More SARC briefings soon.

[HU&W]

My distrust of the media started in 1996 when I was one of many individuals who witnessed a school shooting. The tragedy was a disaster for our small town community, and media outlets from all over jumped on the story. As I was involved firsthand, I knew what the facts were in regards to the victims and the murderer, but what was reported was so far from the truth that my adolescent mind had a hard time reckoning that the news was broadcasting outright fabrications- but these fabrications sold airtime and newspapers. He-said she-saids were reported as fact. It was my first glimpse at how members of the media disregarded their moral responsibility of informing the public of facts and separating opinions from gospel when a sensational story lends itself to ratings.

The events that transpired 18 years ago in my little town have little to do with sexual assault in the military, but they have in common an ability to grab the attention of the reader and have them say "that's so fucked up", thus selling add spacing.

Where is the rest if the transcript of the commander's speech where he OKs the opinions of individuals regardless if the verdict so it may be taken in context? Where are the statistics comparing sexual assault in the military vs a civilian demographic? Where are the success stories of the dirtbags who committed sexual assault and were sent to prison? After reading that article, I was left with impression that all commanders and peers side with the perpetrator. That is not reality.

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. But before I give my heart to a journalist who makes a living on the amount of viewers his story generates and has no military experience, I hope I have an accurate understanding of all sides.

Why would the media TELL a story when it's so much more profitable to SELL a story? #ferguson

Edited to add: The way this journalist very tactically told the Krusinski story casts some doubt on the rest of his writing. He definitely left out some key facts to improve his argument and I have to assume that's his MO.

That same month, the Air Force’s sexual-assault-prevention director, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, was also reprimanded for drunkenly fondling a woman in a bar against her will. When the civilian authorities declined to bring charges against Krusinski, Don Christensen strongly recommended to his superiors that he be court-martialed. The convening authority in the matter elected to keep Krusinski in the Air Force.

Edited December 1, 2014 by HU&W

[magnetfreezer]

Where is the rest if the transcript of the commander's speech where he OKs the opinions of individuals regardless if the verdict so it may be taken in context? Where are the statistics comparing sexual assault in the military vs a civilian demographic? Where are the success stories of the dirtbags who committed sexual assault and were sent to prison? After reading that article, I was left with impression that all commanders and peers side with the perpetrator. That is not reality.

He acknowledged that people had opinions on both sides of the case, then said the court's decision had been made that day and it was time to move forward and not to let that divide the squadron/group. A little different from the quote in the article.

[MD]

Don't know if this was posted yet, hadn't come across it yet....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXGJGuH59qw

[Guest]

This story is starting to receive national attention. It was first reported here:

https://www.wxyz.com/news/national/a-failed-system-enables-convicted-military-sex-offenders-to-evade-detection-and-prey-on-civilians

Warning--the link auto-plays a video with sound.

[...] at least 242 convicted military sex offenders [...] do not appear on any public registry of sex offenders. [...] Federal law requires civilian sex offenders to place their names and details of their crimes on a registry before they leave prison. The military has a different system. It relies on sex offenders to self-register after their discharge, a practice even the inspector general for the Department of Defense has criticized recently.

In short, a few hundred former sex offenders from the military justice system are not publicly registered, some are living where they would not normally be allowed (proximity to schools, etc.), and a few have re-offended potentially from poor enforcement.

[MSCguy]

After reading about the case at Ellsworth I have a question that the one-sided reporting didn't seem to bother asking. Was the victim counseled about her right to apply for a humanitarian reassignment as a sexual assault victim? If not, why not? If so, why is she still at that base? Granted as a Bone person she would have most likely been shipped off to Dyess but that still beats having to stay at Ellsworth around the perpetrator and an unsupportive chain.

[Guest]

Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

By Jonathan Chait

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html

A great article that evaluates freedom of speech, feminist movement in-fighting, modern academic culture, nuance of liberal vs leftist ideology, and social media as news. Absolutely worth the read.

[HeloDude]

Looks like they're changing up BMT just a little bit...

Beginning March 23, 400 recruits will take part in that rite of passage after 7½ weeks of basic military training then turn back around for a five full days of interactive classroom instruction focused on character development.

Civilian facilitators and hand-picked military training instructors will lead newly minted airmen through role-playing exercises and real-life scenarios devised to drive home the Air Force core values of integrity, service and excellence.

"What we expect of airmen as professionals can be dramatically different from the life they've come from. We're going to talk about resiliency, sexual assault, professional relationships, ethics, how we treat each other with dignity and respect," Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James Cody said.

