Friday, April 13, 2012

Military Rape Epidemic... "It IS what it IS"...



This week Government Executive reported:

“Chief of Naval Operations Decries Sexual Assault Epidemic”

Even as he looks ahead to the Navy’s expanded role in global security, the chief of naval operations said the service has yet to make significant headway on one major concern.

At the National Press Club on Thursday, Adm. Jonathan Greenert said sexual assault within the Navy, and the military at large, continues unabated, and there has been little progress combating it.

We’ve had sexual assault in the Navy for years, and we’ve just not recognized it,” he said. “The whole concept of a sailor attacking another sailor, these are people we call shipmates . . . It was just foreign to me.”

Greenert, who spoke as part of the Government Executive Military Leadership Series, said service members do not yet fully grasp the significance of the problem.

“This is occurring every day, one or two a day, in my Navy -- their Navy -- where one is assaulting another, sexually assaulting another,” he said. Though the Navy has established what Greenert called a “fairly decent” reporting process, he acknowledged the military has not gone far enough.

 “What isn’t changing to satisfy me are the numbers,” he said. “We are still having these events. We’ve got to get to the left side of all this.”

The Defense Department currently is facing a lawsuit from eight women claiming to be sexual assault victims. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are going to Capitol Hill on Monday to discuss the growing concern with members of Congress, The Hill reported.

Defense has estimated that 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military in 2011, nearly six times as many as the number of reported assaults (3,191).


Food for thought:  
Can you say, “Plausible Deniability”, which is probably the same excuse Adm. Greenert would give if ever asked about the Civil Rights violations I endured, when his former command (U.S. Fleet Forces Command) mishandled the IG investigation into my IG hotline complaint several years ago.

Maybe…just maybe, the Navy needs to appoint a more competent Chief to lead its sailors. Someone who would be more proactive in addressing and combating abuse and mistreatment of our sailors. 

If this problem isn’t solved Admiral, it would only continue to weaken the integrity of OUR Navy!!

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Syneeda you are so on point about this "Bubblehead" Greenert! He's been ignoring this growing CANCER since he was in charge of the Atlantic Fleet, just like he ignored your complaint of fraud by giving all his Academy buddies a "Sturges".

He was hand-picked and groomed by his protege(s) Adm Roughead and Adm Mullen. Their ties are so deep its like a secret code from the NA.

When you are in this deep the goal is to take care of your own and others are only collateral damage, which is obviously the case with the growing number of white men and white women being raped in the Navy.

Syneeda said...

Anon, I can't agree with you more!!

Anonymous said...

Rumsfeld and Gates are just as responsible for ignoring the military rape epidemic as Mullen, Dempsey, Roughead and Greenert. At the least, Penatta is taking some sort of initiative to hold military leaders accountable, but what about the service Secretaries? Such as Mabus?!

Unfortunately both of Rumsfeld and Gates were able to walk during the first lawsuit because of the ancient Feres Doctrine.

Syneeda you’ve made some pretty interesting points in a few of your previous blog post with regards to a potential violation of each of the rape victim’s civil rights.

After the passage of the 1964 CRA and 1965 Equal Employment Opportunity Executive Order, women, blacks and other minorities earned the right to work in federal workplaces, which also considers women (of all races) members of a "Protective Class."

Since the passage of this law white women and other minorities have been able to break down barriers and compete in male dominant career fields. Unfortunately because of this success, younger “white women” feel as if they don’t need protection under the CRA. This is one of the reasons they’ve yet to further their claims against the military.
The best way to seek justice against a hate crime, which is the case of military rape, is to gain the support of community leaders, equal rights activists and civil rights leaders. Most of the perpetrators that’s raped and assaulted the military rape victims did so out of “Hate” for women and gays serving in the military.

Anonymous said...

It looks like Admiral Greenert has taken a recommendation from a comment in a previous post. Sexual assault has been going on “for years” and “we’ve just not recognized it.”
Well, admiral, I’ll tell you why you haven’t “recognized” it. First, as you said, “It was just foreign” to you. In other words, you didn’t want to see it or recognize it until it got to a point where you couldn’t ignore it any longer. Mullen ignored it, Roughead ignored it, and you would not have “recognized” it if you didn’t have to. You said that “service members do not yet fully grasp the significance of the problem.” Well, excuuuuuse me admiral, but victims are filing federal lawsuits because they recognize the significance of the problem.

