The military continues to demonstrate how inept they are at handling sexual assault, this time at the US Naval Academy

A female US Naval Academy midshipman testified for the first time last Wednesday explaining what happened at an off campus party where she alleges she was sexually assaulted by three fellow midshipmen. The three men, Tra’ves Bush, Eric Graham, and Joshua Tate, are accused of assaulting her on April 14, 2012. The female midshipman described waking up with few memories of the previous night and with back pain. She claims she was disheveled and didn’t know what had happened. She testified that later that day, Tate told her she had sex with him and Graham. According to Ali Weinberg at NBC News, she said:

“’He was like, ‘What? You don’t remember?’ she said. ‘He told me that we had sex and he was going to have to refresh my memory.’”

“’He was laughing,’ she added, ‘then I was like, ‘I don’t want to hear anymore.’”

I wanted to share her words and hopefully, those who read this blog will be able to empathize with how terrifying it is to wake up and not know what happened to you and know that other people are enjoying your pain and discomfort. But to continue with the story…The female midshipman was drinking heavily the day of her attack, and she was under the legal drinking age at the time. The off campus party was held at the “Football House” and was a “Togas and Yogas” theme with hundreds of people present.

According to the female midshipman, her memory fades in and out over the course of the evening. She remembers dancing and sitting on a bed with Bush standing over her. She noted she and Bush ended a causal sexual relationship recently. During cross-examination, Bush’s defense counsel asked her if they had sex, and she said she couldn’t remember, but he had told Naval Criminal investigative Service (NCIS) had sex. The female midshipman said she later remembered being in a car with Tate, Graham, and another classmate, where she repeatedly said, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” But she remembered nothing else of the car ride; the next thing she remembered was falling asleep on a couch inside the house. The following day she woke up, another Navy football player was cleaning up the house, she told him her back hurt, and they had eventually consensual sex. He suggested she get a ride back to the Academy with his friends in the car she recognized from the night before. Inside the car, she noticed an empty condom wrapper.

The woman wanted to figure out what happened the night before so she sent Tate a text inviting him over to fill her in. She noticed references on social media about an unnamed woman. After Tate arrived, the conversation shown above occurred, and she asked him if she had sex with Graham. He responded that she had been “too turnt up,” and said she had sex with Graham. She told Tate she didn’t want to hear anymore, but didn’t make him leave her room. They both checked social media, during which she saw he had tweeted, “’The train tickets were on the low,’ suggesting, the woman said, that she was ‘easy to drive a train through,’ meaning to have sex with multiple partners one right after the other.”

Of course, being social media, rumors started flying, and the following Wednesday, the woman broke down and went to the Brigade Medical Unit on campus and explained to an employee she had sex over the weekend, without a condom, and didn’t know who her partner(s) were. The alleged victim was reluctant to come forward for several reasons claiming she didn’t want to disappoint her mother or make a big deal out of it. She said, “I guess I just didn’t have the courage.”

However, once she found out NCIS was targeting people she knew were not involved she made her first sworn statement in September 2012. She held back information and told the NCIS she didn’t want to cooperate completely. In January 2013, she made the decision to fully cooperate via wiretapped conversations, one of which includes Tate indirectly acknowledging they had sex that night in April.

Bush’s lawyer, Andrew Weinstein has suggested the woman’s behavior in the bedroom with Bush was flirtatious and that their previous encounters had been consensual. Since I seem to have to remind everyone today, having sex with someone once or even a hundred times doesn’t give them a right to your body always. If she was intoxicated or refused sex, then it was rape even if they had consensual sex before. I'm not sure why it is so hard to ask permission, but apparently it is. Weinstein also brought up the alleged victim’s prescription for anti-nausea drug promethazine, which could have been in her system the night of the attack. It can have side effects such as dizziness and muscle stiffness. Weinstein concluded by saying the woman may face perjury charges for neglecting to correct an erroneous point in the NCIS sworn statement about a diagnosis after her visit to the Brigade Medical Unit. She told NCIS she hadn’t received a diagnosis, but she had a positive diagnoses, but of what we don’t know yet. The final NCIS statement asserted the woman hadn’t been diagnosed with anything, but that isn’t what she told NCIS; she told the two midshipmen that she hadn’t been diagnosed with anything. However, she didn’t correct that detail when the statement was submitted.

