Skip to main content

In article after article this week about the Naval Academy Rape case, I've learned more than I need to know about the victim. I've read practically nothing about the three accused football players who "allegedly" committed rape.

Should I be surprised? Isn't this the way all rape cases are supposed to be prosecuted, based on the actions of the person who reports the crime?

But just in case you haven't had the chance to read up on this story, let me fill you in.

We know that a female midshipman attended a Yoga and Toga party off-campus. We know that she drank and she drank a lot. She does not remember anything that happened that evening. It was only in the days that followed that friends of hers told her that she had been raped - three football players were openly talking about it. Her friends reported the rape to the Academy and the female midshipman reluctantly came forth. Her early responses to questions were mixed and she fully admits that she just wanted the case to go away.

The hearing which took place this week was an Article 32 and will determine if the three male midshipmen will be court-martialed. Two are still enrolled at the Naval Academy and one has his graduation pending based on the results of the hearing.

The hearing took place over 8 days which is a long time for an Article 32. According to Academy Officials, there were a high number of defendants that were called to testify. It could be that the victim herself spent 3 of those days answering questions from the three defense attorneys. And the questions were far from appropriate:

“Were you wearing a bra?” asked lawyer Andrew Weinstein. “Were you wearing underwear?”  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Angela Tang... repeatedly asked the woman how wide she opens her mouth to perform oral sex. This on the theory that oral sex requires “active participation,” indicating consent.http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Weinstein demanded to know how often she lies — “at least once a day?” — and whether she “felt like a ho’’ the morning after the party. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...

And it gets worse.

[Andrew Weinstein] said that because the alleged victim did not remember what happened does not mean she did not consent. He said she was acting flirtatiously.

Washington Post, bolding mine

Yet again, we are fighting the same old battles. Let's review the facts:

Women can dress anyway they want. And they are not asking to be raped.

A woman's sex life before an assault does not have anything to do with the assault.

Women who act flirtatiously are not asking for sex. They are especially not asking to be raped.

But obviously, if you're in the military, acting flirtatious (whatever that might mean to each individual person you come across), means you're asking for it. Not wearing a bra or underwear means you're asking for it. Having any kind of a sex life means you're asking for it. Welcome to the world of sexual assault in the military:

Roger Canaff, a former prosecutor who has helped the military improve its handling of sexual assault cases, said no civilian court in any state in the country would allow the kind of questions that are routinely permitted at Article 32 hearings. The legal proceedings are so hard on women who allege sexual assault that “a lot of cases die there as a result,” said Canaff, who now works at End Violence Against Women International. “You hear questions that would be highly objectionable in a court-martial or any civilian hearing.”

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...

And do you think the attorney for the female midshipmen asked these young male midshipmen about their sexual history? Do you think she asked about what underwear they were wearing? Do you think she asked if they felt like rapists the next morning? The truth is that I don't know because it hasn't been reported. No one seems to care what questions where asked of the accused. Because, of course, that really doesn't matter in the end. All that matters is that the victim be re-victimized all over again.

If I had a chance to ask questions of the accused I would have included one like this:

"Imagine you're in a war zone and your buddy had the chance to drink a little too much. You know that she probably shouldn't have, but she did. Would you take that as permission to have sex with her? Would you consider that act rape or would you consider it just sex? What do you think she would call it?"

We all know those questions would never be allowed in a court of law. But don't you just wonder what the answers might be? How many men out in the field see someone they can take advantage of, a man or a woman, and use that situation to their advantage? That's the big question right now in the military. How many potential rapists are there and what in the hell are we going to do about it?

By the end of the hearing, the female midshipman's attorney, Susan Burke, requested that a federal judge bar the Superintendent of the Naval Academy from making any decisions about this case. The Superintendent allowed three days of extreme and inappropriate questions of the victim and he has reason to want to protect the good name of the Naval Academy. It certainly won't be positive press if three of their football players are proven to be rapists. Is he really the right person to judge this case?

Originally posted to Military Community Members of Daily Kos on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 04:02 PM PDT.

Also republished by Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism and 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

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site