NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12237

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 9.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12237 alt.politics.clinton:19078 alt.politics.bush:14900 alt.politics.homosexuality:8424 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10671
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!bgsuvax!jnomina
From: [e-mail] (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:08:28 GMT
Lines: 183

[e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
> |> [e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
> |> >
> |> > Well, that's exactly the point I was making.   What "such incidents"
> |> > are we talking about?
> |> >
> |> > If we are talking about something which was never reported, where you
> |> > won't reveal who was involved, then we are not left with much.   All
> |> > we are left with is an allegation, and as we have seen recently, allegations
> |> > are a dime a dozen, and hard facts are difficult to come by.
> |> >
> |> > If someone - and of course that might not be you - wants to show that
> |> > having Gays in the military is a problem, then I think that they need
> |> > to do better then an anecdote that no-one can verify.
> |> >
> |> > I've deleted the rest of your reply since it's not what I was addressing.
> |>
> |> Then what ARE you addressing, if not such incidents?
>
> I'm addressing whether "such incidents" are a serious problem.  You
> must understand that it's very easy for someone - not you, necessarily -
> to say "Yes, I know of such incidents" if they also know that they won't
> be asked to substantiate what they say.

Agreed wholeheartedly.  If you would like an opinion, which I've
tried to keep as unbiased as possible, then I can give you one
from personal experience.  What assurences will you have that it
is as unbiased as possible?  I don't know, other than my track
record of posts on the net, and how honest you feel I've tried to
be about any posts I've made to date.

>
> I'm not saying that what you told us isn't true.   I'm pointing out
> that if it was never reported, it's very hard to check if it is true.

Accepted in all faireness.

>
> |> I cited one, which was reported to me personally, and you write it
> |> off as anecdotal.
>
> "Write it off" is a loaded term.   What I am pointing out is that it
> *is* anecdotal.

Yes, I agree with the term, from the perspective of those who don't
know me personally, so I accept this as well.

>
> |> I understand that, somewhat, in that it becomes second-hand knowledge
> |> to you personally.  However, it was reported -- to me, and I and another
> |> NCO dealt with it accordingly (and not nearly as harshly as would have
> |> been done if we'd reported it even higher up.)  As one of two moderators
> |> of the incident, I find it to have been a little more than merely an
> |> allegation.
>
> Unfortunately, since you dealt with it personally, and can't tell us
> who was involved, the whole thing was dealt with outside the normal
> rules of evidence, and there is no paper trail.
>
> You say that this incident was reported to you, and that you dealt with
> it.   That means that you had to decide who to believe, how to interpret
> what you were told, judge how severe the incident was, and also what the
> approriate method was to deal with it.
>
> This is exactly the situation that things like the Military Code and
> civilian criminal codes are intended to avoid.   Formal proceedings
> act as protection for people who are accused, as well as for people
> who might be victims.

I think you'd find that there isn't a paper trail for most of the
harassment and sexual assault cases, excepting those which end in
general courts martial and end with the accused in prison.  And even
those would be hard to obtain, if at all possible.

Concerning UCMJ (Military Code) and the 'guilt' of the parties...
UCMJ allows for low-level stuff along the lines I was refering to,
provided all parties agree to it.  In the case I'd cited here, the
accused admitted guilt to his superior and myself when confronted,
and basically threw himself upon our mercy, rather than facing things
higher up.  The four of us agreed to the punishment, which honestly
was nowhere as severe as it would have been otherwise.  Since it
was such a cut and dry case, and since we could all agree with the
terms, it was deemed a legal and acceptable alternative.  I don't
think that's such a bad way to solve that particular situation.
We saved two soldiers a lot of embarrassment (and parhaps a career
in the process), time, taxpayers' money, etc.

>
> |>
> |>                                              The military tends
> |> to keep problems such as this quiet, to protect the victims as
> |> well as the perpetrators (be it homosexual OR heterosexual
> |> charges.)  The only incidents which the public ever hears about, and
> |> ever will hear about, are when the victims feel that they've
> |> been wronged and not righted within the military, at which
> |> point they go public.  How many guys who've been raped do you
> |> know who would be willing to carry the charges out into the
> |> public limelight?  If I find any, I'll be sure to let you know,
> |> but in the meantime, the best you're going to get in the civilian
> |> world are first-hand examples and cites such as I'm giving you.
> |> I'm sorry that I can't do better than that, but I'm really not
> |> at liberty to.
>
> Well, that's also a bit of a problem, isn't it?   The military seems
> to have no problem in conducting undercover operations to uncover Gays
> who have done nothing at all, and discharge them.   The Military seems
> to have no problem with whatever publicity those Gays suffer as a result.

Just as I cannot _prove_ the incidents I've cited, I cannot discredit
this idea of undercover operations.  I can say that I've never heard
of such a thing in the army.  They don't NEED undercover operations
to find out such things when so many people are being caught
in the act.  But be that as it may, I'd have to ask you to cite one
case where the military publicly announced that one of its members
was being released on the grounds of being gay.  Of every case of
publicity after a release, it is because that person has chosen to
            (that I know ^ of)
persue the issue publicly, usually in the form of a lawsuit, in an
effort to be reinstated.  In such cases, the military is allowing them
to do as they choose with the issue, to include allowing their
right to privacy (didn't used to be that way, but it has been in the
past ten years or more.)  If a person chooses to bring that publicity
upon themselves after being released from the military, how is the
military responsible for such publicity?  If you can cite any cases
where a military official made a public announcement that PFC X
has been released from active duty to persue his life as a homosexual,
I would be greatly interested to hear about it.

>
> But when we ask for hard cases, you tell us that the Military likes
> to keep that kind of thing quiet.

They do.  If for no other logical reason, it's quite bad for
recruitment if they allow such things to be known, from the
perspective of the military "thought" (which I suppose CAN be
read "bias".)

>
> I'm sure that you can see that this poses a bit of a problem for
> anyone who is trying to get a balanced picture of just how serious
> - or not - this problem really is.

Yes, it can be quite a problem from what I've seen.  I've cited
that from what I've seen in the military, the problem of homosexual
rape and harassment is quite great, compared to the occurences of
heterosexual rape and harassment in the military and gay acts in the
civilian world.  On thing which no one has called me out about
on the subject, however, is who is the perpetrator?  Are there
that many homosexuals in the military?  Or is it that most of the
few that there are are doing this?  Or is it something else,
such as being equivocated with the extremely high occurences in
prisons?  I have no data which could say where the problem lie,
other than to give you my opinion that it is extremely high, as
compared to anything else _excepting_ prison.

But again, that's my opinion.  Yes, I'll admit that getting a
balanced picture of just what the situation is will be most
difficult, if not impossible.

>
> Given that Gays as a group are already the subject of accusations
> based on little more than popular stereotypes, you must expect a few
> questions when you present what even you admit is evidence at
> second-hand.

Actually, I expected a lot MORE questions when I made my first
posting into the discussion, when it was still "Re: Gays in the
military."  No one questioned that posting, which surprised me
quite a bit.  I don't mind answering questions, and I hope that
I can be helpful to everyone in the discussion.  Unfortunately,
I know I can't as I was just today violently slammed by a
homosexual ex-military person whom I had started to open quite
an informative e-mail discussion with.  It almost got to me,
until I began this rational discussion with you on the topic.
I will agree with you that stereotyping, of ALL forms, are
wrong and must be righted.  However, it will remain my base
contention that there is a larger societal problem than just
"gays in the military", and it is this issue which I personally
hold as a pet peeve.

Jim