SHE ANIMAL – THE NEW FEMALE SEXUAL PREDATOR
(By Paul McGuire)February 22, 2012 NewsWithViews.com
A growing number of attractive female teachers and women from all areas of society, who are anywhere from 23 -54 years old, are seducing teenage and pre-teenage boys between 10–17 years old, across the nation. Until, the last decade or so, it has been men who have been the primary sexual predators towards male and female children. It is only recently, that increasing numbers of women, specifically in their mid-twenties to late thirties who are engaging in this sort of activity. Many of these younger women are married and have children. The question is, “What is causing the emergence of a new breed of sexual predator, the “She-Animal,” and her hard-core sexual assault on under age males?
Female sexual predators are part of the deliberate destruction of the family. The pill that was started in the 1950’s was followed by no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, drugs, rock’ n roll in the 1960’s, the feminist movement in the 1970’s, normalization of homosexuality, and now the acceptance of what was once termed sexual deviancy. Just turn on television sit-coms, movies, and contemporary music. You will hear and see all kinds of references to sexual behavior that was once considered by society as perverted and out of the mainstream. Date movies or “chick-flicks” contain powerful messages defining aberrant sexual behaviors as the new normal. The result is the acceptance of sexual activities were once considered as sexual perversion.
Sexual activities involving multiple partners, bondage, and sadomasochism are now accepted as normal by a growing percentage of our society. For example, handcuffs in bedroom scenes between married people have become routine in comedies. During this past Valentine’s Day, the police pulled over a young married couple in their car. The female was naked, except for the fact that she was wearing bondage gear. It was reported across the nation on the nightly news as a humorous news story. We have experience a paradigm shift in our sexual values that will produce long-term negative consequences.
The term “She-Animal,” is not intended as a disparaging remark against women. Men are also engaged in sexual behavior that is illegal, violent, and can only be described as dark sexual perversion. However, it is an observation that millennium-old sexual boundaries that defined the nature of female sexuality have been erased and new scientifically programmed hyper-sexuality has been imbedded in new generations of women. The prime driver in the sexual transformation of both men and women is the regular viewing of pornography. Being exposed to and watching pornography creates a chemical high in both men and women, similar to a cocaine or methamphetamine high. Not only men, but women also can become addicted to the sexual high. Like other addictions, their sexual addiction controls them. Drug addicts begin to do things that they would never do if they were in their right mind. Like cocaine and methamphetamines, pornography radically changes the brain and body’s biochemistry, causing them to break social boundaries and laws, like drug addicts do.
There is a great similarity between the biochemical highs produced by cocaine and meth, heroin, and pornography. For example, viewing pornography releases dopamine, testosterone, oxytocin, serotonin, phenylethamine (PEA), and adrenaline creating, what Dr. Judith Reisman refers to as, an “erototoxin.” This biochemical’s produce sexual arousal which, lights up the central nervous system and causes powerful physiological changes. Hormone levels soar. Boosting heart rate and blood pressure increase the physical sensitivity and physical desire.
In many ways, pornography is a more dangerous drug than coke and meth, as Dr. Robert Malenka and Dr. Julie Kauer wrote in an important study in a 2007 issue of Nature magazine. When commenting on the biochemical changes related to pornography addiction, they wrote, “Addiction represents a pathological, yet powerful form of learning and memory.” They actually change and rewire the brain, causing long term depression, until a woman or man, can get their sexual fix. Dr. Norman Doidge, a neurologist at Columbia, in his book “The Brain That Changes Itself,” outlines the process of re-wiring neural circuits. It has now been discovered that females as well as males, act like rats addicted to cocaine in the experimental Skinner boxes, desperately seeking an image or behavior that will alleviate the depression and deliver their next sexual fix.
This process has been called “frantic learning,” where a man or a woman are constantly searching the internet, looking for just the right fantasy image or video clip that will deliver that sexual rush. Neuroscience reveals that sexual addiction and the regular viewing of pornography produce a deficit of dopamine in the reward system and re-wires the brain of female sexual predators. The dopamine deficit produces such an overwhelming craving that it short circuits the pre-frontal rational brain which gives us self-control. The dopamine deficit overwhelms the rational brain and drives these females, as well as males, to immoral, destructive and illegal behaviors that destroy lives.
Thus, a growing percentage of younger women, literally go out of their minds and become what I term “She-Animals,” in a desperate quest for dopamine. The larger the dopamine fix needed, the more willing the “She-Animal” is to use a variety of seduction approaches on underage boys. The “She-Animal,” will send explicit messages and pictures of her via cell phone or the internet. She will get alone with the boy, give him alcohol, drugs, porn, undress, or wear explicit lingerie in order to generate a dehumanized sexual relationship.
In 1934, Cambridge anthropologist, Dr. J. D. Unwin published “Sex and Culture.” Dr. Unwin examined 86 cultures spanning 5,000 years with regard to the effects of both sexual restraint and sexual abandon from a purely secular perspective. He found, without exception, that cultures that practiced strict monogamy in marital bonds exhibited, what he called, creative social energy and reached the zenith of production. In contrast, cultures that had no restraint on sexuality, without exception, fell into mediocrity and chaos. This is the reason the Roman Empire fell.
The Apostle Timothy talks about the characteristics of the last days. The general sociological condition will be that men will love themselves and pleasure more than God. As in ancient Rome, it will cause the general breakdown of society.
“And this know thou, that in the last days there shall come perilous times. For men shall be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, evil-speakers, to parents disobedient, unthankful, unkind, without natural affection, implacable, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, not lovers of those who are good, traitors, heady, lofty, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.” II Timothy 3:1-4
The prophet Daniel spoke of a Revived Roman Empire and Revelation that gives a similar warning. There are many similarities between Rome and America. I show the full implications of this in my 3-DVD series, "Are You Ready for the One World Government? One World Economic System and the Coming One World Religion?"
In 1936, Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World where a benevolent totalitarian state controls the genetically bred and transhuman ruling class called the Alphas with constant orgies called “the feelies,” and rampant sexual promiscuity. In addition, they are given a drug called, “soma,” which makes them high and easy to control. In futuristic novels like Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon, and 1984 by George Orwell, pornography and sexual promiscuity, perversion and orgies are mechanisms of social control.
The scientific elite, working through such organizations as the Tavistock Institute, which sets the agenda for the Stanford Research Institute and countless other think tanks, work covertly to program mass consciousness in our children. Since the 1950s, children have been targeted to be under mind control through rock music, drugs, porn, books, TV, advertisements, comic books, and movies. The question is how do we deal with this invasion of our sexuality as individuals, families, and a nation?
The answer can be found in our Judeo-Christian roots. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are filled with examples of a positive sexuality. The Bible teaches a celebration of sex. However, since God is the designer and engineer of human sexuality, He knows quite a bit about it. Many people have misinterpreted God’s commandments regarding sexuality as a negative view of sexual expression. That idea is completely false. We must remember that it was God who created sex in the first place, both for procreation and enjoyment or pleasure. However, since God designed sex in the first place, He understood the dangers of uncontrolled sexual expression and designed safeguards or laws to protect mankind.
God designed sex to be exclusively experienced inside of marriage. The reason God did that is one of His first commandments to mankind was to “be fruitful and multiply.” You cannot multiply without sex. Some people seem to forget that the Infinite Personal God of the Universe created the full range of sexual expression between a husband and wife. If the Song of Solomon was read properly, it would be X-rated, not because it is perverse, but because it is about the full celebration of sex between a husband and wife. The full range of sexual attraction that is built into the male regarding the female body and personality is a good thing. The full range of emotional and physical attraction between a woman and a man she wishes to marry is a good thing. God created the orgasm and the multi-dimensional nature of sexual expression as physical, emotional, and spiritual. The best sex incorporates all of these dimensions.
