Ed smells a rat because of the grant of immunity:
It's the grant of immunity to the three men that they will use as their star witnesses that smells. If they told the truth, why do they need immunity from a charge that they've already pled guilty to? And if the Air Force prosecutors grant that immunity, they have to believe that a more serious charge could be leveled against them -- and in that case, why prosecute the woman?During my time in the Navy, which occured around the time of the Tailhook fiasco, a female shipmate of mine was essentially hounded out of our unit after she alledged a sexual assault. Part of the problem was, no witnesses, her lack of a desire to testify and her past history.
Admittedly, she was less than discrete about her sexual history, but the treatment she received at the hands of the Navy was tantamount to a sexual assault. Essentially, because she was a little too promiscuous for the unit's taste, she was treated poorly. Even a couple of our officers made rude comments about her, to the point once where I, as an enlisted man, had to caution the officers to keep their yaps shut.
To say that the Air Force's treatment of this woman is a surprise would be a lie. Despire all the advancements the military has made regarding women in the service, there is still something of a double standard when it comes to sex offenses and there is still something of a "blame the victim" mentality when it comes to sexual assault, particularly if the woman was either sexually aggressive or sexually promiscuous. While her personal choices may have an impact on the unit and she can and should be disciplined for that in a NJP setting, or perhaps transferred, this particular incident smells a little to much for me as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment