Chris Christie isn't completely awful

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He's a bully and a blowhard, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has actually done a couple of admirable things recently.

First he appointed a Muslim judge, rejecting fears of the imposition of sharia law and slamming those -- on the right, of course, and distinctly Republican -- who opposed the appointment on ignorant and bigoted grounds:

It's just crazy, and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of
his religious background. I'm happy that he's willing to serve after
all this baloney.

That's awfully refreshing coming from a Republican, that is, from a prominent member of a party that seems to run on bigotry these days. Indeed, it's like he was rejecting his own party, or at least a huge part of it. See the clip below.

And now he's come to the defence of rape victims:

Health care providers in New Jersey can no longer bill sexual assault victims for forensic evidence collection.



Gov.
Chris Christie signed a bill into law Thursday that prevents victims
from being bill directly for medical screenings, medications for
sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy tests after an incident.



Christie
says sexual assault victims must be treated with respect and
compassion. He says this will help ensure their needs are met.

This was a pretty easy call, to be sure, given that victims aren't supposed to be billed directly. But they often are, and, needless to say, that's hardly what a rape victim needs.

Still, as easy as it may have been, or should have been, to sign this bill, the fact is that rape victims all too often aren't treated with respect and compassion, including by those in the political arena, and especially by some on the right.

At least this time, as with his rejection of anti-Muslim bigotry in appointing a Muslim judge, Christie did the right thing.

Just how crazy is Sharron Angle? (3)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Read this exchange from a radio interview Angle did back in January:

MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

On the face of it, so what? Angle's a pro-life extremist who allows for no exceptions whatsoever. That's crazy, from policy and women's rights perspectives, but not, you know Sharron Angle crazy.

But wait. What's with this divine "plan" of which she speaks? Ah, now we're getting somewhere. As Digby explains:

The truth is that she is being more consistent than most allegedly "pro-life" people. If you genuinely think that abortion is murder then you can't justify "killing" the blastocyst or fetus just because of the way it was conceived.

On the other hand, Angle seems to see conception by rape and incest as something God purposefully directed and so the results of which are something the birthing vessel must embrace. That's a very disturbing point of view no matter where you come out on the issue.

Disturbing indeed, and "rather terrifying," as Steve Benen puts it. But, then, so is Sharron Angle, a completely ridiculous figure were it not for the fact that she's the Republican candidate in a major national election -- and so must be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, when you're being raped, including incest, just remember that it's all part of Sharron Angle's God's plan. I'm sure that'll make everything feel right.

What an utterly insane, despicable woman she is.

(You can find the first two parts of this ongoing series here and here.)

Roman Polanski breaks his silence and admits nothing

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Roman Polanski, it seems, "can remain silent no longer."

The famed film director (and rapist of a 13-year-old girl), who was arrested in Switzerland seven months ago, has issued a statement at La Règle du Jeu, a magazine run by noted French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy.

Polanski's self-defence amounts essentially to this: While he pled guilty 33 years ago, and served some time, he claims that the judge initially determined that his sentence would only be time served: 

I can remain silent no longer because there has just been a new development of immense significance.  On February 26 last, Roger Gunson, the deputy district attorney in charge of the case in 1977, now retired, testified under oath before Judge Mary Lou Villar in the presence of David Walgren, the present deputy district attorney in charge of the case, who was at liberty to contradict and question him, that on September 16, 1977, Judge Rittenband stated to all the parties concerned that my term of imprisonment in Chino constituted the totality of the sentence I would have to serve.

But the judge, apparently, changed his mind: 

I can remain silent no longer because for over 30 years my lawyers have never ceased to insist that I was betrayed by the judge, that the judge perjured himself, and that I served my sentence.  Today it is the deputy district attorney who handled the case in the 1970s, a man of irreproachable reputation, who has confirmed all my statements under oath, and this has shed a whole new light on the matter.

And so: 

I can no longer remain silent because the United States continues to demand my extradition more to serve me on a platter to the media of the world than to pronounce a judgment concerning which an agreement was reached 33 years ago.

All this may be true. I don't know. And I certainly do not hold anything against Polanski for wanting "only to be treated fairly like anyone else."

But how can he ask for fair treatment under the law when it was he who left the U.S. to escape the law in the first place? Most others in his position, guilty of such a crime, are hardly free to leave the country and, in exile, to pursue an extraordinarily successful and profitable career with the support of famous Hollywood friends.

Polanski may think that the judge's "reversal" (if in fact there was one) justified his "leaving the United States," but this is self-righteous arrogance.

But, fine, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the judge really did lie, and maybe did "repudiate" his initial decision (if not formal ruling) "in order to gain himself some publicity at [Polanski's] expense," and maybe Polanski really did face serious jail time despite the initial agreement. Should we fault Polanski for fleeing? Perhaps not, but then Polanski should defend himself before the law. He is doing that, it seems. The New York Times is reporting that "[t]he Los Angeles court has scheduled a hearing for next Monday on an effort by Mr. Polanski to unseal recent testimony in which, Mr. Polanski's lawyers say, the prosecutor who handled his case, Roger Gunson, describes Judge Rittenband's misconduct and intended limits on the sentence."

We'll see how that turns out, but, while all this is playing, let's not forget this: Polanski spent 42 days in prison, undergoing a psychiatric evaluation, for "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," that is, in more blunt terms, for anally raping a 13-year-old girl, twice.

As I put it back in October:

Mr. Polanski, come back to America, and defend yourself. If you were wronged, prove it. I, for one, will surely have an open mind. But if you weren't, and you really did what you are alleged to have done, and for which you were convicted, then challenge whatever you like in a court of law and, ultimately, accept responsibility for your crime.

He should have a chance to defend himself, but what is troubling is that he hasn't accepted responsibility for anything. In his statement, he says only that he "served time at the prison for common law crimes" and that "the California court has dismissed the victim's numerous requests that proceedings against me be dropped, once and for all, to spare her from further harassment every time this affair is raised once more."

Could he not for once speak directly to what he did? Could he not acknowledge that the real issue here isn't the court's "harassment" of the victim but his turning that 13-year-old girl into a victim by raping her? (While the victim's requests should certainly be considered, the law must still be applied, it seems to me.)

So many years have passed, and it still seems pretty clear that Polanski thinks he did nothing wrong.

I'd be a bit more sympathetic if he showed an iota of remorse, and if he were truly and genuinely honest both with himself and with us.

**********

For more, see my previous posts on the Polanski saga:

-- The truth about Roman Polanski;

-- Defending Polanski; or, how the Hollywood left has completely lost its marbles;

-- Polanski, the French, and the backlash against the rape apologists;

-- Common decency and the rule of law v. Roman Polanski and the Hollywood elite;

-- Politico and partisanship: The very stupid attempt to link Roman Polanski to Obama and the Democrats, via Hollywood; and

-- Gore Vidal, a despicable old fool, defends Roman Polanski, a rapist.

And see also Carl's post, "Polanski agonistes."

Don't get raped in Dubai

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Dubai -- the flashy, self-glorifying Gulf emirate -- is home to the world's tallest building, the Burj Dubai, and it's also home to some of the most disgustingly conspicuous consumption in the world, a mecca, of sorts, for the grotesquely super-rich. (Although, yes, I admit, I would like to stay at the Burj Al Arab sometime.)

But, contradictorily enough, it's also home to some pretty serious repression and oppression, most notably of women, and to a legal code that includes elements of Sharia law.

And it's best not to get raped there: 

A 23-year-old British woman on holiday in Dubai told police she had been raped, only to be arrested herself for having illegal sexual intercourse.

The woman, a Muslim of Pakistani descent, was celebrating her engagement to her 44-year-old boyfriend, and was allegedly attacked when she passed out in a hotel lavatory.

Despite approaching police about the attack, she was arrested after admitting to "illegal drinking" outside licensed premises as well as having sexual intercourse outside marriage. Her fiancé was also charged with the same offences.