So it's gotten to the point where the AF needs an additional 5 days during BMT to tell new Airmen not to rape, assault, or harass people. I'm all for the AF telling them this...but 5 days, after they've been told it constantly during the main part of the training? I have a feeling more of this will seap into the non AETC world as well.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/careers/air-force/2015/02/17/reinventing-basic-graduation-comes-earlier-real-life-schooling-follows/22211151/

[Jaded]

Was the problem at BMT the recruits raping each other? Oh, no, that's right, it was the instructors.

[DEVIL]

Was the problem at BMT the recruits raping each other? Oh, no, that's right, it was the instructors.

So 5 more days with those instructors makes sense...

[Warrior]

I don't see this as a bad thing. USAFA spends a great deal of time and effort on character development.

Unfortunately there's no ethics discussion without big blue taking the opportunity to talk about sexual assault. And that is a topic that most of us are burnt out on.

[MSCguy]

I don't see this as a bad thing. USAFA spends a great deal of time and effort on character development.

on.

I'm sure that nips all those Zoo scandals right in the bud.

[brabus]

Was the problem at BMT the recruits raping each other? Oh, no, that's right, it was the instructors.

You can't blame the instructors, it was definitely a fighter pilot who made them do it. That's the only logical explanation.

[TreeA10]

You can't blame the instructors, it was definitely a fighter pilot who made them do it. That's the only logical explanation.

Must be the rape songs.

[mp5g]

I wonder if we are destined to go down this train track in the near future.

https://www.infowars.com/innocent-college-student-subject-to-restraining-order-for-resembling-alleged-rapist/

For the quick synopsis: a young man attending college in Oregon has basically been ordered by university administrators to avoid a female student simply due to the fact that he resembles her rapist from a few months earlier.

From the article:

“(He) was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away,” she said.

Choosing to persecute him based solely on the feelings of another, college officials subjected the male student to near-impossible guidelines.

The incident represents the disturbing and growing implementation of politically correct viewpoints, which favor mere feelings over facts, logic and the rights of others.

[dvlax40]

I was in high school on the varsity lacrosse team when the Duke Lacrosse team was accused of rape. I was ridiculed by my senior current events teacher because i was STAUNCHLY supporting the lacrosse team. not because they were also lacrosse players, but because people are innocent until proven guilty and the crime just didnt make sense for a collegiate team that was on track to win it all.

when the facts all finally came out and the boy were exonerated their season was crushed (school cancelled the rest of the season BEFORE they were even charged). The only bright spot was my current events teacher walked up to me in front of the whole class, publicly apologized for criticizing me so much, and told the class that logic and common sense go alot farther then jumping on the PC bandwagon.

i guess the point of my rant is that this PC stuff has been around for a long time, it comes in fits and spurts. But even proponents of it, when slapped in the face with how really out of touch it can be, will eventually subsume to logic and reason

[SocialD]

https://www.infowars.com/innocent-college-student-subject-to-restraining-order-for-resembling-alleged-rapist/

WTF! Why is this not being blasted on every major news outlet?!? If true, there are probably plenty of lawyers who would be willing to represent him. I'd sue the shit out of everyone attached to this case.

Edited February 19, 2015 by SocialD

[10percenttruth]

WTF! Why is this not being blasted on every major news outlet?!? If true, there are probably plenty of lawyers who would be willing to represent him. I'd sue the shit out of everyone attached to this case.

Because it's on infowars & infowars is 69% bullshit & 31% fairy dust

[mp5g]

Because it's on infowars & infowars is 69% bullshit & 31% fairy dust

Copy. Here is the Harvard Law Review website where the story was pulled from. It's near the bottom of the article.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/

[deaddebate]

https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/

Many feminists have argued that [a woman's] subjective belief not only should but must suffice to establish a threat of force. [...] Is that what the legal system should be doing in a complex society marked by immense cultural diversity?

[...] lets expose ourselves to the harder cases, where a person [...] willingly consumed drugs and/or alcohol, and who gave their assent to sexual activity (in the sense that they signaled willingness or desire), but who did not consent (that is, they did not actually subjectively give a free consent to engage in sexual activity), or who were confused about whether to consent or not but who went along (that is, assented without making a decision either way) because they feared social conflict or social awkwardness [...] It includes women who assented and consented competently after consuming alcohol or drugs and who, on becoming sober the next day or months, or even years, later sincerely reject that idea that they could have consented. [...] Compound all of that with [known memory loss from] heavy drug and alcohol use [...] what if [her memory] is selective; what if [her memory] is self-serving; what if [her memory] is motivated by unconscious racial bias or by a felt need to disavow shame, avert a crise de conscience, or pacify an angry parent, spouse, or partner?