Bush’s lawyer, Andrew Weinstein, has questioned the motivation of the alleged victim’s private lawyer, Susan Burke who has been vocal on sexual assaults in the military. He accuses her of taking the case for publicity. 

This case is pretty high profile given President Obama’s remarks about sexual misconduct in the military and of course the public scrutiny of the handling of sexual misconduct in the military. The military believes sexual assault have jumped up 37% in 2012 to roughly 26,000 cases, but I think that is a conservative figure. Also, the likelihood that these sexual assaults just started to occur is unlikely however, people may be more receptive to reporting them. Of course, most sexual assaults in civilian life go unreported. Congress has several pieces of legislation working their way around to deal with the reporting and prosecution structure of sexual military code violations. Obviously, cases like this one and well all of them, draw negative public attention.

However, up to this point this is a case, right? Things are sketchy, and we don’t know what really happened. I’m not asserting guilt here. Though I’m inclined to believe the alleged victim given what I know about the case and the shaky, victim blaming defenses I’ve heard. Additionally, the hyper masculine culture that the military (all aspects of it) employ breed sexual violence and violence in general.  So what it my problem? Oh the US Naval Academy’s superintendent, Vice Adm. Michael H. Miller. According to Annys Shin, a lawsuit was filed in US District Court in Baltimore “alleges that Miller made it clear in comments to returning midshipmen that the administration was unhappy about the negative publicity the case had received.”

Burke asserts that Miller made it difficult for her client to come forward with the sexual assault allegations, did nothing to protect her client from harassment from other midshipmen, or punish the accused for comments their allegedly made on social media about the alleged sexual encounters with her client. The complaint alleges Miller is showing bias by forcing the alleged victim to endure long and hostile cross-examination during an Article 32 hearing, which is the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding. Miller agreed to charge the three men in June 2013 based on the recommendations by Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials. Miller is also tasked with deciding whether the case will go to court-martial based on the evidence gathered during the Article 32 hearing.

Some of the questions that are generating concern include those focusing on questions about the alleged victims attire, how she danced, and how she performs oral sex. Burke argues that the “invasive and scathing tone of the cross-examination ‘rose to the level of abuse.’”

Ok kids, a few things that strike me as things we should all know, but let’s go over them:

1. Sexual history with someone (or anyone at any time in history) doesn’t give them (or anyone else) a right to your body. Partners can sexually assault their partners. In this case the casual relationship between the alleged victim and one of the accused was over before the assault. This is irrelevant.
2. The alleged victim’s clothing and behavior do not matter. They are not relevant except if she gave consent. Otherwise these are victim blaming tactics, and they should have no place in a court room or anywhere. This is irrelevant.
3. The “witnesses,” I’m not aware of anyone witnessing sexual acts between the alleged victim or the accused. So anyone testifying about the alleged victim’s behavior has an opinion and to quote Salt-N-Pepper, “opinions are like asshole, and everybody’s got one,” but unless they witnessed the acts they aren't witnesses to anything other than character or worse they didn't intervene in a sexual assault. This is irrelevant.
4. Victims of sexual assault and other trauma are usually reluctant to come forward. This often hurts their cases. However, we also know most sexual assaults aren't reported because of shame, self-blame (can’t imagine in our culture where that would come from), fear, etc. So it comes down to the Article 32 hearing and if they believe the alleged victim’s story and explanation of her reluctance to come forward and participate fully in the investigation. This is unfortunately relevant.
5. The agenda of the alleged victim’s lawyer. I can’t say what I make of this. I’d be surprised if you could find a lawyer in the Mid-Atlantic without an opinion on sexual assault in the military right now. It is a hot topic. If this lawyer is coaching her client, though no evidence suggests this that might be grounds for disbarment because she’d be supporting perjury. If the alleged victim’s lawyer has an opinion, well then this is irrelevant.

A brand new day in the US Roman Catholic Church or not so much

Well, more things just got bad. Anyone want to tell me again how the Catholic Church is making a comeback? Ian Millhiser has a piece on ThinkProgress about the federal ruling that grants the Catholic Church (maybe all religious institutions) sweeping immunity from federal bankruptcy law and it isn't clear whether it would permit any plaintiff to successfully sue any church in any court.