The couple from London are now reportedly on bail and understood to be awaiting trial after having their passports confiscated. Should they be found guilty, they could face up to six years in jail.

The woman, who is said to have accepted her boyfriend's marriage proposal during a three-day break, admitted drinking too much alcohol as they celebrated at Dubai Marina's Address Hotel. The waiter is then said to have followed her into the toilets and raped her while she was in a state of semi-consciousness.

Lovely, eh? What a wonderful place.

Yes, it's an impressive building -- if pointless, unless the point is penis envy -- and, yes, there seems to be a lot that's impressive there, but Dubai leaves an awful lot to be desired, not least with a justice system that is, simply, unjust.

Al Franken's anti-rape bill becomes law

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress: "Obama signs Franken's anti-rape amendment into law."

You remember, right?

Within the Appropriations Act is Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) amendment prohibiting defense contractors from restricting their employees' abilities to take workplace discrimination, battery, and sexual assault cases to court. The measure was inspired by Jamie Leigh Jones, who was gang-raped by her co-workers while working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. Many Republicans opposed the legislation — saying it was an unnecessary attack on their allies in the defense contracting business — and faced intense political blowback over their positions.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party in 2009... and well into the forseeable future. I wouldn't go so far as to call it pro-rape, but it's clearly on the wrong side of a pretty clear-cut issue.

How do you know you're an extremist party that has lost all touch with decency and humanity? You look the other way on gang-rape.

Rape, racism, and Republicans

By Capt. Fogg

A friend of mine used to have the job, back during the Vietnam war, of flying a helicopter over dangerous areas so as to draw fire from hidden gun emplacements, flushing out the enemy so that we knew where they were. Barack Obama has been a bit like that and sad to say, I've now identified far too many enemies, some that I thought were friends.

I got another e-mail this morning, from someone I would hardly call a redneck: a northeasterner, ex military intelligence with a long career at the Pentagon. "I despair for the country" was the title and it had a link to a YouTube video wherein the President confesses to being a Muslim. It's an obvious cut and paste job that wouldn't fool anyone who didn't want to be fooled -- and there's the rub. Too many want to be fooled and bask like pigs in the warm and stinky deception. The hate and fear of our President long preceded his election and for some it preceded his birth. The closeted racists of America desperately need such insultingly stupid stories as a defense against the obviously true accusations of racism.

I grew up in the 1950s and I'm no stranger to segregation or blood in the streets for that matter, but still I'm amazed at the breadth and depth of the long concealed and highly fermented racial and ethnic hatred that's been lurking in the jungle and is emerging like tracer bullets whose dotted line shows the way, right to their source.

I can't count the outraged e-mails and comments I've seen about the recent California schoolyard rape, which of course has allowed the haters to vent their paranoid fear and loathing of Hispanics. It was of course a Hispanic girl who reported it, not a "regular" American as Archie Bunker would have said, but no matter. Hate has its own sort of statistics and only needs an example to declare it "typical." Indeed, it doesn't even have to be true if you have even a mediocre shareware video editing program.

In its own way, this sick and disgusting incident seems not to be out of context of what is happening in many disparate groups, even of white, Anglo-Saxon protestants, marching in the streets for lower taxes as though Obama had actually raised them; showing pictures of Nazi death camps as though any sane person connects piles of murdered bodies to a government administered health plan -- the people who call the Democratic health care bill "Obamacare" but never think to call Social Security Roosevelt Retirement or identified the GI bill with Communism or call the public library the Socialist Book Store -- or identify the recession with Republican economic policies. These things and more are part of the Us against Them view where the government is "them," the 15% fringe element and the corporate lobbyists are "We the people," the government is the enemy and only illegitimately exercised authority is legitimate.

The twenty or so witnesses to this crime, if they had any compassion at all, were prevented by the entertainment value and hatred of police and the Maverick mentality from doing anything or reporting anything. The criminals are The People, the cops are not and the law is the enemy because it interferes with our freedom to commit crimes ad libidum. Is that really different from not caring how many innocents are killed abroad in a war started and continued under false pretenses and appeals to fear and patriotism? Is that different from not giving a flying damn how many millions die, how many sick children clog the emergency rooms and drive up the cost of insurance and spread disease, or how many lives are ruined by insurance companies? Its them against us and 'them' are the unfortunate, the minorities, the sick the old and unemployed. Who wants the damned law and the government to help them even if it protects us too?