There is tremendous hope for people who have had their sexuality and sexual responses messed up. There are programs that deal with sexual addiction and the best programs incorporate a spiritual component. Many people are surprised that the Bible is an X-rated book and it offers practical and positive suggestions about how to experience maximum sexual fulfillment. For example, in I Corinthians 7:5, the Apostle Paul says, “Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, which you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Although, there may be problems that must be healed or solved in order for a husband and wife to enjoy maximum sexuality, the goal is a creative and fulfilling sex life. Problems that could interrupt the positive sex life between husband and wife could be emotional abuse, adultery, treating your spouse like an object, and demanding your partner perform degrading sex acts that you wish to reenact due to your exposure to pornography. When the Apostle Paul uses the words, “Do not deprive one another,” he is specifically speaking of sex.
The sex life between a husband and wife should be spiritual, creative, and erotic. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that the only way a husband and wife can have sex is in the missionary position. The Song of Solomon is a great manual on sex if it is read as it is intended to be read.
A powerful solution to the temptation of pornography and immorality is to enjoy the maximum sex life God planned for a husband and wife since the beginning of time. The predatory female or male needs to work on their relationship with their spouse. That may take communication and counseling. But, a rich and emotionally intimate sex life with your husband or wife is far more satisfying that playing the role of a virtual hooker. Cyber sex is not sex. It is artificial sex. Artificial sex never satisfies, but sex between a husband and wife, the way God created it to be, is the ultimate.
(22 Feb 2012 Paul McGuire)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Impersonating Military Officers.
The court-martial of former cadet Webster Smith, the first cadet ever tried by court-martial at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy was a tragedy, but it was no accident. It was was more than just a tempest in a teapot. Congressman Christopher Shays, a Republican, held Congressional hearings on how officials were responding to reports of sexual assaults in the service academies. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat, inserted a request into a Department of Homeland Security spending bill for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor the Coast Guard Academy's progress in responding to sexual harassment claims.
The trial of Webster Smith appears to have been the main attraction in a three ring circus. The Coast Guard Academy and Connecticut Congressional Representative Christopher Shays were planning to stag a show-trial for the nation to show how military academies should handle incidents of sexual assaults at the academies. Representative Shays was chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. He had organized the Washington, DC portion of the circus. He scheduled a panel entitled "Sexual Assualt and Violence Against Women in the Military and at the Academies". On the day that the star witness for the rape charge, Kristen Nicholson, was testifying at the Coast Guard Academy, a Coast Guard Admiral from the Academy was in Washington,DC at the invitation of Representative Shays to appear before his Committee.
Rear Admiral Paul J. Higgins, Director of Health and Safety, at the Coast Guard Academy was on the witness list along with the Commandants from the other military academies. The publicity from these hearings would have been enough to get Shays reelected. However, the trial did not turn out as expected. The Convening Authority for the Court-martial, the Superintendent at the Coast Guard Academy was Admiral James Van Sice. He was tried at an Admiral's Mast for inappropriate behavior and forced to retire.Then the furor surrounding this issue of sexual assault at military academies seemed to die down. This issues disappeared from the Washington,D.C. political radar scope. And Christopher Shays, a 10-term incumbent lost his re-election bid in November 2008.
When the full history of the Webster Smith case is written, it may turn out that Congressman Shays was the real author of the first court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy.
The hearings appeared to have been grandstanding on the part of Christopher Shays. For most of his life he appeared to have distanced himself from the military. He certainly wanted no part of duty in the armed forces. When push came to shove he claimed conscientious objector status. He has never worn the uniform of any military service. Shockingly, he is not alone.
A few of the men who once shouted "hell no; We won't go", are now claiming that they did. Not only are they claiming that they did go, but also that they distinguished themselves with valor, above and beyond the call of duty. Some were draft protesters, others were draft evaders, and others draft dodgers. They should not all be lumped together.
Draft protesters were often the men who burned their Draft cards in public ceremonies. Draft Dodgers took steps to violate Selective Service laws. Draft evaders were not like draft dodgers.
Some avoided conscription by taking advantage of loopholes in the Selective Service laws, a perfectly legal if not sometimes arbitrary option. In 1966 actor George Hamilton was exempted from the Draft after petitioning his own Draft Board for a deferment base on hardships at home, advising them that his mother needed him to care for her. Of course it didn't hurt his cause that at the time he was also dating the daughter of President Lyndon Johnson. And perhaps it was just such inequities in the Selective Service program that most angered the young. They were upset not so much being called to serve as they did to the fact that often the rich, the powerful, and the brightest college students escaped being called up.
Some young men sought exemption from the Draft due to special situations: sole surviving son, deferment to complete an education, and even for personal reasons such as religious prohibitions against military service. The latter are called Conscientious Objectors (C.O.) and many of them did serve in non-combat roles, at least two C.O.s earning Medals of Honor, while others belonged to faiths that prohibited even these non-combat roles.
In 2010 according to the New Haven Register, a poll was taken after news broke that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal falsely claimed on several occasions to have served in Vietnam during the war shows his Republican challengers for a U.S. Senate seat closing the gap.
Only about a quarter of voters, however, said he should withdraw from the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.
The Rasmussen telephone poll, showed Blumenthal, the leading Democratic contender, losing most of his lead over Republicans Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons.
A longer version of the video shot in Norwalk on March 2, 2008, was posted on Republican candidate Linda McMahon’s website. It showed Blumenthal correctly describing his military service before saying that he served “in Vietnam.”
“I really want to add my words of thanks,” Blumenthal tells the audience on the video, “as someone who served in the military during the Vietnam era in the Marine Corps.”
Blumenthal served stateside as a Marine reservist after receiving five deferments, reaching the rank of sergeant. On Tuesday, Blumenthal said he “misspoke” at times and regretted the errors.
Democrats in Connecticut and Washington stood by Blumenthal.
"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility," said Blumenthal. "But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
The crisis erupted when The New York Times reported that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had "served in Vietnam." The newspaper also said Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home.
At a veterans event in Shelton, Conn., for example, he said, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered," according to a 2008 Connecticut Post story.
Blumenthal, 64, joined the Marine Reserve in 1970 and served six years, none of it overseas. He put in much of his time in Washington, where he took part in such projects as fixing a campground and working on a Toys for Tots drive, according to the Times.
He received at least five military deferments that enabled him to stay out of the war between 1965 and 1970, during which time he went to Harvard, studied in England and landed a job in the Nixon White House. Once he secured a spot in the Marine Reserve, he had almost no chance of being sent to Vietnam, the newspaper reported.
Former Representative Christopher Shays and Beth Davis, former Air Force Academy Cadet.
He is a close friend of Congressman Christopher Shays, whose early political career was marked by acts of defiance. He registered for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War and acknowledges he would not have served if drafted. He said that he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s and that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years. Over the last few years, however, more sweeping claims crept into Mr. Blumenthal’s descriptions, he said: for example, that Mr. Blumenthal had served in Vietnam, and had felt the sting of an ungrateful nation as he returned.
“He just kept adding to the story, the more he told it,” Mr. Shays said.
Michael Ray Jacobs, 52, is accused in federal court of wearing a naval officer's uniform on at least four occasions in March 2010. He has been charged with impersonating a Navy officer, complete with medals he never earned. Court records in the case say that he was seen in the uniform at the Oceana Naval Air Station stables, the Oceana exchange, a Navy dental clinic in Norfolk and a recruiting office. He is also charged with stealing a uniform from the Oceana exchange.
Navy officials said Jacobs never served in the Navy.
The U.S. attorney's office is prosecuting the case.
Impersonating a member of the armed forces has been a hot-button topic among veterans groups and in Congress, where a law was passed in 2006 making it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded medals and decorations for military service.
Jeremy Michael Boorda (November 26, 1939 – May 16, 1996) was an admiral of the United States Navy and the 25th Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Boorda is the only CNO to have risen to the position from the enlisted ranks. He was the first CNO who was not a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.
Boorda died May 16, 1996 a suicide, having apparently shot himself in the chest in his office while reporters from Newsweek magazine were waiting to interview him concerning his medals and awards. He reportedly left two suicide notes. He was reported to have been disturbed over a news media investigation, led by David Hackworth of Newsweek, into Valor device enhancements he wore on his Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal (small bronze "V" devices, signifying valor in combat), which the media report claimed he was not entitled to wear. He was said to be worried this issue would cause more trouble for the Navy's reputation.
