any merit.

                That any time he does so, that victim could file a congressional, and they will have to answer why. That colors every decision made, thus cases the lawyers know will likely be acquittals still end up in court.

                Looking at the upcoming docket, I can tell there are more than 8 percent of my serious sexual assault cases actually going to court-martial, we've already had more than 8 percent just in the last two months!

                •  Sir, with all due respect... (0+ / 0-)

                  I am fully aware the VA system is not the military system, and I am tired of your insulting attitude towards me. Your attitude is the type of attitude towards women in the military (as well as in the civilian sector) with which I dealt, even while working as a government contractor on a military base with active duty military as my customers.

                  I left one link for you to watch in my previous reply. I'll leave another here, which is also linked in my most recent diary post (after this one).

                  Leon Panetta story and video from MSNBC

                  You continue to speak to me as if I am an ignorant woman, which I assure you, I am not.

                  You want links to more info? I'll provide you with as many links as you desire.

                  As already stated, the facts are there to support what I'm saying. I'll continue to publish these facts. You may deny them all you wish.

                  I am fully aware I'll continue to receive this kind of resistance as long as I continue to publish the information. I have no problem with that, because the facts support what I'm saying.

                  "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                  by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:54:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  lol (0+ / 0-)

                    my insulting attitude towards you??

                    Yes, and now it isn't simply that I disagree with you, now it's gotta be because you are a woman, and I'm a sexist.

                    Yeah, I'm done banging my head against this particular wall.

                    •  No, you are welcome to disagree... (0+ / 0-)

                      But you are insinuating I don't know what I'm talking about and you do, a to me, that is insulting.

                      I never called you a sexist. I simply explained how the situation is making me feel, and I've also explained I am a Survivor of MST with PTSD.

                      If you are an attorney for rape and assault victims, then surely you must have some idea of how these individuals feel after being so violated. There are times when those feelings recur, and right now, the insinuation I don't know which Commanders do what, I don't understand the difference between the VA system and the military system, etc, blah, blah, is incredibly insulting and demeaning to one who has been involved with the military, active duty 12 years, the spouse of an active duty service man for an additional 10 while still being involved with my old duty station due to his work (and mine), and working daily with active duty military for another 4 before becoming 100% disabled due to service connected injuries is quite demeaning in every respect.

                      And during the last four years, I've been living, breathing, discussing, and researching Military Sexual Trauma 24/7.

                      There is no wall but what you perceive.

                      Perception is a tricky thing, as you must know in your line of work.

                      There is clearly miscommunication, and I'm asking you... did you view the information from Leon Panetta's own statement?

                      Please assist me with your honesty.

                      thank you.

                      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                      by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:45:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Or perhaps you prefer my resume? /nt (0+ / 0-)

                  "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

                  by RoseWeaver on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:59:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Answering qazplm to discuss: (0+ / 0-)

      Please remember this diary is about sexual harassment. The point being made, however, as the GAO has noted in two separate places within their report after investigating per DOD's request, is that 1/2 of women and 1/3 of men who had been assaulted and/or raped reported ALSO being sexually harassed prior to their assaults/rapes by the offender. In addition, my own experience, and the experiences of all individuals with whom I've spoken over the years are the same; sexual harassment, usually quite intense, prior to, and after their assaults/rapes by the offender.

      The connection made by the GAO is clear... and it is accurate. Therefore, when the DOD continues to allow speech which is classified as sexual harassment under their own policies to continue on AFN in the military, they are adding fuel to, and condoning this fuel within, an already troubled environment.

      This being said... After reading our exchange again, it occurs to me you and I are viewing this issue from completely different perspectives, which does not surprise me. As an attorney and not an enlisted individual 24/7, you wouldn't view this the same. However, the majority of those who are enlisted, know the published statistics recently validated by Leon Panetta during his statement on January 16, are true. And they haven't changed much since the 1970's. That is what is so disturbing... even with policy changes.

      In accordance with DOD policy, Commanders more often than not, do adjudicate sexual assault claims because as DOD policy states, all cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are to be solved at the lowest level possible. Most cases of sexual harassment are solved within the immediate supervisory chain and don't make it to the Commander. Cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape that do end up in the Commander's hands, however, do not always make it to a military courtroom. The Commander first decides if the claims are even warranted. The Commander must complete their own investigation first before passing the case on to be prosecuted, and this is where the problem comes in.