Perhaps you find the connection tenuous or even far-fetched, but I don't. There is no "us" in the US any more unless it's in the context of us against them and that miserable, militant and malicious group who flatter themselves with the stolen title of 'Conservative' are as much to blame as anyone for the rape that is our for-profit, cartel run health "system." Anyone who brings the government in is a "snitch."

Oh no, it's those liberals who insist any criticism of the President is racist and we're not racist at all - it's just that he's a foreign born, Marxistnaziterroristracist who "hates white culture" (whatever the hell that is) and murdered his grandmother and wants to murder yours. It's because he's trying to reconstitute the Auschwitz death camp by giving us health insurance, not because he's a Ni - I mean black.

Hey, we're not responsible for not reporting a vicious and nearly fatal rape, it's because we can't trust the cops, the cops are the problem, the government is the problem and we want less government, you know.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Gore Vidal, a despicable old fool, defends Roman Polanski, a rapist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Of all the Hollywood and Hollywood-ish celebrities who have come out in defence of Roman Polanski since the director's arrest in Switzerland last month, Gore Vidal is without question the most reprehensible.

Or, at least, his defence is the most reprehensible of all the defences that have emerged so far:

Author Gore Vidal says he refuses to feel any sympathy for Roman Polanski’s rape victim, whom he dubs a "hooker."

In an interview with The Atlantic, the controversial 83-year-old author of such books as "Myra Breckinridge" and "1876" says of the director's sex scandal, "I really don't give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s being taken advantage of?"

The young woman to whom he is referring is Samantha Geimer, who was a 13-year-old aspiring model in 1977 when she was drugged and raped by Polanski.

Vidal went on to say that the media pushed an inaccurate image of Geimer, painting her as an innocent victim as opposed to what he believes to be her true identity.

He went on to suggest that anti-Semitism and anti-gay motives were behind Polanki's persecution. According to this celebrated author, Polanski basically did nothing wrong.

What a sick thing to say -- a reflection, perhaps, of a sick mind.

Geimer was not a prostitute, she was a 13-year old girl. Now, she may have been more grown-up than most girls her age, and her shameless mother may have been pushing her into Polanski's circle, but does that mean she deserved to be drugged and raped -- anally raped -- by a man with a sense of entitlement who was clearly trying to take advantage of her, and who persisted despite her protests? And even if she were a prostitute -- and, again, she wasn't -- would that justify rape? Is it perfectly okay to drug and rape prostitutes? According to Gore Vidal, the answer to these questions would seem to be a resounding yes.

For more on this, see Melissa McEwan, who shares my disgust and contempt. Yes, Polanski may have been the victim of bigotry, but, no, that doesn't mean "there is not a legitimate case against him." There is -- and his various supporters around the world can only defend him by ignoring the facts and making excuses for raping minors. As far as I know, no one has gone quite as far as Vidal, but it's all ugly nonetheless.

**********

See my previous posts on the Polanski saga:

-- The truth about Roman Polanski;

-- Defending Polanski; or, how the Hollywood left has completely lost its marbles;

-- Polanski, the French, and the backlash against the rape apologists;

-- Common decency and the rule of law v. Roman Polanski and the Hollywood elite; and

-- Politico and partisanship: The very stupid attempt to link Roman Polanski to Obama and the Democrats, via Hollywood.

Gang rape at California high school -- update

By Michael J.W. Stickings

See my initial post here. And read the comments. A couple of the commenters threw race into it, as well as their own racism, implying clearly that the rapists did what they did because of who they are, namely, Hispanics. This sort of racial stereotyping is all-too-common, of course, and it's repugnant, whether the targets are blacks or Hispanics or any other non-white "Other." It is similarly ridiculous to blame, as one commenter did, Bay Area liberals for fostering diversity and multiculturalism, as if the very presence of non-whites in the community is ultimately to blame for what happened.