It’s not the service members who don’t recognize the problem, it’s you and your predecessors who have failed to recognize the problem and take action.

I’ve been hearing a lot about the Navy’s “Queen of Denial.” Jill Loftus, as the Deputy Navy Inspector General, covered it up, denied that anything happened, and essentially created the environment where people are afraid to report the assaults. People were and are afraid of reprisal for reporting to the IG because they did not receive the protection that they should have received. That’s why most cases are not reported.

Then, you stand up another office, the Sexual Assault Prevention Response Office (SAPRO), and you promote the “Queen of Denial” into the position. What has been heard from that office? Well, admiral, I’ll tell you what I’ve heard:

I’ve heard that the increased reports of assaults is a “Good thing” as the Queen of Denial tries to spin the increase by claiming that more victims are reporting assaults but the number of incidents has not increased – a claim that just can’t be substantiated

I’ve heard that the victim is responsible for their own safety. Right, let’s deny the fact that the only difference between someone who is raped and someone who isn’t is the person committing the rape. If it makes you feel better to blame the victim, well, I guess you know why she’s called the “Queen of Denial.”

I’ve heard about Jell-O shooters…Enough said.

And, I’ve heard about providing more training to people who have been around so many years and are in very senior positions, as if to say they don’t yet know right from wrong. But, admiral, if it’s still “foreign” to you, then maybe you could use another dose of training. The victims already know right from wrong…and you’re not with the program!

We’ve heard it before. Jill didn’t do her job as Deputy IG and all she wants to offer now is more training on how to deal with “a command climate that encourages offenders.” Face the facts, Commanding officers are responsible and accountable for rape and assault at their command. If you know that they are encouraging offenders – and you do nothing – then you are derelict in the performance of your duties.

I’ve read Jill’s bio. Give her another high-level award for contributing to these problems, put her out to pasture, and get on with the business of taking care of the victims.

In the realm of those commands that encourage offenders, I’ve read a number of posts about a San Diego command, the NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center, San Diego, (formerly FISC San Diego). At least one of the posts claimed that lots and lots of taxpayer’s money was spent to initially deny sexual propositions or solicitations or misconduct of a civilian, William H. Weinfurtner. According to the post, when that effort failed, and the dirty deeds were caught on tape, lots and lots of taxpayer’s money was spent to pay-off the victim and hush the matter. This sounds like a command that encourages offenders, to the detriment of the victim and taxpayers, and it sounds like the Navy knows about these commands and has done nothing. I wonder if the commanding officer of this cover-up activity is now part of the admiral elite!

Anonymous said...

Anon,
Good point. Where is Mabus? As Navy Secretary, shouldn't he be responding to the problem? Is this his deniability...by not being involved? Isn't Mabus the secretary who appointed the Navy's Queen of Denial?

Anonymous said...

While everyone is trying to "cover" each other's ass, vice that of the rape victim (no pun intended) more and more veterans are being put in harms way. My previous statement maybe not be poitically correct but let's face it, its the truth.

Ms. "Queen of Denial" did her job as Deputy IG by "conforming" and catering to her bosses in her prodominant all male working environment, which is why she can boldly say these young women are "responsible for their own actions".

Ms. Denial, maybe these young women need you as a mentor, vices a "dictator". Help them, don't criticize them. Maybe some of these young women want to look and feel feminine (unlike yourself) so they need to be trained on how to "tune it down". Then they'll be able to SAY NO!

Syneeda said...

The more things change...the more they same stay the same!!

Anonymous said...