      Far too many cases are not even reported at all. The ones which are, many time are not properly handled by Commanders, and I understand you disagree, but sadly, this is true. The individuals who report these cases which which make it to the Commanders, but not prosecuted, rarely move forward to a Congressional due to the backlash they've received due to reporting in the first place and/or fear of further retribution!

      The retribution is horrific. Fear of it is valid. I'm wondering if this is what you're not able to see from your perspective? Retribution is in many forms; extreme sexual harassment, victim blaming, re-victimization in the form of investigating the victim's sexual history and such, the victim not being believed, etc. This last point is especially true if there were no witnesses and there are no noticeable injuries; it becomes a "he said, she said" situation, and the case will not move forward, reported or not. (These types of assaults and rapes are rarely reported at all. The victims know they'll not be believed.)

      Even if there are noticeable injuries, many cases are still dismissed by Commanders.

      I urge you to read the links I listed in the diary I linked for you in one of my other comments to you, as well as the trailer for the movie, "The Invisible War".

      This is truly the reality of every single survivor I have ever spoken with, including myself. Those who have reported have also been forced out, had charges brought against them,  for example "adultery" (when a married man raped them), etc. It is astonishing what is happening.

      One young woman I know was raped in her room by a classmate. My ex-husband was her instructor. She did not invite this man to her room. He dropped by under the pretense of asking a question about classwork. She let him in and he raped her. She reported it. While it was investigated, she was blamed, her sexual history was investigated, and questions were asked about if she had been drinking and what she had been wearing. And though the perpetrator received an article 15, he was allowed to remain in the military. She was forced out on a medical discharge... mental health issues which were actually PTSD, but noted as bi-polar disorder so she couldn't even claim benefits for service connected injuries.

      You said, "Whatever problems the military has, I can definitely tell you that no commander is being told "don't worry about sexual assaults""...

      I've had great difficulty with some of the replies here because I do honestly believe my post has not been carefully read and this is a case in point. As noted, this post is about sexual harassment, not sexual assault. Please quote me correctly, because that simply is not within the text above. What IS in the text is "Don't worry about it..." As applied to sexual harassment.

      NOT as applied to sexual assault.

      When I expressed how I felt about how you were speaking to me, you implied I accused you of being sexist when I did no such thing; another said talking to me was like talking to a wall; yet another attributed a direct quote from the GAO report to me and asked me to prove Rush Limbaugh's speech was linked to reported cases of sexual assault and rape, when neither I, nor the GAO report said any such thing.

      My post is clear, and though I have made a couple of errors within my replies to comments, I have corrected them and apologized each time I have noted them, or they have been brought to my attention.

      So, I feel a tad bit of frustration on my part is to be expected at this point... and is well justified.

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 07:29:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have two questions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    about Rushgate.

    1.  What is his position on Romney?

    2.  Where did the meme that Daily Kos is responsible for him losing advertisers come from?

    Is it possible that Romney is behind this because Rush won't support him?

    Greed's self-regulation is collapse. So is delusion's.

    by Publius2008 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:01:07 AM PDT

  •  UCMJ, US Consitution and Censoring (??) Rush (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    Removing Rush from the AFN line-up is a Command decision.

    As a former Officer inthe US Military, I had responsibility
    to ensure good order and discipline, as defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). A concept not specifically defined in the US Constitution.

    Members of the military do not have quite the same US Constitutional  protections as the non-military US citizen.

    Constitutional Topic: Military Justice

    "Military justice is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but can be found in Article 1, Section 8 (power to define penalties for piracy and felonies on the high seas and for violations of the law of nations, power to declare war, power to raise armies and navies) and in Article 2, Section 2 (president is commander in chief of the military)."

    If Command believed that Rush Limbaugh would be a threat to maintaining good order and discipline, his show would not be in the AFN lineup.

    Rush promotes war. Command exists and sees access to promotions in pay grade as directly related to whether or not the nation is in a state of war.

    Censorship of free speech is automatically implied under the UCMJ.

    Free speech is limited to speech that only contributes to the good order and discipline of the military forces.

    To remove Rush from the AFN lineup, the argument must be that his  unapologetic mysogynistic speech is doing irreparable harm to the maintenance of good order and discipline by his continual disrespecting of a class of members of the armed forces.