[...] I think its merely irresponsible to dismiss this difficult range of cases by saying that women students are being slipped date-rape drugs in numbers so high that [...] they can be administratively assimilated to the date-rape-drug cases

No: young women are willingly drinking heavily and using powerful drugs. So are young men. It is an immense public health problem.

This raises a final layer of difficulty [...] in case after case, both the complainant and the respondent were voluntarily ingesting mind-altering substances. [...] [Note] the steep asymmetry between the consequences of drinking and drug use for the complainant and for the respondent [...] it has no mitigating effect on his conduct. And now let us say that two Harvard students one male, one female have sex after drinking, using drugs, or both, that each of them feels intense remorse and moral horror about it afterward, and that they both rush the next morning to the Title IX Office with complaints. Lets say they drop their complaints on the receptionists desk simultaneously. Which of them gets the benefit of the per se imputation of unwelcomeness, and which of them carries the heavy handicap of no mitigation? The woman and not the man? Both of them? Neither?

I think this mental experiment reveals that a bias in favor of complainants and against respondents is embedded [...] it entails a commitment to the idea that women should not and do not bear any responsibility for the bad things that happen to them when they are voluntarily drunk, stoned, or both. This commitment cuts women off in theory and in application from assuming agency about their own lives. Since when was that a feminist idea?[

The full article is a fantastic investigation of transforming from radical, third-wave feminism to governing and reform.

[deaddebate]

https://www.afjag.af.mil/docket

U.S. v. Lieutenant Colonel M HARSSEMA

Type of Court-Martial: General Court-Martial

Location: Andrews AFB, Maryland

Projected Trial Start Date: 11-May-2015 Estimated Trial End Date: 18-May-2015

Offense(s) Charged:

Article 112a, Distribution of Schedule IV or V drugs

Article 128, Assault - aggravated inflicting grievous bodily harm

Article 133, Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

Article 134, Fraternization

And a little more perspective

779 MDOS - Anesthesiologist

Also

U.S. v. Lieutenant Colonel M ANDERSON

Type of Court-Martial: General Court-Martial

Location: Kadena AB, Japan

Projected Trial Start Date: 08-Jun-2015 Estimated Trial End Date: 13-Jun-2015

Offense(s) Charged:

Article 92, Fail to obey lawful order

Article 92, Sexual assault causing bodily harm

Article 92, Adultery

[SurelySerious]

Notable & Quotable https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-1424391757

Regarding the restraining order against an Oregonian college student for looking like a woman's attacker

When the duty to pre­vent a “sex­ually hos­tile en­vi­ron­ment” is in­terpreted this ex­pan­sively, it is af­fir­matively in­dif­fer­ent to the re­strained per­son’s com­plete and to­tal in­nocence of any mis­con­duct what­so­ever.

[PlanePhlyer]

Haven't finished it yet, and some of the editorializing is.. annoying. But I found it a good read and indicative of the problems our leaders face when trying to make all parties happy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/the-militarys-rough-justice-on-sexual-assault.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

Wow.

This story is beyond WOW!! I know Brooks personally...the Air Force got it wrong at many levels. "Kris" should be dishonorably discharged.

Edited March 3, 2015 by PlanePhlyer

[Boomer6]

the Air Force got it wrong at many levels. "Kris" should be dishonorably discharged.

Care to elaborate?

[PlanePhlyer]

Negative..my comment was more a public vent session. BL: I trust the military legal system as far as I can kick it. Guilty til proven innocent.

[Learjetter]

This story is beyond WOW!! I know Brooks personally...the Air Force got it wrong at many levels. "Kris" should be dishonorably discharged.

So...do you not see that THIS is "victim/accuser blaming?" And this attitude is why this is such a tough problem for commanders/units/the AF?

All I know about this case is the story linked above, and what I read here:

https://www.afjag.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141020-038.pdf

Your visceral response to the "accuser-friendly" article leads me to believe one of two things: 1) you are aware of exculpatory evidence or facts NOT in evidence, or 2) you simply believe Brooks over Kris.

The CM voted to convict, therefore the court believed Kris' credibility over Brooks'.

This is a typical case: no eyewitness, no physical evidence, no overt confession of guilt. Just two peers in the same squadron, one accusing, the other denying.

One is lying, and the investigation (which naturally assumes the victim ISNT lying) uncovers nothing new...her word against his...what SHOULD the AF do?