Oh. They hurt the rapist's feewings. They must be punished.

I always thought that was one of the greatest aspects of the military criminal justice system -- the harmless but graphic demonstration that the criminal is ejected from (military) society.

I'm astounded that someone would be punished for this. I thought it was still policy.

The guy's sister wanted to know where they "got the idea to do that" to the convict?

Howabout this: They all acted spontaneously upon the disgust they felt at having this animal wearing their uniform.

Notice how the rapist himself didn't even offer resistance. He knew what he did.

I thought it was something of a tradition.

Didn't they even do it in that Bugs Bunny cartoon, the one where the burly sergeant was driven to madness, and each time Bugs outwitted him the next scene began with one more stripe missing from his sleeve?

"They should have used the knife to cut off his nuts."

Well, no. True, he didn't have sex in the prescribed manner, but still, he had the right idea, and I hope to get some reproductive use out of him yet. Goodness knows your family tree and mine have probably been fertilized by a thousand rapists from way back, and we're probably the better for it. Keeping some assertiveness in the gene pool isn't an altogether bad thing. It seems better for us to assert control over the moral education of such assertiveness than to eliminate it altogether. My way actually shows less of an impulse to impose my will on others, less of the rapist's impulse.

As it happens, I'm acquainted with a couple who have just adopted a baby conceived in a rape. I'm told he's a very strong baby, able to turn himself over after just a few weeks, already attempting to crawl, and likely to be a very early walker. This seems to be the place to thank his father for his contribution.

WTF?

"WTF?"

I know. If you can be more specific, I'll try to help.

Phinn, it is something of a tradition (although I'm going to have to ask my Army pals if it's still around).

When a soldier disgraces the uniform, everything is stripped off in a ceremony - rank insignia, medals or ribbons, buttons - short version is they turn it into a non-uniform.

If you're old enough, you'll remember Chuck Connors in an old TV western called "Branded" (they even broke his sword in half - supposedly he had committed an act of cowardice in the face of the enemy, but really he was unconscious, and became the lone survivor of an Indian attack).

anyway.

oh, I caught it in re-runs. shut up all of you

Arafel's why I approve of freedom of speech. It's easier to identify sociopaths when they reveal themselves openly.

yeah, Arafel, that was fairly creepy.

This kinda thing (immediately stripping rank/medals post-verdict) is considered the textbook case of illegal punishment in the armed forces.

The reason is that the defendant still officially retains his rank until his appeals have been exhausted. Only then does the official bad conduct discharge and loss of rank actually go into effect.

You might chafe at the formalism of treating criminals so delicately, but the escorts should have known better. Like I said, this is the most basic of military law. Tearing off the chevrons post trial is like a cop not giving a Miranda warning - people groan when the criminal benefits from it, but it was nonetheless an inexcusable dumbass moment for the cop.

It's not done this way anymore. Your uniform is stripped when you're not wearing it. The guys in Leavenworth wear blank uniforms, with just a name tag, because of the dishonor. And they're not allowed to salute, because their salute means nothing.

The link is down (traffic?), but I think the story said that this was a sentence pursuant to a plea agreement.

In civilian courts, a plea agreement means you waive all appeals (except as to any pre-trial motions you may have lost, like evidence suppression).

In Leavenworth, are military prisoners segregated from all the other civillian sociopaths?

I would not compare the stripping of his chevrons with not giving Miranda rights since it has nothing to do with the evidence presented at his trial.

Phinn,

Plea agreements only waive substantive evidentiary claims by defendants, not procedural issues, and courts martial have tons of procedural hoops beyond what civilian courts do.

The the military prison (United States Disciplinary Barracks) is a completely separate facility from the federal prison (the United States Penitentiary). The USDB is located on the Fort Leavenworth cantonment. The USP isn't.

As for the comparability between stripping rank and Miranda, they are perfectly analagous within their contexts, because each of them requires a different remedy for the criminal.

Miranda impacts the trial process, so it merits an overturning of the verdict. Stripping rank is counted as a form of illegal punishment, so it leads to a reduced sentence.

The point is that both of them are rules that are basic and obvious to the people who are supposed to follow them, and it's really lame when those people make those kinds of mistakes. Even when it's annoying that a truly ugly criminal gets some benefit because of it.

The reason is that the defendant still officially retains his rank until his appeals have been exhausted. Only then does the official bad conduct discharge and loss of rank actually go into effect.

Tearing off his stripes is purely symbolic, and has nothing to do with whether or not the rapist still has his rank. Promotions and demotions are administrative functions. Chew out the rank strippers as appropriate, make them promise never to do it again, and be done with it.

I assume that the court has the discretion on the amount of any sentence reduction required because of the improper stripping. A half-day reduction not to include lunch should suffice.

oh, I caught it [Branded] in re-runs. shut up all of you

Yeah, me too.

Branded!
Scorned as the one who ran.
What do you do when you're branded,
And you know you're a man?

And wherever you go
for the rest of your life
You must prooooooooove ...
You're a man!

Keeping some assertiveness in the gene pool isn't an altogether bad thing.

Assertiveness? Or mental illness?
Do you think rape is a crime of feistiness?

This is treading on thin ice, I know, but why the fuck are we letting females into the armed forces if they can't even fight off a lone rapist?

If getting raped is an issue, she shouldn't be in the military. Kinda like the dumbshits in Operation Tailwind whose *gasp* breasts were inappropriately touched.

Are these really the people we need standing between us and the hordes of suicidal enemy bastards, who gladly break every rule of civilization?

Yeah, I know. Me caveman. Oogah oogah.

and that the defense will accordingly ask a “substantial reduction” in Reynolds’ sentence.

I fail to see how any minor additional suffering this p.o.s. rapist endured by having his uni stripped is grounds for reducing the time he spends behind bars.

Arafel, assert this.

Reducing the criminal's sentence over this would be an injustice.

But as for punishing these guys for their actions, the military has reasons for expecting soldiers to follow procedures exactly. It may sound harsh, but they are soldiers.

US military courts are generally more fair than our civilian courts. (If you're guilty, you want a civilian trial; if you're innocent, you want a military trial.) But this didn't happen by accident. It happened as a result of strict discipline and devotion to detail and procedure, dotting every I and crossing every T. That's what we're seeing here, and it's a good thing.

Hey, Dogstar? you might not be able to fight off a lone rapist.
Maybe he came into the laundry room and knocked her in the freakin' head.

If you're worried about them standing between you and the bad guys, go enlist.

Dogstar, that was Operation Tailhook, the traditional annual Naval Aviation party in Las Vegas the Clintons and their lackeys managed to ruin.

TailWIND was a MACV-SOG job in Laos that CNN claimed was out to kill American deserters and the one of the now-clinically "troubled" officers of claimed involved the use of nerve gas. I worked e-mail relay for some of the SOG vets when we were spamming CNN and all the media we could find. Caused the cancellation of "CNN-Time".

Maybe he came into the laundry room and knocked her in the freakin' head.

Doesn't matter. You're missing the point. Women should not be in the military, period.

They don't have the speed, strength, endurance or resistance to disease that men have.

Sorry, but it's a fact of life. And since homos aren't allowed either, the concept of male-male rape is virtually non-existent.

The military exists for one reason only- to kill as many of our enemies as possible. It is not an equal-opportunity jobs program.

Sure. Soldiers beam over to where enemies need to be shot, then beam out again. That's how it works.

You're talking out your ass. Go watch a war movie- it's as close as you'll ever get.

As a junior officer in the Army, I have been present at many Article 15 hearings, and have presided over a few summary court-martials (at least one level below what the rapist got, possible two level. The article isn't clear on whether this was a Gereral Court Martial or a Bad Conduct Discharge Court Martial). Once the Commander or Court Martial determined the sentance (which almost always consisted of reduction in rank) his rank was cut off on the spot. This was usually done by the soldier's immediate supervisor. This guy pled guilty to all charges, and therfore did not plan to appeal.

Oh, and Dogstar: don't blame the victim, for God's sake. It isn't her fault she couldn't fight off the rapist, nor is it the military's fault for putting women in uniform.

Given my experiance with problem soldiers, and noting that this guy couldn't have been in the Army longer than two years, I am willing to bet he was a thug before he came in and probably was aware of "the concept of rape" before he joined.

Sure. Soldiers beam over to where enemies need to be shot, then beam out again. That's how it works.

WTF???

I'm not trying to blame the victim, I'm pointing out a weakness in our military system.

Sexual integration for the military is just plain stupid. Look at the reasons for keeping homosexuals out- they apply even more so for women.

Why do we have two different standards of physical fitness for military recruits? Why do we have two different training regimes for recruits? If that isn't an admission that women are inferior, physically, to men, what is?

With regards to the issue of alleged recruiting shortfalls, the answer is simple- raise the pay and benefits. If the Bush administration had the balls to announce 1% cuts in farm subsidies, foreign aid, welfare payments and all other discretionary spending, with the ironclad guarantee that the money saved would go directly to increasing the pay and benefits of all military personnel drawing field duty, the American people would back him 101%. This would be a HUGE increase, and would provide enough incentive to dramatically increase enlistments.

I guess everything I'm saying is too far off-topic; evidently some posters think I'm either excusing the rapist's behavior or demonizing the victim. I'm doing neither; just pointing out another example of the counter-productivity of social engineering being forced upon the military.

"Arafel's why I approve of freedom of speech. It's easier to identify sociopaths when they reveal themselves openly."--Lapsed Leftist

The sociopaths ought to be too self-centered to reveal themselves openly; after all, what's in it for them? Whatever the sociopaths know, I imagine they keep to themselves, and although I can't condone their reticence, I do understand it. On the contrary, it's a sign of some determination to benefit others, if one pronounces a repugnant truth in public.

"Yeah, Arafel, that was fairly creepy."

Acknowledged.

Seriously, Dogstar, the proportion of the military actually tasked with directly killing people and blowing shit up is incredibly small. And notice that those people AREN'T allowed to be women.

You won't find someone more willing to concede the differences in the male and female condition than me. I know that I'd be labeled a knuckle-dragging sexist for a lot of the stuff I believe about the separation between the sexes. But even I can't think of a good reason to not allow women in all kinds of support roles, like JAG, med corps, administration, etc - ie, the stuff that makes up about 95% of the military.

None of those people have to be willing and able to slit a 200 pound guy's throat at the drop of a hat. At that point you're just cutting a huge portion of the talent pool.

Guess I need to flesh out my argument some more. You're right about the support staff; nurses, typists, clerks, secretaries, etc. have been in the military for decades.

I think the military is putting women a lot closer to the action than you say, though. There's a lot of women in Iraq right now, out on patrol. There are a lot of women in the Navy, getting knocked up on ships all over the world. This is the kind of stuff that is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

There were female POWs in the Gulf War in 1991. One talked about getting felt up right after she got captured, when she had a broken arm.

He's lucky he didn't get what Danny Deever got.
TFB, IMHO.