BLOWBACK

Rape in the U.S. military

How a fraternal culture and a habit of blaming the victim leave sexual violence unexamined and unpunished.
By Lucinda Marshall
January 30, 2008
» Discuss Article    (5 Comments)

Anne K. Ream's recent Op-Ed sheds much needed light on how the U.S. military continues to trivialize rape and sexual assault committed by members of the armed forces. Writing about whether a man who is convicted of rape in a civilian court should still be entitled to a traditional military funeral, Ream points out that although barring full honor burials in such a situation is largely a symbolic act, "the military policy of allowing honors burials for veterans convicted of rape sends a chilling message to victims: Even the most heinous sexual violence does not trump prior military service."

The case Ream refers to is not an isolated incident of fraternal militarism being used to excuse sexual violence. In a recent court case in Lebanon, Penn., an Army Reserve sergeant was convicted of indecent assault after rape charges were dropped when fellow soldiers who were present at the incident refused to cooperate with police. Responding to the verdict, the defendant's attorney said she thought he should have been cleared of all charges. "After all, he did serve his country."

Unfortunately, this mind-set is consistent with the Pentagon's very poor record of prosecuting sexual assault and rape within the ranks while at the same time disregarding and further victimizing those who report these heinous crimes. To put these cases in perspective, there were 2,947 reports of sexual assaults in the military in 2006, an increase in reports of 24% over 2005. However, very few of these cases tend to be prosecuted. A Pentagon report [PDF] in March 2007 found that more than half of the investigations dating back to 2004 resulted in no action. When action was taken, only one third of the cases resulted in courts-martial.

Indeed, in many cases, the military seems more intent on intimidating and harassing the victims than investigating and prosecuting the charges. In 2004, after Lt. Jennifer Dyer reported being raped by a fellow officer at Camp Shelby, Miss., she said she was held in seclusion for three days, read her Miranda rights and threatened with criminal prosecution for filing a false report. After finally being given two weeks leave, she was threatened with prosecution for being AWOL when she would not report for duty to the same location where the man she had accused — who was later acquitted on assault charges — was still posted.

Lance Cpl. Sally Griffiths was also accused of lying after she reported being raped by a fellow Marine while stationed in Okinawa, Japan. It wasn't until she got access to her case file and found a statement by the Marine that confirmed her story that she was able to obtain the discharge she sought. The Marine she accused was never prosecuted. He continued to serve in the military and was promoted several times.

After Army Spc. Suzanne Swift went AWOL instead of staying in the same unit as the soldiers who she accused of sexually harassing her, the Army court-martialed her when she refused a deal that would have forced her to remain in the military and sign a statement saying she had not been raped.

More recently, there have been the well-publicized cases of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, who was murdered after accusing another Marine of rape, and Jamie Leigh Jones, who says that she was gang-raped while working for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq. Jones claims that after she reported her rape, the company put her in a shipping container and warned her that she would lose her job if she left Iraq for medical treatment. The rape kit collected by military medical personnel was lost after it was turned over to Halliburton/KBR. The Pentagon has refused to investigate or to testify before Congress.

In allowing convicted rapists to be buried with full honors, the military continues to perpetuate the culture of impunity that allows soldiers to commit sexual violence with little worry of being brought to justice. As Ream concludes, it is sadly ironic that even though rape and sexual violence are now considered war crimes, our own military persists in practices that perpetuate those crimes. Unfortunately, this is merely one more example of the misogyny implicit in military culture. Women's bodies and lives have always been considered the spoils of war. The military's continuing disregard and disrespect for the safety of women's lives even within their own ranks, and in disregard of international law, should give us pause to wonder just whose freedom we are protecting.

Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer, activist and founder of the Feminist Peace Network.




Post Comment

Name
Enter your comments and post to forum
By participating you agree to our Terms of Service and represent that you are not under the age of 13.
 
Discussion


Should convicted rapists receive military burials? Discuss today's Blowback.

Comments will close after two weeks.
 
1. Marshall's suppositions and broad generalizations are indicative of a person not familiar with the military. If the military is not as enthusiastic about prosecuting rape cases as the civilian sector, it is not because of misogny but because of its decentralized legal system and its refusal to reverse the time honored practice of assuming the accused is innocent until proven guilty (ref: Duke Rape Case).
Submitted by: Bill D
12:01 PM PST, Jan 30, 2008
 
2. I don't believe that convicted rapists should be able to receive military burials. If you are convicted of rape that should lead to a dishonorable discharge and therefore lose all rights to military benefits. Unfortunately, this is still a man's world and rape has always been one of those "he said, she said" crimes, when there is little to no proof. Rape is one of the most horrific crimes that can be committed against another person. It is something that stays with that person for the rest of their lives, no matter how hard they try to repress it.
Submitted by: Nick
11:59 AM PST, Jan 30, 2008
 
3. A ridiculous response to your editorial was posted on VetVoice.com. Here’s my response to his article. …your response is a knee-jerk reaction to a well written article. The editorial does NOT say military folk are all rapists, it says the US military is still not dealing appropriately with rapists. A woman was violently raped on Ft Stewart, GA while I was stationed there and the base commander decided to solve the problem by putting all the female soldiers on a curfew. I guess big daddy was trying to “protect us.” More at http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=477#3211
Submitted by: An angry response was posted on VetVoice
11:23 AM PST, Jan 30, 2008
 




Steven Landsburg says owners are walking away. Doug Henwood says it's not that simple. Discuss 

   
The best in Southern California opinion journalism, Monday through Friday
Should he? Would he? Could he?
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cuts state workers' pay to minimum wage;...
more »
Jon Healey on Hollywood's love-hate relationship with technology.
Yahoo pulls an MSN Music (only faster)
This afternoon, Yahoo alerted customers of its erstwhile downloadable music...
more »
 

ADVERTISEMENT



One morning's cooking means deliciousness well into the week. Recipe