A new Superior Court Judge in Norwark, CA. claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. A history professor at West Point claimed to be a Viet Nam combat vet. He was not. A Connecticut State Congressman claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. Why are all these draft dodgers and conscientious objectors claiming to be military veterans??
A panel of special masters from the California Commission on Judicial Performance(CJP) found May 15, 2001 that Judge Patrick Couwenberg misrepresented his educational and military backgrounds to various sources, including the governor who appointed him.
CJP lawyer Jack Coyle argued that Couwenberg should be removed from the bench because his lies about his military service and his educational and professional experience were a factor in his appointment to the bench.
Couwenberg’s lawyers said the judge deserved an opportunity to remain in office. They argued that his statements were not malicious, but were the product of a psychological impairment, and pointed to praise the jurist has received for his work from both prosecutors and defense attorneys who have appeared before him.
Couwenberg is continuing to hear criminal cases in Norwalk, California.
The judge has admitted that he falsely claimed to hold a master’s degree in psychology and made false claims of military experience, including an award of a Purple Heart, in Vietnam.
The special masters found that he also lied to the commission itself, in sworn testimony, by claiming to have participated in covert operations with the CIA in Southeast Asia in 1967 and 1968. Couwenberg testified that those claims are true, although he no longer maintains he was with the CIA and says he doesn’t know what agency he was looking for.
A CIA official testified that Couwenberg wasn’t working for that agency and that it’s highly unlikely that any other agency would have recruited Couwenberg for operations in Laos because no such missions were authorized.
Couwenberg claimed that some of his misstatements were intended to be humorous. Other statements, he claimed, were typed onto official forms by his wife, based on statements he had made to her 20 years earlier, a claim the masters found lacking in credibility.
A psychiatrist testified that the judge suffers from "pseudologica fantastica," a symptom of low self-esteem rooted in the judge’s early childhood in what is now Indonesia followed by difficult relocations, first to Holland and then to the United States.
The doctor said that the condition causes Couwenberg to mix fact and fantasy, but that it is treatable with therapy and doesn’t render him unfit for judicial service.
The masters, however, largely agreed with a psychiatrist called by commission lawyers at the masters’ hearing. Psychological testing data, Dr. James Rosenberg said, doesn’t show that the judge’s "repetitive lying" as an adult is due to childhood trauma, nor that he suffers from any recognized mental illness.
The CJP's removal order, issued Aug. 15 and effective Sept. 14, 2001 followed revelations that Couwenberg had, among several other things, lied about being a Vietnam veteran, receiving a Purple Heart, serving in covert operations for the CIA and earning a master's degree from California State University, Los Angeles.
Couwenberg's lawyers and doctors said the 1976 graduate of the University of La Verne College of Law in Ontario suffers from a pathological lying condition called pseudologia fantastica, which they tied to his childhood in an Indonesian concentration camp at the end of World War II.
Joseph John Ellis (born 18 July 1943 in Washington, D.C.) was a Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College and also at the U.S.Military Academy at West Point until 1972.
Ellis became the subject of embarrassing controversy when the Boston Globe published an article on June 18, 2001, revealing that Ellis lied about fighting in the Vietnam War (he served in uniform in America but did not go to Vietnam as he had claimed to his students and to the media).He claimed to have been a platoon leader and paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division. He said he served in Saigon under Gen. William Westmoreland. Ellis did not serve in Vietnam at all, according to military records obtained by the Globe Newspaper and interviews with his friends from the 1960s. He spent his three years in the Army teaching history at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Ellis also appears to have exaggerated the extent of the involvement he claims to have had in both the antiwar and civil rights movements.
Ellis also falsely claimed to have scored a winning touchdown in a decisive game while playing for his high school football team. In fact, Ellis never played for his high school team.
On June 21, 2001 Professor Ellis issued a statement saying: "Even in the best lives, mistakes are made. I deeply regret having let stand and later confirming the assumption that I went to Vietnam. For this and any other distortions about my personal life, I want to apologize to my family, friends, colleagues and students."
The trial of Webster Smith appears to have been the main attraction in a three ring circus. The Coast Guard Academy and Connecticut Congressional Representative Christopher Shays were planning to stag a show-trial for the nation to show how military academies should handle incidents of sexual assaults at the academies. Representative Shays was chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. He had organized the Washington, DC portion of the circus. He scheduled a panel entitled "Sexual Assualt and Violence Against Women in the Military and at the Academies". On the day that the star witness for the rape charge, Kristen Nicholson, was testifying at the Coast Guard Academy, a Coast Guard Admiral from the Academy was in Washington,DC at the invitation of Representative Shays to appear before his Committee.
Rear Admiral Paul J. Higgins, Director of Health and Safety, at the Coast Guard Academy was on the witness list along with the Commandants from the other military academies. The publicity from these hearings would have been enough to get Shays reelected. However, the trial did not turn out as expected. The Convening Authority for the Court-martial, the Superintendent at the Coast Guard Academy was Admiral James Van Sice. He was tried at an Admiral's Mast for inappropriate behavior and forced to retire.Then the furor surrounding this issue of sexual assault at military academies seemed to die down. This issues disappeared from the Washington,D.C. political radar scope. And Christopher Shays, a 10-term incumbent lost his re-election bid in November 2008.
When the full history of the Webster Smith case is written, it may turn out that Congressman Shays was the real author of the first court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy.
The hearings appeared to have been grandstanding on the part of Christopher Shays. For most of his life he appeared to have distanced himself from the military. He certainly wanted no part of duty in the armed forces. When push came to shove he claimed conscientious objector status. He has never worn the uniform of any military service. Shockingly, he is not alone.
A few of the men who once shouted "hell no; We won't go", are now claiming that they did. Not only are they claiming that they did go, but also that they distinguished themselves with valor, above and beyond the call of duty. Some were draft protesters, others were draft evaders, and others draft dodgers. They should not all be lumped together.
Draft protesters were often the men who burned their Draft cards in public ceremonies. Draft Dodgers took steps to violate Selective Service laws. Draft evaders were not like draft dodgers.
Some avoided conscription by taking advantage of loopholes in the Selective Service laws, a perfectly legal if not sometimes arbitrary option. In 1966 actor George Hamilton was exempted from the Draft after petitioning his own Draft Board for a deferment base on hardships at home, advising them that his mother needed him to care for her. Of course it didn't hurt his cause that at the time he was also dating the daughter of President Lyndon Johnson. And perhaps it was just such inequities in the Selective Service program that most angered the young. They were upset not so much being called to serve as they did to the fact that often the rich, the powerful, and the brightest college students escaped being called up.
Some young men sought exemption from the Draft due to special situations: sole surviving son, deferment to complete an education, and even for personal reasons such as religious prohibitions against military service. The latter are called Conscientious Objectors (C.O.) and many of them did serve in non-combat roles, at least two C.O.s earning Medals of Honor, while others belonged to faiths that prohibited even these non-combat roles.
In 2010 according to the New Haven Register, a poll was taken after news broke that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal falsely claimed on several occasions to have served in Vietnam during the war shows his Republican challengers for a U.S. Senate seat closing the gap.
Only about a quarter of voters, however, said he should withdraw from the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.
The Rasmussen telephone poll, showed Blumenthal, the leading Democratic contender, losing most of his lead over Republicans Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons.
A longer version of the video shot in Norwalk on March 2, 2008, was posted on Republican candidate Linda McMahon’s website. It showed Blumenthal correctly describing his military service before saying that he served “in Vietnam.”
“I really want to add my words of thanks,” Blumenthal tells the audience on the video, “as someone who served in the military during the Vietnam era in the Marine Corps.”
Blumenthal served stateside as a Marine reservist after receiving five deferments, reaching the rank of sergeant. On Tuesday, Blumenthal said he “misspoke” at times and regretted the errors.
Democrats in Connecticut and Washington stood by Blumenthal.
"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility," said Blumenthal. "But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
The crisis erupted when The New York Times reported that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had "served in Vietnam." The newspaper also said Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home.
At a veterans event in Shelton, Conn., for example, he said, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered," according to a 2008 Connecticut Post story.
Blumenthal, 64, joined the Marine Reserve in 1970 and served six years, none of it overseas. He put in much of his time in Washington, where he took part in such projects as fixing a campground and working on a Toys for Tots drive, according to the Times.
He received at least five military deferments that enabled him to stay out of the war between 1965 and 1970, during which time he went to Harvard, studied in England and landed a job in the Nixon White House. Once he secured a spot in the Marine Reserve, he had almost no chance of being sent to Vietnam, the newspaper reported.
Former Representative Christopher Shays and Beth Davis, former Air Force Academy Cadet.
He is a close friend of Congressman Christopher Shays, whose early political career was marked by acts of defiance. He registered for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War and acknowledges he would not have served if drafted. He said that he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s and that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years. Over the last few years, however, more sweeping claims crept into Mr. Blumenthal’s descriptions, he said: for example, that Mr. Blumenthal had served in Vietnam, and had felt the sting of an ungrateful nation as he returned.
“He just kept adding to the story, the more he told it,” Mr. Shays said.
Michael Ray Jacobs, 52, is accused in federal court of wearing a naval officer's uniform on at least four occasions in March 2010. He has been charged with impersonating a Navy officer, complete with medals he never earned. Court records in the case say that he was seen in the uniform at the Oceana Naval Air Station stables, the Oceana exchange, a Navy dental clinic in Norfolk and a recruiting office. He is also charged with stealing a uniform from the Oceana exchange.
Navy officials said Jacobs never served in the Navy.
The U.S. attorney's office is prosecuting the case.
Impersonating a member of the armed forces has been a hot-button topic among veterans groups and in Congress, where a law was passed in 2006 making it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded medals and decorations for military service.
Jeremy Michael Boorda (November 26, 1939 – May 16, 1996) was an admiral of the United States Navy and the 25th Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Boorda is the only CNO to have risen to the position from the enlisted ranks. He was the first CNO who was not a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.
Boorda died May 16, 1996 a suicide, having apparently shot himself in the chest in his office while reporters from Newsweek magazine were waiting to interview him concerning his medals and awards. He reportedly left two suicide notes. He was reported to have been disturbed over a news media investigation, led by David Hackworth of Newsweek, into Valor device enhancements he wore on his Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal (small bronze "V" devices, signifying valor in combat), which the media report claimed he was not entitled to wear. He was said to be worried this issue would cause more trouble for the Navy's reputation.
A new Superior Court Judge in Norwark, CA. claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. A history professor at West Point claimed to be a Viet Nam combat vet. He was not. A Connecticut State Congressman claimed to be a Viet Nam vet. He was not. Why are all these draft dodgers and conscientious objectors claiming to be military veterans??
A panel of special masters from the California Commission on Judicial Performance(CJP) found May 15, 2001 that Judge Patrick Couwenberg misrepresented his educational and military backgrounds to various sources, including the governor who appointed him.
CJP lawyer Jack Coyle argued that Couwenberg should be removed from the bench because his lies about his military service and his educational and professional experience were a factor in his appointment to the bench.
Couwenberg’s lawyers said the judge deserved an opportunity to remain in office. They argued that his statements were not malicious, but were the product of a psychological impairment, and pointed to praise the jurist has received for his work from both prosecutors and defense attorneys who have appeared before him.
Couwenberg is continuing to hear criminal cases in Norwalk, California.
The judge has admitted that he falsely claimed to hold a master’s degree in psychology and made false claims of military experience, including an award of a Purple Heart, in Vietnam.
The special masters found that he also lied to the commission itself, in sworn testimony, by claiming to have participated in covert operations with the CIA in Southeast Asia in 1967 and 1968. Couwenberg testified that those claims are true, although he no longer maintains he was with the CIA and says he doesn’t know what agency he was looking for.
A CIA official testified that Couwenberg wasn’t working for that agency and that it’s highly unlikely that any other agency would have recruited Couwenberg for operations in Laos because no such missions were authorized.
Couwenberg claimed that some of his misstatements were intended to be humorous. Other statements, he claimed, were typed onto official forms by his wife, based on statements he had made to her 20 years earlier, a claim the masters found lacking in credibility.
A psychiatrist testified that the judge suffers from "pseudologica fantastica," a symptom of low self-esteem rooted in the judge’s early childhood in what is now Indonesia followed by difficult relocations, first to Holland and then to the United States.
The doctor said that the condition causes Couwenberg to mix fact and fantasy, but that it is treatable with therapy and doesn’t render him unfit for judicial service.
The masters, however, largely agreed with a psychiatrist called by commission lawyers at the masters’ hearing. Psychological testing data, Dr. James Rosenberg said, doesn’t show that the judge’s "repetitive lying" as an adult is due to childhood trauma, nor that he suffers from any recognized mental illness.
The CJP's removal order, issued Aug. 15 and effective Sept. 14, 2001 followed revelations that Couwenberg had, among several other things, lied about being a Vietnam veteran, receiving a Purple Heart, serving in covert operations for the CIA and earning a master's degree from California State University, Los Angeles.
Couwenberg's lawyers and doctors said the 1976 graduate of the University of La Verne College of Law in Ontario suffers from a pathological lying condition called pseudologia fantastica, which they tied to his childhood in an Indonesian concentration camp at the end of World War II.
Joseph John Ellis (born 18 July 1943 in Washington, D.C.) was a Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College and also at the U.S.Military Academy at West Point until 1972.
Ellis became the subject of embarrassing controversy when the Boston Globe published an article on June 18, 2001, revealing that Ellis lied about fighting in the Vietnam War (he served in uniform in America but did not go to Vietnam as he had claimed to his students and to the media).He claimed to have been a platoon leader and paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division. He said he served in Saigon under Gen. William Westmoreland. Ellis did not serve in Vietnam at all, according to military records obtained by the Globe Newspaper and interviews with his friends from the 1960s. He spent his three years in the Army teaching history at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Ellis also appears to have exaggerated the extent of the involvement he claims to have had in both the antiwar and civil rights movements.
Ellis also falsely claimed to have scored a winning touchdown in a decisive game while playing for his high school football team. In fact, Ellis never played for his high school team.
On June 21, 2001 Professor Ellis issued a statement saying: "Even in the best lives, mistakes are made. I deeply regret having let stand and later confirming the assumption that I went to Vietnam. For this and any other distortions about my personal life, I want to apologize to my family, friends, colleagues and students."
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Color Blind Justice.
Color Blind Justice.
Air Force Academy Cadets Evenson, Claxton, and Cressy.
The Air Force Academy announced on January 5 that three male cadets had been charged with sex crimes stemming from unrelated incidents between February 2010 and May 2011. Academy officials said the three cases were announced together because the investigations happened to end at about the same time.
Cadet Robert M. Evenson Jr. is charged with rape. Evenson, for his part, allegedly masturbated over a cadet and ejaculated on her stomach while holding her down sometime during the month of November 2010. Between March and July of that year, he's also suspected of forcing sex "using power or strength or restraint to her person sufficient that she could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct." In addition, in February 2010, the Charge Sheet contends that he helped a cadet in an Honor case "in return for a dating relationship and sexual favors, requiring her to violate her probation in return for helping her, and threatening to harm her military career if she did not comply."
Cadet Stephan H. Claxton is charged with abusive sexual assault. Claxton is charged with illicit acts in March and November of last year. In the first, he's said to have placed a cadets hand on his penis while engaging in underage drinking. In the second, he is accused of striking a fellow cadet on the face with his fist and unbuttoning and unzipping her pants without her consent, as well as forcibly kissing and choking her.
Cadet Kyle A. Cressy is charged with aggravated assault. The Cressy incidents date to May 2011. The charges state that he penetrated a female cadet's vagina with his hand or finger, as well as his penis, while she was "substantially incapacitated."
Evenson and Claxton face other, non-sex-related counts.
The sexual assault charges against the Air Force Cadets are serious but they are not worthy of a Court-martial. Only Cadet Robert M. Evenson, Junior deserves stronger discipline. He abused his position as an Honor Code enforcer to obtain sexual favors. He should receive a Special Court-martial, not a General Court-martial. He should be held to a higher standard of conduct because he was in a position of trust. He abused that trust by taking advantage of a younger and less mature female cadet. Article 15, Non-judicial punishment, would be the appropriate forum to dispose of all the other charges. These few incidents of bad behavior should not become the most significant factors in determining their futures. Courts-martial should be reserved for terrorists and mass murderers. To bring out the big guns for such minor offenses would be a bad lesson in judgement to teach all the other cadets in the Academy.