Such responses are predictable, I suppose, and reflective of the bigotry that still plagues America, but I find them no less appalling for being so.

**********

It is horrible still to think in detail about what happened. One can only hope that the girl is getting the help and support she needs. Our thoughts and best wishes go out to her, as well as those in the community who stand with her in solidarity.

Thankfully, the law is coming down -- hard, which is as it should be:

Police investigating the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl have arrested five people, a police spokesman said Wednesday.

Three juveniles and two adults are in custody in the rape on Saturday, said the Richmond police spokesman, Lt. Mark Gagan. The three juveniles will be charged as adults, he said.

Gagan said the suspects will face several felony charges in the incident, including "rape in concert," and that the suspects would all face the possibility of life in prison if convicted.

*****

As many as 10 people were involved in the assault in a dimly lighted back alley at the school, police have said, while another 10 people watched without calling 911 to report it.

A 1999 California law makes it illegal not to report a witnessed crime against a child, but the law applies only to cases in which the child is 14 or younger.

Police have posted a $20,000 reward for anyone who comes to them with information that helps arrest and convict those involved in the attack.

Hopefully police will continue to round up the perpetrators of this horrible crime -- and that some way can be found to hold accountable those who stood by and did nothing to stop it.

Meanwhile, as CNN is also reporting, a friend of the victim has "blamed school district officials for not doing enough to protect her school -- and her friend. She said none of the four officers who were at the homecoming dance was patrolling the school premises even though there were a dozen young men hanging out just a few feet from the gym entrance. She says school officials chose not to take any action."

Obviously, there's a lot of blame to go around, but there should be no excuses for the crime, and no leniency for the criminals.

Gang rape at California high school

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Update (10/29/09): See my follow-up post, with news on the arrests of some of the perpetrators, as well as commentary on the supposed racial/racist elements of the incident/story.

**********

This isn't an easy story to get through. It's sick, it's disgusting, and it's utterly despicable:

Investigators say as many as 20 people were involved in or stood and watched the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl outside a California high school homecoming dance Saturday night.

Police posted a $20,000 reward Tuesday for anyone who comes to them with information that helps arrest and convict those involved in what authorities describe as a 2½-hour assault on the Richmond High School campus in suburban San Francisco.

Two teenage suspects have been jailed, but more arrests, as many as 20 total, are expected, according to a police detective.

Yes, I find this story deeply, deeply disturbing. But it's also one of those stories that arouses my anger to a point of violent outrage. A violent response to a horrible act of violence? Yes, I suppose so. But it isn't easy to remain detached, is it? It probably isn't even human to do so. No, I don't believe in an eye for an eye, or anything like that, but there won't be any justice unless the perpetrators of this act are punished to the full extent of the law. (And one wishes that those who stood by and watched, seemingly aroused, would similarly be punished. Alas, that may not be possible.)

I highly recommend Melissa's post at Shakesville -- read the comments, too. (See also Larisa Alexandrovna at at-Largely and my colleague Kathy Kattenburg at The Moderate Voice.)

How Palin screwed the victims of rape (re-revisited)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN is late getting to this story, but, well, better late than never: "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000."

Palin and her cheerleaders, including McCain, want us to take her "executive experience" seriously. But just look at the record -- look at what she did in Wasilla and what's she's done in Juneau. And that includes this, requiring rape victims to pay for their own rape kits.

**********

Many of us were writing about this two weeks ago. For my posts on the story, including links to what others were posting, see here and here.

Why is Sarah Palin soft on child molesters?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(I know, I know. I have Palin Fatigue, too. But it's just the gift that keeps on giving. She -- and the phenomenon she is, or has been manufactured to be -- dominated media coverage for a couple of weeks, helping McCain, but the tide has turned, and, ever more, she is being exposed as a liar and a fraud, ignorant and arrogant, ideologically extreme, recklessly dangerous. Obama -- and all of us who support him -- need to direct our attention at the top of the ticket, but it is nonetheless still helpful to continue to expose Palin for what she is.)

