When we first read the lede in a military newspaper's article about Don't Ask Don't Tell, we quickly scanned the page for a notation that this was a piece of satire. But we didn't find one in Stars and Stripes, the unofficial official rag for service members, their families, and the military community, when it reported some gay soldiers are filing false sexual harassment charges against their lovers to avoid being kicked out under DADT.
The case at hand centers around 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment soldier Spc. Raymond A. Verrill, who's defense against a sexual assault claim is that the 20-year-old private making the charges made the whole thing up. But the unidentified alleged victim? He says he was passed out in bed — Verrill's bed — back in January when he awoke to Verrill performing oral sex on him; Verrill, who is married with kids, maintains the act was consensual.
But if Verrill's side of the story is true, why would his accuser make this up? Because a little policy called Don't Ask Don't Tell would ensure they were both kicked out of the military for being gay if anyone found out. By inventing the sexual assault charge, Verill's defense team argues, the victim can maintain his position on the "right" side of the policy, i.e. that he's straight.
For what it's worth, the accuser wrote a letter saying he forgives Verrill and doesn't want to see him prosecuted, but maintains the sex act was not consensual. But will that influence Verrill's case? The 36-year-old, reports Stripes, "faces a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole after being accused of abusive sexual contact, forcible sodomy and making a false official statement." (Forcible sodomy for oral sex?)
The legal experts’ opinions, presented at the hearing by Verrill’s defense lawyers, do not address the specific facts of Verrill’s case but they examine the issue of false sexual assault claims by gay military personnel.
Bridget Wilson, a California lawyer who represents gay and bisexual servicemembers, said in her affidavit presented to the hearing’s investigative officer that she was aware of many cases in which parties clearly consented to sex but where a claim of assault arose from one party’s fear of the potential consequences if their homosexual conduct were to be known to others.
Discovery of the conduct virtually guarantees that the servicemembers involved will be separated, she said in her affidavit.
"The current regulations on homosexual conduct, because they mandate the separation of these persons who engage in homosexual conduct with very limited exceptions, provide a powerful motive to claim a particular sexual incident was not consensual," she said. "If the acts are not consensual, that individual will not face separation and the loss of a career."
John Hutson, the dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire — and a former judge advocate general of the Navy — also wrote the investigating officer, advising him to consider how the "don’t ask don’t tell" policy has influenced the way some servicemembers interact with one another.
"It would be important to consider the stigma that comes when a servicemember fears that his or her peers or commander will discover sexual activity in violation of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy," he wrote.
PHOTOS: On the Farm With Tom (40)
· Republican says: Meh. Very average, IMO. I’m surprised that some people say they’re... »
Refuting Each of Maggie Gallagher’s Flimsy 8 Points Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Inevitable (20)
· onefish says: Queerty, there is no intellectual honesty in your responses to Maggie. You have not... »
The ‘Rihanna Would Go For Another Girl’ Quote That’s Flying Around (6)
· Oscar Portela says: LEVY POULTER poema de OSCAR PORTELA Solo tu Levi, solo el fugaz relámpago De la... »
A Quick and Quiet End to Clay Aiken’s Voter Fraud Scandal (4)
· Janie says: WOW……..you sure don’t like Clay do ya…..could you be more... »
· BradSA says: Prepare for the onslaught of Glamberts coming along to bash the bejesus out of that... »
The Curious Timing of Rick Warren’s Attack on Uganda’s Kill The Gays Bill (9)
· alicia banks says: odd are that we would win a national lottery than expect this rabid vulgar... »
Exodus International Has Co-Opted Google’s Search Results (7)
· Rick Heintz says: I have been more worried by what happens when you just type in... »
· blackjack44 says: are you guys serious? How could you, like SCHTEVE said, not see this as anything... »
· Schteve says: …you’re missing the mark if you think this post was for anything other... »
Can Details Get Away With Calling Someone a “Douchefag”? (111)
· schlukitz says: @ no. 110 – ChrisM Obviously, you have not seen any of Michael... »
I have very little sympathy for them if they're fabricating sexual assault claims. The consequence of consensual gay sex is discharge; the consequence of a sexual assault charge is life imprisonment (or at least the potential) or sex offender registration upon release.
Just one more reason to rescind this policy as quickly as possible.
This article didn't provide enough information on what exactly this case is about to be able to accurately use this case as a reason to overturn DOAT. While I believe in overturning DADT, it should be done with factual information presented wholly and not some vague reporting as is evidenced here.
@Chris: It's for an Article 32 hearing, which is to determine whether or not the case merits referral for a court martial:
No one is really making a case to overturn DADT on this basis (at least, not with this case). This seems to be a defense strategy, arguing that DADT provides a motive for a complainant to lie about a consensual sexual encounter.
Part of the reason more information is not provided, I am assuming, is because of the rape shield law, which limits the disclosure of information related to the complainant/alleged victim.
@Alec:
I'm sure you're correct in your opinion that they aren't trying to make a case for overturning DADT. That said, this is just one more reason this unjust, ill-conceived law should be repealed.
@Aaron Akins: I completely agree. Any policy that incentivizes this behavior is not only counterproductive, but downright dangerous.
I was in the Navy and everyone knew I was gay. No one did anything to me about. No one found it to be a big deal. The policy definetaly needs to be taken out.
If you read the entire policy. They can't make a case about heresay. They have to have physical evidents. They can't kick you out on suspicion. They can't kick you ouot for having a book about being gay. They can't kick you out for having a gay sticker on your car. They can't kick you out if someone sees you at a gay bar.
The only way would be evidence and of course higher chains of command lying and fabricating documents. Which it does happen.
The military is full of people working together to cover their tracks with whatever they do. Higher chains of command lie and make fake dosuments to suit thier own needs. I have witnessed it first hand.
It wouldn't surprise me that someone would lie to save their own skin.
Sorry about the misspellings in my above post. I was typing so fast and so into what I was saying. LOL. I am aware of all my misspellings. Guess I should have read it through first. lol
@Alec: To allow someone to spend most of their life in jail on sexual assault charges because one partner to the act wishes to avoid being discharged is reprehensible beyond words. Imagine the guilt that person who denied that the sex was consensual must bear their whole life. I, for one, would be haunted for life.
Related: Is Obama Taking a Backdoor Approach to Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell? at Rev. Steve's Cyber-Pulpit http://tinyurl.com/pv2rs7
Just remember, anything other than Penis to Viagina missionary position is sodomy (including oral, anal, doggy style, etc.).
There are almost 3000 reports of sexual assault in the military every year. Rarely does anything happen in the way of punishment and only about 300 cases go to trial. The military doesn't care about real sexual assault.