The issue at the heart of this case is whether over $50 million in church funds are shielded from bankruptcy proceedings triggered by the flood of clerical sex abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Judge Rudolph Randa views the church's constitutional and legal right to religious liberty broad enough to render religious institutions immune from much of the law. Well, that's not good.

The case involves the $57 million that former Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan transferred from the archdiocese's general accounts to trusts set up to maintain the church's cemeteries. Dolan is now a cardinal, the Archbishop of New York and the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He denies moving the funds to shield them from lawsuits. However, he penned a letter to the Vatican in 2007 explaining the transfer into a trust led to "an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability."

The issue is whether the funds were put into a separate trust that can be reabsorbed into the archdiocese's assets to allow sex abuse victims and other creditors to be paid using these assets. The decision relies on a law that puts a limit on the feds ability to "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." Randa cites Dolan's statement that "the care and maintenance of Catholic cemeteries, cemetery property, and the remains of those interred is a fundamental exercise of the Catholic faith" thus this statement is enough to shield the church's funds.

Randa continues to argue the church officials get to unilaterally decide what is a "substantial burden" on their faith for purposes of federal law. Milhiser points out nothing stops the church from declaring every line in every ledger is the sacred word of God and therefore everything owned by the church is out of bounds. Taken to the logical conclusion, Randa's framework allows the church to run up debts, then protect the entirety of assets from creditors via creative accounting and bankruptcy filing. However, Randa isn't done, instead he turns to the First Amendment, and concludes that the church has a constitutional right to shield funds, and thus he strips Congress of the ability to correct his interpretation of the law in conflict with Supreme Court precedent. Randa is pretty conservative and was appointed by George H. Bush and has a history of being reversed by the higher courts. However, until then the church was placed above the law. So buckle up.

Just a reminder that the Catholic Church performs as a corporation that hides sexual predators and now resorts to desperate measures to get out of restitution. It is a brand new day in the church that looks an awful lot like yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, etc.

Unbreakable: A truly amazing project

Project Unbreakable is a project that allows victims of sexual abuse to empower themselves through the language used while victimizing them. Grace Brown, a student at The School of Visual Arts in New York, thought of this project in October after a friend confessed that she had been sexually assaulted. This wasn't the first time someone disclosed to her, and as it turns out not the last time either. 


The next morning Brown had an idea of how to deal with these sexual assaults while empowering the victims. She asked participants to write words that their attackers had used on cardboard and photographs them aiming to diffuse the strength of the words and assist in the healing process. 


Brown said: 

"It's not something that you really think about. A survivor can tell their story of abuse to someone but the words are never really said," she said. "They bury themselves in a pit in their stomach and then it's forgotten about. You realise this is something a human said to another human; it's very important that they not hold onto those words because they are incredibly powerful."

After 5 months, survivors from around the world are uploading their own photographs to the website in addition to the subjects Brown shoots. 


Ashley Ray, one of the subjects described the photo as freeing: 

"Taking the picture was like ripping off a band-aid. I barely even remember it. Afterwards I felt emotionally drained but there was a weight lifted off of me," she said. "I had a panic attack the first time I saw my picture in print. But after working through that, I'm in a place where I can feel proud to be part of something that has healed me and is healing others. I'm truly grateful every time I see that picture. It's a piece of me that is no longer hiding in shame and guilt. It's a beautiful scar."

I don't even know where to begin with the amount of amazing this project is. I wasted quite a bit of time on the site, trying to read everything that was posted. 

Ordaining Women the same as the Sexual Abuse of Children?

Can someone explain to me how ordaining women as priest in the Roman Catholic Church as the same as sexual abuse of minors?

Oh silly Church. I'm pretty disturbed by this whole thing. Mostly, because equating these two things seem so monumentally asinine that it is a challenge to comprehend. Yep, ordaining women is the same as heresy, schism, and sexual abuse of minors by the clergy. Of course, any bishop who ordains a woman will be excommunicated with the woman being ordained.

The article also notes that these revisions were to a decree from 2001; the many purpose of which was to take on the sexual abuse scandals.

This is a pretty chilling idea that women being priests is as detrimental to the Church as sexual abuse. I'm really at a loss for words.