It is not clear how many cases the Air Force Academy could have prosecuted; but, at least, they did not simply try to paint the crime with a black face.
Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, said in an interview the day of Panetta's announcement that the military culture has "run amok" and the rules for handling sexual abuse need an overhaul. She has introduced a bill that would create a separate system within the military to investigate and prosecute sex crimes.
Currently, a victim's commander might be part of the decision-making process. That creates a conflict of interest; the commander could suffer career damage if a subordinate is victimized; the commander could be a friend of the suspect; or the commander could be the suspect, Speier said.
"We've got to do something fairly dramatic to get the academies back on track and the military back on track," she said.
"How do you measure prevention?", asked Teresa Beasley, the Air Force Academy's sexual assault coordinator.
Are these cadets simply a reflection of the same social dating forces at play in American society at large? It isn't clear whether the disturbing news means sexual predation is on the rise at the Military academies. It could simply reflect the better efforts to encourage cadets to report any kind of unwanted sexual contact.
The Air Force Academy's sex assault prevention campaign starts before freshman studies begin. Among other things, cadets are told the Department of Defense definition of sexual assault includes "intentional sexual contact ... when the victim does not or cannot consent."
The breadth of the definition comes as a surprise to some.
"When they come in at basic, you see the 'deer-in-the-headlight' look — 'Wow, I didn't realize I'd been assaulted,'" said Teresa Beasley.
Coast Guard Academy Cadet Webster Smith.
The Coast Guard had more than 10 cases of rape or sexual assault prior yo 2005. All of the sexual predators were white. None were prosecuted. Then, along came Webster Smith. He was African American and several women accused him of sexual assault. The Coast Guard Academy spared no effort or expense in prosecuting him in 2006. There was an attempt to make Webster Smith the poster child of sexual assault at the Coast Guard academy. It did not work.
In the book CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady I paint an accurate picture of the Coast Guard Academy sexual predator based on actual eye witness interviews. https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com
Air Force Academy Cadets Evenson, Claxton, and Cressy.
The Air Force Academy announced on January 5 that three male cadets had been charged with sex crimes stemming from unrelated incidents between February 2010 and May 2011. Academy officials said the three cases were announced together because the investigations happened to end at about the same time.
Cadet Robert M. Evenson Jr. is charged with rape. Evenson, for his part, allegedly masturbated over a cadet and ejaculated on her stomach while holding her down sometime during the month of November 2010. Between March and July of that year, he's also suspected of forcing sex "using power or strength or restraint to her person sufficient that she could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct." In addition, in February 2010, the Charge Sheet contends that he helped a cadet in an Honor case "in return for a dating relationship and sexual favors, requiring her to violate her probation in return for helping her, and threatening to harm her military career if she did not comply."
Cadet Stephan H. Claxton is charged with abusive sexual assault. Claxton is charged with illicit acts in March and November of last year. In the first, he's said to have placed a cadets hand on his penis while engaging in underage drinking. In the second, he is accused of striking a fellow cadet on the face with his fist and unbuttoning and unzipping her pants without her consent, as well as forcibly kissing and choking her.
Cadet Kyle A. Cressy is charged with aggravated assault. The Cressy incidents date to May 2011. The charges state that he penetrated a female cadet's vagina with his hand or finger, as well as his penis, while she was "substantially incapacitated."
Evenson and Claxton face other, non-sex-related counts.
The sexual assault charges against the Air Force Cadets are serious but they are not worthy of a Court-martial. Only Cadet Robert M. Evenson, Junior deserves stronger discipline. He abused his position as an Honor Code enforcer to obtain sexual favors. He should receive a Special Court-martial, not a General Court-martial. He should be held to a higher standard of conduct because he was in a position of trust. He abused that trust by taking advantage of a younger and less mature female cadet. Article 15, Non-judicial punishment, would be the appropriate forum to dispose of all the other charges. These few incidents of bad behavior should not become the most significant factors in determining their futures. Courts-martial should be reserved for terrorists and mass murderers. To bring out the big guns for such minor offenses would be a bad lesson in judgement to teach all the other cadets in the Academy.
It is not clear how many cases the Air Force Academy could have prosecuted; but, at least, they did not simply try to paint the crime with a black face.
Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, said in an interview the day of Panetta's announcement that the military culture has "run amok" and the rules for handling sexual abuse need an overhaul. She has introduced a bill that would create a separate system within the military to investigate and prosecute sex crimes.
Currently, a victim's commander might be part of the decision-making process. That creates a conflict of interest; the commander could suffer career damage if a subordinate is victimized; the commander could be a friend of the suspect; or the commander could be the suspect, Speier said.
"We've got to do something fairly dramatic to get the academies back on track and the military back on track," she said.
"How do you measure prevention?", asked Teresa Beasley, the Air Force Academy's sexual assault coordinator.
Are these cadets simply a reflection of the same social dating forces at play in American society at large? It isn't clear whether the disturbing news means sexual predation is on the rise at the Military academies. It could simply reflect the better efforts to encourage cadets to report any kind of unwanted sexual contact.
The Air Force Academy's sex assault prevention campaign starts before freshman studies begin. Among other things, cadets are told the Department of Defense definition of sexual assault includes "intentional sexual contact ... when the victim does not or cannot consent."
The breadth of the definition comes as a surprise to some.
"When they come in at basic, you see the 'deer-in-the-headlight' look — 'Wow, I didn't realize I'd been assaulted,'" said Teresa Beasley.
Coast Guard Academy Cadet Webster Smith.
The Coast Guard had more than 10 cases of rape or sexual assault prior yo 2005. All of the sexual predators were white. None were prosecuted. Then, along came Webster Smith. He was African American and several women accused him of sexual assault. The Coast Guard Academy spared no effort or expense in prosecuting him in 2006. There was an attempt to make Webster Smith the poster child of sexual assault at the Coast Guard academy. It did not work.
In the book CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady I paint an accurate picture of the Coast Guard Academy sexual predator based on actual eye witness interviews. https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
I Will Fight No More Forever.
America's fighting men have come in many guises, shapes and sizes. They have had to fight all of America's enemies, both foreign and domestic. Cadet Webster Smith had to fight his own senior officers, friends, and mentors. In the end he was proud. He had fought the good fight. Even TIME magazine carried the quote of the first cadet in Coast Guard history to be tried by a General Court-martial.
http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1209244,00.html
Less than 60 days after the verdict was rendered in the Webster Smith case, I predicted that the case would make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court justices are not elected. They are appointed with the advice and consent of the Congress. The Nine Justices of the Supreme Court are the least democratic branch of the federal government. They have no constituency. They do not have to conform to the biases of the majority. They are the Court of Last Resort; so, they are infallible. With few exceptions, they have dealt with evenhandedly with all of America's citizens.
They do not have to sit for re-election. They are appointed for life. They are totally isolated from busy bodies on the Right or Left Side of the political spectrum. With one stroke of the pen, they may act to curb injustices, correct unsavory attitudes, and breathe new life into a living Constitution.
Historically we have looked to them to solve our most vexing social problems. They are America's ultimate arbiters of justice; and, that includes military justice.
Aside from the Webster Smith Case, I cannot think of any case or incident in Coast Guard history that affected more directly the hearts, minds, and daily lives of all members of the United States Coast Guard.
The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals had to review the Webster Smith case. It had no choice. Article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, requires the Coast Guard Criminal appeals Court to review all cases of trial by court-martial in which the sentence as approved by the Convening Authority extends to dismissal of a cadet from the Coast Guard, and/or a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, unless the accused waives appellate review. Webster Smith did not waive appellate review. He appealed his conviction. Oral arguments in the Case of The Appeal of the Court-martial Conviction of Cadet Webster Smith was scheduled for January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.
A legal brief filed by his lawyers claimed the convictions should have been thrown out because the defense team was not allowed to fully cross-examine one of his accusers during Smith's court martial. They said that meant the jury didn't hear testimony that the accuser, a female cadet, Shelly Roddenbush, had once had consensual sex with a Coast Guard enlisted man and then called it sexual assault. If she lied once, she very well could have lied again.
The Coast Guard Court of of Criminal Appeals is made up of Coast Guard Officers. It has the power to decide matter of both fact and law. Decisions of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals may be appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF). It is made up of five civilian judges, appointed to 15 year terms. It decides only issues of law. Its decisions may be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Webster Smith Case followed this long and winding path all the way to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of Webster Smith. The justices declined to hear the case without comment.
Webster Smith was proud of his decision to fight the good fight all the way to the end of the road. See TIME magazine June 29, 2006.
http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1209244,00.html
https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com
http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1209244,00.html
Less than 60 days after the verdict was rendered in the Webster Smith case, I predicted that the case would make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court justices are not elected. They are appointed with the advice and consent of the Congress. The Nine Justices of the Supreme Court are the least democratic branch of the federal government. They have no constituency. They do not have to conform to the biases of the majority. They are the Court of Last Resort; so, they are infallible. With few exceptions, they have dealt with evenhandedly with all of America's citizens.
They do not have to sit for re-election. They are appointed for life. They are totally isolated from busy bodies on the Right or Left Side of the political spectrum. With one stroke of the pen, they may act to curb injustices, correct unsavory attitudes, and breathe new life into a living Constitution.
Historically we have looked to them to solve our most vexing social problems. They are America's ultimate arbiters of justice; and, that includes military justice.
Aside from the Webster Smith Case, I cannot think of any case or incident in Coast Guard history that affected more directly the hearts, minds, and daily lives of all members of the United States Coast Guard.
The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals had to review the Webster Smith case. It had no choice. Article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, requires the Coast Guard Criminal appeals Court to review all cases of trial by court-martial in which the sentence as approved by the Convening Authority extends to dismissal of a cadet from the Coast Guard, and/or a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, unless the accused waives appellate review. Webster Smith did not waive appellate review. He appealed his conviction. Oral arguments in the Case of The Appeal of the Court-martial Conviction of Cadet Webster Smith was scheduled for January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.
A legal brief filed by his lawyers claimed the convictions should have been thrown out because the defense team was not allowed to fully cross-examine one of his accusers during Smith's court martial. They said that meant the jury didn't hear testimony that the accuser, a female cadet, Shelly Roddenbush, had once had consensual sex with a Coast Guard enlisted man and then called it sexual assault. If she lied once, she very well could have lied again.
The Coast Guard Court of of Criminal Appeals is made up of Coast Guard Officers. It has the power to decide matter of both fact and law. Decisions of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals may be appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF). It is made up of five civilian judges, appointed to 15 year terms. It decides only issues of law. Its decisions may be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Webster Smith Case followed this long and winding path all the way to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of Webster Smith. The justices declined to hear the case without comment.
Webster Smith was proud of his decision to fight the good fight all the way to the end of the road. See TIME magazine June 29, 2006.
http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1209244,00.html
https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Crime and Punishment and Military Tribunals.
Staff Sgt. Frank G. Wuterich, 31, a U. S. Marine Corps squad leader in Iraq was charged with war crimes, tried by a military court-martial, found guilty and sentenced to a maximum of 90 days in jail and a reduction in pay and rank.
He will not serve a day in jail. Because of a plea bargain with prosecutors he will avoid brig time all together. The military judge was obligated to abide by the plea bargain between prosecutors and the defense.
The bottom line is that the sentence amounts to a cut in pay and a reduction in rank to private.
As part of his guilty plea, Sgt. Wuterich accepted responsibility for giving negligent verbal instructions to the Marines under his command. He reportedly told them to "shoot first and ask questions later," which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians.
In a pre-sentencing statement, Sgt. Wuterich said when he gave that order, "the intent wasn't that they should shoot civilians. It was that they would not hesitate in the face of the enemy."
He was accused of being the ringleader in a series of November 19, 2005, shootings and grenade attacks that left two dozen civilians dead in Haditha, a city west of Baghdad.
The killings were portrayed by Iraqi witnesses and military prosecutors as a massacre of unarmed civilians -- men, women and children -- carried out by Marines in anger after a member of their unit was killed by a roadside bomb.
Defense lawyers argued the deaths resulted from a fast-moving combat situation and that the Marines believed they were under enemy fire.
Did the punishment fit the crime?
LT. William Calley was charged on September 5, 1969, with six specifications of premeditated murder for the deaths of 104 Vietnamese civilians near the village of My Lai. As many as 500 villagers, mostly women, children, infants and the elderly, had been systematically killed by American soldiers during a bloody rampage on March 16, 1968. Had he been convicted, Calley could have faced the death penalty.
It was the military prosecution's contention that Calley, in defiance of the rules of engagement, ordered his men to deliberately murder unarmed Vietnamese civilians despite the fact that his men were not under enemy fire at all.
Calley's original defense that the death of the villagers was the result of an accidental helicopter or aerial airstrike was quashed by the few prosecution witnesses. In his new defense, Calley claimed he was following the orders of his immediate superior, Captain Ernest Medina. Twenty-one other members of Charlie Company also testified on Calley's defense corroborating the orders. But Medina publicly denied giving such an order. Medina was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident at a separate trial in August 1971.
Calley was convicted on March 29, 1971, of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians. On March 31, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment and hard labor at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Of the 26 officers and soldiers initially charged for their part in the My Lai Massacre or the subsequent cover-up, only Calley was convicted.
On April 1, 1971, only a day after Calley was sentenced, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered him transferred from Leavenworth prison to house arrest at Fort Benning, Georgia. He served only three and a half years of house arrest.
In 1974, President Nixon tacitly issued Calley a limited Presidential Pardon. Consequently, his general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent parole obligations were commuted to time served, leaving Calley a free man.
Did the punishment fit the crime?
On June 26, 2006 Cadet Webster Smith pleaded not guilty in the first court-martial of a cadet in Coast Guard Academy history. The charges ranged from rape, sodomy, and extortion to assault of four female cadets.
With no physical evidence in the case, defense attorneys had hoped to persuade jurors that the testimony of the women was unreliable. There was no DNA evidence, no forensic evidence, no rape kit and no crime scene photos. It was a classic case of “he-said, she-said”. It was one cadet’s word against another.
On June 28, 2006 after about eight hours of deliberation, the panel found Cadet Webster Smith guilty of indecent assault, extortion in exchange for sexual favors and sodomy, which in military parlance includes oral sex. All those charges involved only one of the four female accusers.
He was acquitted of several charges that stemmed from alleged sexual encounters with the other three female cadets. The defense had argued that the sex was consensual and that the women had colluded against Webster Smith. They were all scorned lovers of one sort or another.
Before any charges had been filed against him, Cadet Smith had spent about six months at hard labor and pre-trial confinement. He was sentenced to an additional six months in jail at a Navy brig, and dismissal from the Coast Guard Academy. he served five months in jail and was released early because of good behavior as a prisoner.
Webster Smith appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals held oral argument on January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia; but the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) became the final decision in the case because the U. S.Supreme Court, the nation’s court of last resort, denied the appeal without comment.
Did the punishment fit the crime?
https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com
He will not serve a day in jail. Because of a plea bargain with prosecutors he will avoid brig time all together. The military judge was obligated to abide by the plea bargain between prosecutors and the defense.
The bottom line is that the sentence amounts to a cut in pay and a reduction in rank to private.
As part of his guilty plea, Sgt. Wuterich accepted responsibility for giving negligent verbal instructions to the Marines under his command. He reportedly told them to "shoot first and ask questions later," which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians.
In a pre-sentencing statement, Sgt. Wuterich said when he gave that order, "the intent wasn't that they should shoot civilians. It was that they would not hesitate in the face of the enemy."
He was accused of being the ringleader in a series of November 19, 2005, shootings and grenade attacks that left two dozen civilians dead in Haditha, a city west of Baghdad.