"Sarah Palin's latest explanation for why she fired Walt Monegan," writes TPM Muckraker's Zachary Roch, referring to the Troopergate scandal, "is that he had gone over her head in seeking federal money for an initiative to combat sexual assault crimes, before she had approved the program."

Yeah, sure. It's insubordination, it's this, it's always some excuse.

But, even if this is the real reason, even if she is now, finally, telling the truth:

[I]f Palin's new story is true, she fired Monegan for being too aggressive in going after child molesters.

ABC News reported yesterday that, although Alaska leads the nation in reported rapes per capita, Palin hasn't made the issue a priority as governor.

Monegan, however, appeared eager to change that. "He seemed to get the issue and really took it seriously," [Peggy] Brown [head of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault] told TPMmuckraker.

According to the Palin camp, too seriously.

As I keep saying:

AMERICANS DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT SARAH PALIN.

How Palin screwed the victims of rape

By Michael J.W. Stickings

While Palin was mayor of Wasilla, "rape victims were charged for their own rape kits" (Feministing):

What adds insult to injury here is her stance on abortion for rape victims. So, not only did she neglect to support women who were raped in getting the evidence they needed to get justice, but she doesn't believe they should have the right to choose what happens with their bodies after they've endured such violation.

I don't know the right word for this. Disgusting? Despicable? Appalling?

Whatever it is, it's just more of the same, and worse, from Palin, heroine of the extremist right.

(Palin's hometown paper, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, has the story (from 2000) here. Note that the Wasilla police chief did not support the new legislation "protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime.")

"Insufficient evidence" for De Anza rape case to proceed

By LindaBeth

*trigger warning*

This incident took place in March 2007. 3 female soccer players found an unconscious woman girl (she was 17) being gang raped in a room by a group of 9 male basketball players. When they tried to enter the room, the door was repeatedly shut on them by a guy all three were able to later identify. Originally, the DA's office said they weren't bringing charges at all. That changed after public outcry, but this past Tuesday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the grand jury came back saying there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the case.

Some key problems with this case:

• The three females who witnessed the rape were never called to testify in front of the grand jury.
  
• The victim was said to have "no memory of the incident" but this was because she was unconscious!! Read the details from the softball players here.


• The article states that:

"were unable to provide consistent, useful identifications of the persons they observed engaging in sexual contact with Jane Doe," authorities said. [...] Grolle and Chief Elk, though, said all three former soccer players could identify a young man who held the door shut and repeatedly refused them entry into the room after they had spotted the alleged victim lying on a mattress surrounded by a group of men. One of the men was forcing the 17-year-old to orally copulate him, the two women said.

• Apparently the guy preventing the 3 women from rescuing the victim and stopping the rape isn't guilty of anything. And that's bullshit. As one attorney said:

"Anyone who holds the door closed while other men commit rape is equally liable for that rape," Hammer said. "There's always a weak link - perhaps the guy holding the door. With enough pressure, somebody can be forced to say what happened."

Even further, the women claim, "[He said] 'Mind your own business; she wants to be in here' and slams the door," says Grolle. Doesn't sound to me like he didn't know what was going on.

• And three of the guys were given immunity...but no testimony against the others?

It's hard enough getting evidence in a rape case. This one had 3 witnesses, who can positively identify one of the group, who took the victim to the hospital where evidence was collected (including testing that determined that the vomit in the victim's mouth was not her own). And there's not enough evidence to proceed?! And as Cara at The Curvature writes:

In short, rape apologism shifts. When it’s a “date rape” people will say “how do we know she didn’t consent? It’s not like she’s covered in bruises.” When she’s covered in bruises, the victim in question will simply “like it rough.” When the woman is unconscious and therefore can’t just “like it rough,” she will be accused of misidentifying her attacker, or people will argue “well, she didn’t say no.” When she does say no, it’s “why didn’t she fight? He didn’t have a weapon.” When she did fight back or he did have a weapon, it’s “well there’s no DNA evidence.” When there’s DNA evidence, it’s “well he probably did it, but it’s not like there were any witnesses...” When there are witnesses, three of them in fact, who are willing and eager to testify? When there are witnesses, they just won’t be allowed up on the fucking stand.

And as one of the women who found the victim said:

"It makes us think that no girl is ever going to want to come forward and say they were violated as this girl was, because they're going to think it doesn't even matter," says Chief Elk. "But it does."

Incredible.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me.)

Blog Against Sexual Violence Day: Rape in the military and war zones

By LindaBeth

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and today, April 3rd, is Blog Against Sexual Violence Day. At the end of the day I will be posting a roundup of some of the blog posts done by those who participated.

I want to bring attention to the issue of sexual violence and war/military. It is a pretty common understanding that the rape of civilian women and girls is used as a weapon of war, and is "even" used by "civilized" countries such as, I don't know, the U.S.

But I want to bring up two stories about rape and the military/war -- as in, rape in the military and in the context of war. Last week, via Think Progress:

In today's LA Times, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) sheds light on the staggering number of sexual assaults within the military, stating, "Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq," and calls on Congress and the military to do more to protect servicewomen:

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through "nonjudicial punishment," which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist. In nearly half of the cases investigated, the chain of command took no action; more than a third of the time, that was because of "insufficient evidence." […]

The absence of rigorous prosecution perpetuates a culture tolerant of sexual assault — an attitude that says "boys will be boys."

A Department of Defense report released this month found 2,688 reports of sexual assault in the military in FY2007. According to Harman, the number of reported military rapes jumped 73 percent from 2004 to 2006.

WOW. The percentage of reports actually pursued is pathetic and discouraging for women who may be unsure about if they want to go through the emotional trauma of coming forward. Add this to the Haliburton rape-cover-up and the unprosecuted rape of another Haliburton employee in Iraq from 2007, and sexual violence against women seems to more the rule in war-zones less than a deviation, and the common resolution is... nothing.

In August 2007, a female Air Force Airman 1st Class who had reported being raped, then decided not to testify at the court martial was then charged by the Air Force with committing indecent acts with the men she had said raped her.

In written statements to her attorneys, the three accused airmen call the sex consensual. One said Hernandez wore "skin tight" clothes, danced in a "promiscuous way" and later stripped naked.

Hernandez said that is not how it happened.

"What those guys did was wrong. There's nothing worse than being raped and people not believing you," she said.

A book author and researcher on rape issues who is helping Eason and Ashmawy, John Foubert, said that charging a rape victim with having consensual sex “when the evidence clearly points the other way is an insult to every American and every individual who has worn the uniform.”

What makes this even better is the slutting of the rape victim by her perpetrators. They pull the classic victim-blaming: "her clothing and behavior meant she was asking for it" line, a misconception about rape that continues to persist, and perpetuates the (wrong) assumption that rape is about sex, or it is just sex (so without any "actual" violence -- as if rape as forced sex isn't violence itself -- it's not "that bad"), or that it's sex "gone wrong." NO: rape is about power, control, dominance, and male privilege. Rape is not sex; in rape, sex is the weapon.

And as other bloggers have suggested, the default assumption regarding sex is "no." Radical, huh? Shouldn't be, but in a culture where we think a woman's clothing and "flirtations" trump actually, I don't know, asking if she wants to have sex, I suppose it is. But I guess this is how women look when it is assumed that their sexuality revolves around the desires of men--that sexual availability is assumed unless you are wearing a potato sack, and that women who dress or act sexual are doing so for the benefit of the men around her so that she doesn't have the right to say no. Men not being privy to a woman's blatant sexuality, and therefore taking it by force? That's an issue of power, not sex.

And when the military is the beacon of masculine power, it's no wonder the ladies are "put in their place," and the argument against women in the military is reiterated. Not that it's the military that needs to change, no, never...

