Defense Department sued by service members over sexual assaults

SAN FRANCISCO A lawsuit was filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco alleging current and former members of the U.S. military were sexually assaulted while serving.

The 20 women and men filing the lawsuit claim they were harassed, raped or assaulted and suffered retaliation when they reported the incidents.

The lawsuit names top Department of Defense officials as defendants, accusing the leadership of the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force of failing to prosecute and properly investigate claims of sexual assault.

• Air Force instructor sentenced to 20 years
• 8 file military suit alleging rape, harassment
• Defense Secretary Leon Panetta calls for new steps to deal with military sexual assaults

Susan Burke, the lead lawyer representing the plaintiffs, has filed four other lawsuits alleging assaults in military branches.

A federal judge in Virginia in December tossed out a similar suit. Although the judge called the allegations troubling, he said the military disciplinary system should handle the cases.

Cynthia Smith, a Department of Defense spokeswoman, declined to discuss the latest lawsuit.

In March, after several service members filed a suit against the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy, funding was increased for investigators and judge advocates to receive training in sexual assault cases. In addition, a two-star general was appointed to direct a sexual assault response and prevention office.

The Pentagon is assembling a data system to track reports of sexual assault and is reviewing how commanding officers are trained in preventing and responding to rape cases.

Smith said Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has ordered the department to take additional steps, including the creation of a special victims unit. The order was made the same week the Army charged Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair with sexual misconduct while serving in Afghanistan.

It was not clear if Sinclair had an attorney, and a phone listing found for him was disconnected.

Nonetheless, the lawsuit filed Friday said not enough was being done about the issue.

"The U.S. Army and Air Force leadership has a pattern and practice of ignoring and failing to prosecute rapes and sexual assaults," the lawsuit states.

[ugacrew]

Using your language, I would add that there are "dirt bags" in every sector of society to include our churches. There are no exceptions.

[gryphon501]

men will always support men when it comes to rape.

[ugacrew]

I am not a male, and I have two daughters of my own.

[ugacrew]

The fact is that our servicemen and women serve with honor and distinction.
There will always be exceptions, just as there are exceptions within people in any society. All of you enjoy, every single day when you walk out of the front door of your home, the privileges of living in a democratic society.

They say that freedom is not free. I say that freedom is not free for those who serve. Others will persist in finding fault, condemning and convicting without just cause, but I want to quote a previous poster who responded to one severe critic by asking the following question:

"If you can't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them?"

Enough said.

[ugacrew]

The quote was attributable to Poster COLT4542.

[robert1129]

When you talk about exceptions, I hope you mean the ones that ignore such incidents. There is one possible cure. Once someone reports such an incident, make it mandatory that the incident is immediately referred to JAG with no exceptions, comments or whatever. Anyone not doing so, would be subject to court martial. You might be a close friend of mine but if such a situation occured on my watch and was reported to me, I would immediately follow procedure because I am not going to jail because of what the rapist did. BTW, I am a disabled vet.

[ugacrew]

Data printed in the following link, indicates that on September 2011, the entire U.S. armed forces consisted of 1,468,364 members.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

Assuming it to be accurate, the article printed above that states that that a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of 20 individuals. When I calculate the 20 individuals referenced in the article and even take into consideration that there may be more who have not filed a complaint, they constitute .00136 percent of our entire armed forces. I would argue that to be wholly insufficient "evidence," if it is to be considered "evidence" at all, to support the broad and conclusive statement, as quoted in the lawsuit; "The U.S. Army and Air Force leadership has a pattern and practice of ignoring and failing to prosecute rapes and sexual assaults."

Further, the comments by the posters indicate a quick and ready eagerness to reflect broad dishonor on the entire body of our military men and women in uniform, the majority of whom have served with both honor and distinction, but more importantly, have served.