The killings were portrayed by Iraqi witnesses and military prosecutors as a massacre of unarmed civilians -- men, women and children -- carried out by Marines in anger after a member of their unit was killed by a roadside bomb.
Defense lawyers argued the deaths resulted from a fast-moving combat situation and that the Marines believed they were under enemy fire.
Did the punishment fit the crime?
LT. William Calley was charged on September 5, 1969, with six specifications of premeditated murder for the deaths of 104 Vietnamese civilians near the village of My Lai. As many as 500 villagers, mostly women, children, infants and the elderly, had been systematically killed by American soldiers during a bloody rampage on March 16, 1968. Had he been convicted, Calley could have faced the death penalty.
It was the military prosecution's contention that Calley, in defiance of the rules of engagement, ordered his men to deliberately murder unarmed Vietnamese civilians despite the fact that his men were not under enemy fire at all.
Calley's original defense that the death of the villagers was the result of an accidental helicopter or aerial airstrike was quashed by the few prosecution witnesses. In his new defense, Calley claimed he was following the orders of his immediate superior, Captain Ernest Medina. Twenty-one other members of Charlie Company also testified on Calley's defense corroborating the orders. But Medina publicly denied giving such an order. Medina was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident at a separate trial in August 1971.
Calley was convicted on March 29, 1971, of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians. On March 31, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment and hard labor at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Of the 26 officers and soldiers initially charged for their part in the My Lai Massacre or the subsequent cover-up, only Calley was convicted.
On April 1, 1971, only a day after Calley was sentenced, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered him transferred from Leavenworth prison to house arrest at Fort Benning, Georgia. He served only three and a half years of house arrest.
In 1974, President Nixon tacitly issued Calley a limited Presidential Pardon. Consequently, his general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent parole obligations were commuted to time served, leaving Calley a free man.
Did the punishment fit the crime?
On June 26, 2006 Cadet Webster Smith pleaded not guilty in the first court-martial of a cadet in Coast Guard Academy history. The charges ranged from rape, sodomy, and extortion to assault of four female cadets.
With no physical evidence in the case, defense attorneys had hoped to persuade jurors that the testimony of the women was unreliable. There was no DNA evidence, no forensic evidence, no rape kit and no crime scene photos. It was a classic case of “he-said, she-said”. It was one cadet’s word against another.
On June 28, 2006 after about eight hours of deliberation, the panel found Cadet Webster Smith guilty of indecent assault, extortion in exchange for sexual favors and sodomy, which in military parlance includes oral sex. All those charges involved only one of the four female accusers.
He was acquitted of several charges that stemmed from alleged sexual encounters with the other three female cadets. The defense had argued that the sex was consensual and that the women had colluded against Webster Smith. They were all scorned lovers of one sort or another.
Before any charges had been filed against him, Cadet Smith had spent about six months at hard labor and pre-trial confinement. He was sentenced to an additional six months in jail at a Navy brig, and dismissal from the Coast Guard Academy. he served five months in jail and was released early because of good behavior as a prisoner.
Webster Smith appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals held oral argument on January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia; but the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) became the final decision in the case because the U. S.Supreme Court, the nation’s court of last resort, denied the appeal without comment.
Did the punishment fit the crime?
https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com
Monday, January 23, 2012
The White House Still Stands Today Because A Black Pilot Would Not Fly His Plane Into It.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Luke Weathers Jr. was buried Friday January 20, 2012 at Arlington National Cemetery, Washington, D.C..
His son, Luke Weathers III, 61, said his father and other Black Americans who fought in World War II did so to prove they were men, "and then they wanted their country to love them, but that didn't happen, either." Friday's ceremony, however, finally delivered recognition of his father as a national hero, Weathers said.
This kind of attention to the Tuskegee Airmen is what Lt. Col. Weathers wanted throughout his life, said his daughter, Trina Weathers Boyce. Lt. Col. Weathers was not vain, but he wanted to share the lessons of the airmen's courage in war, their struggles for equality and their victory over a wartime enemy and over racism, she said.
"We are still educating people on the Tuskegee history," Trina Weathers Boyce said, "because it's a big part of American history, not African American or Black history, but American history."
That is equally true of another Black American hero, Captain LeRoy W. Homer Jr.. The victorious do not always live to celebrate their victories. In some cases it is for us the living to celebrate their achievements for them. The world may little note nor long remember what the officers, crew, and passengers of United Flight 93 did for America and western civilization on September 11, 2001, but I urge all Americans to pause and thank God that he gave us a real hero like LeRoy W. Homer Junior.
But for Captain LeRoy W. Homer Jr and the other brave souls on United Flight 93, the White House could very well have been one big black hole on Pennsylvania Avenue on that fateful day. The White House is still there in large measure because Captain LeRoy Homer would not fly his United Airlines Flight 93 into this symbol at the heart of the American Dream.
United Airlines Flight 93 was en route to San Francisco from Newark, N.J., when the hijackers took over, apparently planning to crash the plane into the White House or the Capitol. Conversations from the plane's final minutes indicate the passengers had some idea of what was happening to them and, on the words "Let's roll," stormed the cockpit in an effort to wrest control shortly before the crash.
Not much has been said in the mainstream media about LeRoy W. Homer Jr.
At an early age, LeRoy W. Homer Jr knew that he wanted to be a pilot. As a child, LeRoy assembled model airplanes, collected aviation memorabilia and read books on aviation. LeRoy was 15 years old when he started flight instruction in the Cessna 152. Working part-time jobs after school to pay for flying lessons, he completed his first solo at 16 years old, and obtained his private pilot's certificate in 1983.
In the fall of 1983, LeRoy entered the Air Force Academy, and graduated with the Class of 1987, 31st Squadron. After completing pilot training in 1988, he was assigned to McGuire AFB in New Jersey, flying the C-141B Starlifter. While on active duty, LeRoy served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and later supported operations in Somalia. He received many commendations, awards and medals during his military career. In 1993, he was named the 21st Air Force Aircrew Instructor of the Year. LeRoy achieved the rank of Captain before his honorable discharge from active duty in 1995.
LeRoy continued his military career as a reservist, initially as an instructor pilot with the 356th Airlift Squadron at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, then subsequently as an Academy Liaison Officer, recruiting potential candidates for both the Air Force Academy and the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. During his time with the Reserves, he achieved the rank of Major.
LeRoy continued his flying career by joining United Airlines in May 1995. His first assignment was Second Officer on the B727. He then upgraded to First Officer on the B757/767 in 1996, where he remained until September 11, 2001.
On September 11, 2001, LeRoy was flying with Captain Jason Dahl on United Flight 93. Based on information from several sources that day, we know LeRoy and Jason were the first to fight against the terrorist threat to the airplane. LeRoy has received many awards and citations posthumously, for his actions on Flight 93, including the Congress Of Racial Equality - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Award, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference - Drum Major for Justice Award and the Westchester County Trailblazer Award.
LeRoy was able to accomplish much in his short life. He was able to do so because of the support of his family and friends, and the encouragement of his teachers and mentors. We hope that LeRoy's life will continue to be an inspiration to those who also share the dream of flying.
LeRoy married Melodie Thorpe on May 24, 1998 in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. From that union, their daughter Laurel Nicole was born October 25, 2000.
LeRoy was known for his kind, caring disposition. He was the type of person that truly listened when you spoke. He was an exceptional individual with a wonderful sense of humor.
CAPT LeRoy Homer, United Airlines Flt. 93 on 9/11/01.
9/11 had a huge impact on United States foreign policy, on the way the Western world views Islam and on the Islamic world.
Since the crash, a group of volunteers known now as the Flight 93 ambassadors point visitors to the crash site on a previously barren wind swept field in Pennsylvania and describe what happened aboard the plane on Sept. 11, 2001. Some months they guide more than 25,000 visitors.
On that terrible day in 2001, it didn't take first responders long to realize there would be no survivors. Combing the site, all they could find at first were small pieces of aircraft — and bits of a United Airlines in-flight magazine.
"It was a pretty scary time," says a former assistant fire chief, Rick King, whose truck was the first to arrive. "I just remember driving down the road, wondering what we were about to see."
Searchers recovered only about 8 percent of the potential human remains but were able to identify everyone from the fragments they did find, said Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller.