**********

UPDATE: Today The Nation posted a web-only story on another rape by two defense contractors for KBR/Haliburton who was told by her supervisor to keep quiet about the rape:

Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents--and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

Most of these complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts that compels employees into binding arbitration instead of allowing their complaints to be tried in a public courtroom. Criminal prosecutions are practically nonexistent, as the US Justice Department has turned a blind eye to these cases.

**********

Another UPDATE: I wanted to pass along these disturbing stats posted from RAINN in a post from Shakesville:

But seriously -- why is it that whenever legislation comes up that might ameliorate the appallingly low rate of rape convictions, the first thing we hear is, "But what about false allegations?!?!?"

Get real. Get informed. Here are some handy (nauseating) facts about rape/sexual assaults in the US:

There were 272,350 sexual assaults (64,080 were completed rapes) reported in 2006, according to the DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey (these numbers do not include victims 12 years or younger).

60% of rapes/sexual assaults not reported to the police.

If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of conviction.
If there is a felony coviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.

So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to the police, there is a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail -- 15 of 16 walk free. ~ http://www.rainn.org/

This is pathetic. And depressing. And more reason I get sick over the rape apologists who say feminists have us in a tizzy over nothing, and that the fact that women can ruin a man's life over false rape allegations is improperly addressed by feminists ('cause I guess the fact that some people lie about stuff sometimes needs feminist theorizing), and that it is in some way feminists' fault for "creating" a rape epidemic over "sex."

Yeah, it gets me.

Let's hear it for prison rape!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know, I didn't think much of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius's Democratic response to the State of the Union last month, and, to put it mildly, I don't think much of this:

The son of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is peddling a board game titled Don't Drop the Soap, a prison-themed game he created as part of a class project at the Rhode Island School of Design.

John Sebelius, 23, has the backing of his mother and father, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary Sebelius. Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said both parents "are very proud of their son John's creativity and talent."

Yes, that's right, Governor Sebelius is proud of her son for creating a game that is being marketed with this slogan: "Where no one playing enters through the front door!"

Get it? Huh? Get it? -- You know, drop the soap? Hey, you know what happens when you drop the soap, right?

The contact information at Son John's website is... can you guess? The governor's mansion. (Which, presumably, can be entered through various different doors.)

Thankfully, not everyone finds this so amusing. The Pitch, an alternative Kansas City newspaper, appropriately titled its article on the story "The Idiot Son: A Board Game," and, as The Kansas City Star is reporting, the game has been "condemned by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission" (yes, there is such a body, and it's a good thing there is). After all, the game -- and I use that word loosely -- makes references to "being cornered by the Aryans in the Shower Room," among other such delightful predicaments of prison life.

But the governor remains behind her idiot son: "I certainly don't condone rape at all," she said. "The game was made strictly for entertainment purposes."

Really, Governor, do you find it entertaining? Do tell.

Raped by Halliburton

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As if it's not bad enough that private American and other western militias are terrorizing Iraq, and that private companies with ties to the Bush Administration are engaging in massive war profiteering at the expense of both Iraqis and American taxpayers, consider this:

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.

Make sure to read the whole article. It's horrifying, but at least, at the very least, Ms. Jones got out and is now telling her story. (One key detail: "Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped 'both vaginally and anally,' but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers." Disappeared, huh? How convenient.)

Please note that Halliburton is one of the Bushies' favourite companies (just like Enron). It is now headquartered not in the U.S. but in Dubai. Dick Cheney was the company's CEO from 1995 to 2000. As a preferred and politically friendly (and occasionally no-bid) contracter, it has made billions of dollars off Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well off the Bush's so-called war on terror. In Iraq, its multi-billion dollar Restore Iraqi Oil contract was a massive failure. It has worked for Iran, supporting the development of its oil industry. And it is profiting off post-Katrina reconstruction.

And now we learn that some of its employees brutally gang-raped one of its own, that the woman was threatened, terrorized, and held against her will, and that the company has been covering up the incident for two years.

Quite the company -- and one with some very good friends in some very high places.

(For more, see Steve Benen, Amanda Marcotte, Kyle Moore, Jane Hamsher, and Digby.)