Jill actually has a couple of other names--she's the "Queen of Cover up" and the "Queen of Cowardice.". You see, you can only deny so long until things come back to bite you in the ass. Case in point is the rash of sexual assaults. You can't deny it anymore so it's now time to cover for those "good guys" that the Navy wants to protect and hang some others out to dry so you can pretend that you're doing something. The cowardice comes into play when you're caught in a bold-faced lie and then you crawl back into your hole and claim that counsel has advised you not to answer any questions. Of course, that leads back to Jill's other two royal names.
Can anyone explain why so much as one cent of the taxpayer's money was spent to cover for the sexual predator mentioned above, William H. Weinfurtner? I'm sure there are tax payers who want to know. Jill, would you like to explain that one now that you're in your new position? We can probably do without the Jello shooter excuse and blaming the victim.

Anonymous said...

It seems that there were five military members caught up in the Secret Service's prostitution party in Columbia. The question is, if any of the military members used the services of the prostitutes, will they be charged, prosecuted, and jailed for adultery. Let's see if the UCMJ is really applied "uniformly." Remember, it apparently doesn't matter whether you're married or not. Sex is the key!

Syneeda said...

Anon, Why would the military personnel be charged with committing adultery?

Anonymous said...

I suppose if the UCMJ was to be applied equally to all military personnel, the mere act of sex regardless of whether anyone is married or not would have to be charged. Otherwise, you would have been singled out for retaliation, right?

Syneeda said...

Anon, You don't need for me to confirm or deny your last statement, I'm sure by now you and all my readers know why I was singled out, which had NOTHING to do with sex!

Anonymous said...

It was all Bush's fault... If I don't win the lottery is Bush's fault too, I'm sure...

Syneeda said...

Anon, lol, that's a good one!

Anonymous said...

For the Anon on April 15 at 9:20AM, you’re not going to get Jill Loftus to explain anything. Even if she was in a court of law she would probably follow the lead of the now infamous Jeff Neely of GSA and state "I respectfully decline to answer any questions here today based on my Fifth Amendment constitutional privileges."

The reason that taxpayer’s money was spent to protect the sexual predator who trolled the federal workplace is because the service secretary has a virtually unlimited budget to defend him or herself against any federal lawsuit. The key difference here is that if a sexual complaint is made against a military person, and that military person doesn’t have somebody real senior covering their ass, they might as well bend over, grab their ankles, put their head between their knees, and kiss their ass goodbye. If you’re military and you know the right people, then those people simple give the order to squash any complaint. When a civilian in a military organization files a federal lawsuit, it names the service secretary. Now, the commanding officer of the organization could take action, in this case he/she could have fired the guy, now known as slick Willy, William H. Weinfurtner, for trolling the workplace soliciting sex. But, the Commanding Officer doesn’t want to have to admit that he/she fostered that environment (or was in command of an organization that encouraged that behavior)--a type of organization that Jill already knows exists, so the only thing to do is to start spending your tax dollars to cover it up and try to protect the Secretary of the Navy, in this case. The problem comes when you know it’s true (the sexual solicitation) and you keep spending the taxpayer’s money to cover it up. The original posting said that the solicitations were caught on tape, so that’s kind of hard to dispute. When you know you’ve done wrong and you continue to waste the taxpayer’s money trying to deny it, then aren’t you deliberately abusing the taxpayer? It sounds a whole lot like the GSA people spending your tax dollars for their personal benefit, except in this case it was a service secretary spending your tax dollars to bail him/herself out of a federal lawsuit in which the victim would have certainly prevailed with the recorded sex solicitations. The question becomes one of “what makes this person so special that he/she can use your tax dollars to cover his/her butt and no one else has that privilege?"

I seriously doubt that any of the Secret Service agents or military personnel caught in the Columbia scandal will be able to use the taxpayer in that way. So, isn’t it wrong to use the taxpayer to cover up this type of sexual assault or solicitation? I’m just guessing here, but this cover up probably cost more than GSA’s lavish party in Las Vegas, and many heads appear to be on the chopping block in that matter. Do the taxpayers know that their tax dollars were wasted to cover up for a sexual predator? THAT is the question!

Anonymous said...

So should the CO who aided in the cover up by wasting the taxpayer's money to pay off the victim and protect the predator be prosecuted? Anyone know who that CO might be?

Syneeda said...

Everyone knows the name of the game is "cover-up" our crimes and hope doesn't get leaked to the media... If it does, plea the 5th or plausible deniability!!