Their quick convictions and blatant condemnations given the absence of any of the facts at all are quite remarkable. I find their disdain based on pure speculation and conjectures in the absence of fair trials somewhat dispiccable. Surely, those American people who believe in justice know that a thorough investigation of all of the circumstances is a basic and fundamental part of the process, yet they persist in posting the kind of comments that reflect a mob mentality, shoot now and asks questions later.

I find this particular bothersome given that our servicemen and women deserve, at a minimum, due process prior to conviction.

Finally, when a man is on trial for any one particular crime, the court does not allow reference to be made to any previous criminal activity. The purpose is to allow a man to be tried fairly, and in an unbiased manner, based on the crime in question.

One has to ask the reporter, the relevance of the statement "The order was made the same week the Army charged Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair with sexual misconduct while serving in Afghanistan." What is it that the reporter wants readers to conclude?

General Sinclair deserves a fair and impartial trial based on facts wholly apart from those referenced in the above article.

[robert1129]

Even if one rape occured, that is one rape too many.

[talkin2u924]

My upset with this story is that our Sec. of Defense says he's clamping down on the assaults. I am sickened by the dereliction of duty of these Generals, Majors and officers who don't have control of their units. They condone doing nothing. They encourage these rapes to be swept under the rug. They think they and their soldiers are above the law and are getting away with doing nothing. Why does the media not "out" these idiotic leaders who are protecting rapists!

[ffoulkes2009]

Well, before you get your panties permanently wedged, please remember that the soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.

[rayward73446]

FFOULKES2009-
"soldiers are innocent until proven guilty"
I'm sorry but in the military a service member that is charged with a crime is considered guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. If the commander and or Judge Advocate believes there is a reasonable conclusion that a crime was committed by a service member, that weighs into the "guilty until proven innocent" belief and mentality.
But I aggree that your statement is the way it should really be.

There are some bad apples in every barrel, but they are the exception and not representative of our brave and honorable service members, I include officers in this as well.
Some Officers would rather sweep a bad situation, such as a reported rape under the rug, and leak the situation to the troops to discourage the victim from persuing charges being filed. Rather than to do the right thing, and persue a prosection, just to look better in their reports. these are the kind of problems that the article refers to, but I got the impression that the reporter was more interested in bashing the military than reporting the facts as they are.

[mav547166]

Unfortunately the military has created a kangaroo court that tramples over the accused without due process that ruins their career even if they are cleared of wrong doing. The system does not provide for punitive actions for false accusations made to avoid other disciplinary actions or tracks "habitual accusers" who make accusations to avoid other UCMJ disciplinary actions. The large percentage of false allegations have destroyed the legitimacy of these programs, and prevent women that truly need assistance from getting help and justice.

[facelessdrone2005]

What a complete and utter pile of baloney. I was a military judge advocate for 23 years (active and reserve) and personally won an acquittal in a rape case. I also won an acquittal for an airman who tested positive for marijuana. Twenty years later I ran across the same man, who by then had inoperable cancer and he thanked me for saving his career. Nor did I ever once run across anyone who was a "habitual accuser". You demean the system without knowing a darned thing about it. Sometimes the prosecutor can't win because of this thing called "evidence." If there isn't enough of it, the prosecutor loses, and it doesn't mean the accuser was lying. It just means that the court-martial panel or jury cared enough not to convict if there was a reasonable doubt. If I was accused of a crime, I'd MUCH rather be tried by a panel of college-educated officers who actually pay attention and care than a jury of 12 of the uneducated idiots I see on a daily basis in our civilian courts.

[mav547166]

Facelessdrone2005 thanks for your service, no offense but I have duffel bags with more time in service than you so spare me the grief of your guilty conscience. I will not apologize because your buddy could not find enough evidence to convict your client, or that pesky little "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause in the Constitution that you were sworn into office to uphold. Having said all that there are some dirt bags in our military that need to face a court martial for crimes committed against women, but not at the expense of their right to due process IAW the Constitutuion and the UCMJ.