"Most of the material was vaporized," he says.
His son, Luke Weathers III, 61, said his father and other Black Americans who fought in World War II did so to prove they were men, "and then they wanted their country to love them, but that didn't happen, either." Friday's ceremony, however, finally delivered recognition of his father as a national hero, Weathers said.
This kind of attention to the Tuskegee Airmen is what Lt. Col. Weathers wanted throughout his life, said his daughter, Trina Weathers Boyce. Lt. Col. Weathers was not vain, but he wanted to share the lessons of the airmen's courage in war, their struggles for equality and their victory over a wartime enemy and over racism, she said.
"We are still educating people on the Tuskegee history," Trina Weathers Boyce said, "because it's a big part of American history, not African American or Black history, but American history."
That is equally true of another Black American hero, Captain LeRoy W. Homer Jr.. The victorious do not always live to celebrate their victories. In some cases it is for us the living to celebrate their achievements for them. The world may little note nor long remember what the officers, crew, and passengers of United Flight 93 did for America and western civilization on September 11, 2001, but I urge all Americans to pause and thank God that he gave us a real hero like LeRoy W. Homer Junior.
But for Captain LeRoy W. Homer Jr and the other brave souls on United Flight 93, the White House could very well have been one big black hole on Pennsylvania Avenue on that fateful day. The White House is still there in large measure because Captain LeRoy Homer would not fly his United Airlines Flight 93 into this symbol at the heart of the American Dream.
United Airlines Flight 93 was en route to San Francisco from Newark, N.J., when the hijackers took over, apparently planning to crash the plane into the White House or the Capitol. Conversations from the plane's final minutes indicate the passengers had some idea of what was happening to them and, on the words "Let's roll," stormed the cockpit in an effort to wrest control shortly before the crash.
Not much has been said in the mainstream media about LeRoy W. Homer Jr.
At an early age, LeRoy W. Homer Jr knew that he wanted to be a pilot. As a child, LeRoy assembled model airplanes, collected aviation memorabilia and read books on aviation. LeRoy was 15 years old when he started flight instruction in the Cessna 152. Working part-time jobs after school to pay for flying lessons, he completed his first solo at 16 years old, and obtained his private pilot's certificate in 1983.
In the fall of 1983, LeRoy entered the Air Force Academy, and graduated with the Class of 1987, 31st Squadron. After completing pilot training in 1988, he was assigned to McGuire AFB in New Jersey, flying the C-141B Starlifter. While on active duty, LeRoy served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and later supported operations in Somalia. He received many commendations, awards and medals during his military career. In 1993, he was named the 21st Air Force Aircrew Instructor of the Year. LeRoy achieved the rank of Captain before his honorable discharge from active duty in 1995.
LeRoy continued his military career as a reservist, initially as an instructor pilot with the 356th Airlift Squadron at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, then subsequently as an Academy Liaison Officer, recruiting potential candidates for both the Air Force Academy and the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. During his time with the Reserves, he achieved the rank of Major.
LeRoy continued his flying career by joining United Airlines in May 1995. His first assignment was Second Officer on the B727. He then upgraded to First Officer on the B757/767 in 1996, where he remained until September 11, 2001.
On September 11, 2001, LeRoy was flying with Captain Jason Dahl on United Flight 93. Based on information from several sources that day, we know LeRoy and Jason were the first to fight against the terrorist threat to the airplane. LeRoy has received many awards and citations posthumously, for his actions on Flight 93, including the Congress Of Racial Equality - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Award, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference - Drum Major for Justice Award and the Westchester County Trailblazer Award.
LeRoy was able to accomplish much in his short life. He was able to do so because of the support of his family and friends, and the encouragement of his teachers and mentors. We hope that LeRoy's life will continue to be an inspiration to those who also share the dream of flying.
LeRoy married Melodie Thorpe on May 24, 1998 in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. From that union, their daughter Laurel Nicole was born October 25, 2000.
LeRoy was known for his kind, caring disposition. He was the type of person that truly listened when you spoke. He was an exceptional individual with a wonderful sense of humor.
CAPT LeRoy Homer, United Airlines Flt. 93 on 9/11/01.
9/11 had a huge impact on United States foreign policy, on the way the Western world views Islam and on the Islamic world.
Since the crash, a group of volunteers known now as the Flight 93 ambassadors point visitors to the crash site on a previously barren wind swept field in Pennsylvania and describe what happened aboard the plane on Sept. 11, 2001. Some months they guide more than 25,000 visitors.
On that terrible day in 2001, it didn't take first responders long to realize there would be no survivors. Combing the site, all they could find at first were small pieces of aircraft — and bits of a United Airlines in-flight magazine.
"It was a pretty scary time," says a former assistant fire chief, Rick King, whose truck was the first to arrive. "I just remember driving down the road, wondering what we were about to see."
Searchers recovered only about 8 percent of the potential human remains but were able to identify everyone from the fragments they did find, said Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller.
"Most of the material was vaporized," he says.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Journalist Sues Obama in New York Federal Court to Stop Indefinite Detention of American Citizens
Here is a story you will not find in the mainstream media. You will not read it in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or hear about it on CNN, MSNBC, or anywhere else.
Less than a month after the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law, President Barack Obama faces a lawsuit because of its highly controversial provisions regarding the detention of suspected terrorists.
Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint against Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on behalf of journalist Chris Hedges. The complaint states that the law violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
The $662 billion defense spending bill contained a controversial section that required terrorism suspects to be detained by the military without trial, regardless of where they were captured.
Despite language in the law that states it does not affect existing authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or others captured within the U.S., Hedges claims that it still allows the government to detain Americans indefinitely without trial.
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges explains. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
While signing the bill, Obama issued a signing statement in which he pledged that the new laws would not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. But human rights advocates said that did not prevent future administrations from abusing the law.
The complaint alleges that Hedges could fall within the scope of the law. As part of his job as a journalist, he has direct communications with persons who are likely to be deemed engaged in hostilities with the United States. The detention provisions cover anyone who has “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Hedges says that the controversial bill passed “because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.
This will render null and void the Writ of Habeas Corpus, that is, Latin for "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.
In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.
The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). Because the habeas process delays the finality of a criminal case, however, the Supreme Court in recent years has attempted to police the writ to ensure that the costs of the process do not exceed its manifest benefits. In McCleskey the Court raised barriers against successive and abusive petitions. The Court raised these barriers based on significant concerns about delay, cost, prejudice to the prosecution, frustration of the sovereign power of the States, and the "heavy burden" federal collateral litigation places on "scarce federal judicial resources," a burden that "threatens the capacity of the system to resolve primary disputes." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 467.
Less than a month after the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law, President Barack Obama faces a lawsuit because of its highly controversial provisions regarding the detention of suspected terrorists.
Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint against Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on behalf of journalist Chris Hedges. The complaint states that the law violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
The $662 billion defense spending bill contained a controversial section that required terrorism suspects to be detained by the military without trial, regardless of where they were captured.
Despite language in the law that states it does not affect existing authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or others captured within the U.S., Hedges claims that it still allows the government to detain Americans indefinitely without trial.
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges explains. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
While signing the bill, Obama issued a signing statement in which he pledged that the new laws would not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. But human rights advocates said that did not prevent future administrations from abusing the law.
The complaint alleges that Hedges could fall within the scope of the law. As part of his job as a journalist, he has direct communications with persons who are likely to be deemed engaged in hostilities with the United States. The detention provisions cover anyone who has “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Hedges says that the controversial bill passed “because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.
This will render null and void the Writ of Habeas Corpus, that is, Latin for "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.
In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.
The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). Because the habeas process delays the finality of a criminal case, however, the Supreme Court in recent years has attempted to police the writ to ensure that the costs of the process do not exceed its manifest benefits. In McCleskey the Court raised barriers against successive and abusive petitions. The Court raised these barriers based on significant concerns about delay, cost, prejudice to the prosecution, frustration of the sovereign power of the States, and the "heavy burden" federal collateral litigation places on "scarce federal judicial resources," a burden that "threatens the capacity of the system to resolve primary disputes." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 467.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