    *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

    by josmndsn on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

    •  As a Veteran, BS. Read both diaries again, pls. (0+ / 0-)

      "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:19:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: "Read both diaries again, pls" (0+ / 0-)

        Make your case.

        "BS" is not making a case.

        If I'm wrong about something ...  

        Please, be an adult and specifically point it out where and why we differ.  

        I provided an observation based on my experiences as to why the DOD has not taken actions to remove Rush from AFN.

        If you disagree or I have totally misunderstood the purpose of your diary, I'm open to discussion, not insolence.

        *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

        by josmndsn on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:43:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've specified my case here... (0+ / 0-)

          within this diary, and have reiterated it within the diary you are now commenting on.

          I have asked you to read each diary carefully. If you believe I am acting other than in an adult manner by calling BS when I see it, that is certainly your prerogative.

          We are free to agree to disagree.

          "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye." - The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

          by RoseWeaver on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:57:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

fcvaguy, Mogolori, oofer, Odysseus, grollen, Geenius at Wrok, Powered Grace, Emerson, lysias, eeff, rubyr, windwardguy46, MarkInSanFran, exNYinTX, bostonjay, bookbear, Bugsby, JLFinch, bronte17, ask, boadicea, mkfarkus, Aquarius40, farmerhunt, roses, splashy, antirove, dksbook, Texknight, danthrax, sockpuppet, mrkvica, businessdem, CitizenOfEarth, brainwave, Noodles, Damnit Janet, Steven Payne, lcrp, riverlover, Oaktown Girl, Matt Esler, ybruti, lonespark, sebastianguy99, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, maybeeso in michigan, 3goldens, Tinfoil Hat, PBen, KnotIookin, juliesie, Brooke In Seattle, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, Annalize5, majcmb1, where4art, Fury, Overseas, Ice Blue, most peculiar mama, kaliope, Ozzie, Savvy813, Ginny in CO, kerplunk, Lisa Lockwood, Alan Arizona, kathny, martini, Shirl In Idaho, tarheelblue, Clytemnestra, edwardssl, Themistoclea, 8ackgr0und N015e, HoundDog, seefleur, Dvalkure, Gottlieb, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, aloevera, cRedd, real world chick, JVolvo, plf515, Preston S, doinaheckuvanutjob, middleagedhousewife, AllDemsOnBoard, onionjim, rage, democracy is coming, zhimbo, fiddlingnero, Statusquomustgo, AllanTBG, AntKat, Thinking Fella, asilomar, Cronesense, tgypsy, ColoTim, gloriana, edsbrooklyn, LillithMc, Matt Z, Shadowmage36, jayden, GMFORD, Rumarhazzit, uciguy30, GeorgeXVIII, janatallow, BasharH, Neon Mama, Empower Ink, chicago minx, bkamr, adrianrf, JeffW, TX Freethinker, Mr SeeMore, HappyinNM, OleHippieChick, dadadata, elwior, VL Baker, jamess, mikeconwell, Lujane, hwmnbn, Jake Williams, Jeff Y, catly, alnep, petulans, JamieG from Md, sagansong, dmhlt 66, statsone, JBL55, legendmn, Sun dog, Bule Betawi, number nine dream, bobatkinson, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, Nebraskablue, susanWAstate, h bridges, indres, DefendOurConstitution, Tortmaster, Words In Action, Amber6541, politik, kjoftherock, fidellio, Crabby Abbey, angelajean, freeport beach PA, sunny skies, Simple, RJP9999, pixxer, DiegoUK, ericlewis0, science nerd, Oh Mary Oh, numi, Actbriniel, Front Toward Enemy, California06, mrsgoo, marleycat, BarackStarObama, KVoimakas, sound of progress, jolux, jham710, DRo, BoulderStevo, drawingporno, YaNevaNo, Pinto Pony, KiB, James Renruojos, nellgwen, S F Hippie, orangecurtainlib, 2thanks, Yonkers Boy, jan4insight, MartyM, tytalus, Kinak, Marjmar, databob, Melanie in IA, Robynhood too, Sue B, Canis Aureus, Chaddiwicker, onceasgt, countwebb, idbecrazyif, josmndsn, Setsuna Mudo, broths, gypsytoo, parsonsbeach, PeaceLoveHarmony, helpImdrowning, modalbacter, darthburger

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site