Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Military recruiters molest, rape potential enlistees

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 06:56 AM
Original message
Military recruiters molest, rape potential enlistees
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-rec20.html

More than 100 young women who expressed interest in joining the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their recruiters. Women were raped on recruiting office couches, assaulted in government cars and groped en route to entrance exams.

A six-month Associated Press investigation found that more than 80 military recruiters were disciplined last year for sexual misconduct with potential enlistees. The cases occurred across all branches of the military and in all regions of the country.

''This should never be allowed to happen,'' said one 18-year-old victim. ''The recruiter had all the power. He had the uniform. He had my future. I trusted him.''

1 in 200 recruiters disciplined

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Rummy, you're doing a great job...
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ok, so then WHY do they enlist afterwards?
Not blaming the victims per se, just asking...wtf?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pooja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. It seems to me the recruiter is using job positioning within the branch
as incentive to encourage women to do things they might not want. Sleep with me, I'll make sure you get a nice cushy job stateside or in Europe somewhere. Recruiters hold a lot of power in the initial stages of your career within the armed services. Personally, I don't think they should use younger recruits. A seasoned veteran panal, along with placement tests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Maybe for some it is be raped and shut up or back to prison they go?
Parents of barely 17 year-old recruit say Army forged their signatures

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=428379

The Army has launched an investigation into claims by the parents of a young soldier from Utah that recruiters used false promises and forged documents to enlist him.

The 17-year-old was recruited from a youth prison in Ogden.

In a coincidence of timing, a Congressional report was released today detailing hundreds of complaints of recruiting irregularity and fraud.

In the Utah case, is it fraud or just a homesick kid who wants to come home?

To take the oath and join the military, a 17-year-old must have parental approval in writing. Steve Price of Brigham City was barely 17 when he enlisted last January. He was recruited while serving time at a youth prison in Ogden.

He's now a PFC at Ft. Stewart Georgia. He told us by phone, he believes his parents' approval signatures were forged.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
3. Also posted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. My God but what is going on? That is nuts.
I did not think they put the bottom feeding in that job but guess I was wrong. Think we have been putting the bags over the wrong heads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
7. 1 in 200 recruiters disciplined
Perhaps that number suggests that not all were guilty? For a group here that purports to "support" the troops there is a certainly a gleeful spate of military bashing and an assumption of guilt with no due process. An accusation is all that is required around here for the lynch mob to saddle up.

Most can do fine without this kind of "support". I suffered through the years of civilian love just like this in another era, from high minded people just you folks. It still hurts, ask any of those other Vietnam era people.

The solution is simple, the draft-no coercion, everybody serves, perhaps not in the military, but in some form of National Service. No more recruiters, problem solved. We can be selective as to who put in uniform-more problems solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Your simple solution of National Service to fix this has one major drawback
The sons of the wealthy and well connected are never included in any draft or National Service or whatever you want to call it. It has always been that way.

So no a draft is not the answer to prevent what is occurring in the military today.

And I will reserve the right to bash any rapist whether they are in the military or not. I also think those people in positions of authority who do this kind of stuff deserve a little extra bashing.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. A mandatory draft would take every eighteen year old
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 08:58 AM by acmejack
There would be no exceptions. Period, so there would be no escape for the sons and daughters of the wealthy and well connected.

A convicted rapist is fair game, an accused rapist is a different matter entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. A mandatory draft would NOT take every eighteen year old
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 09:48 AM by NNN0LHI
Here is an example that comes to mind of how a draft does not take everyone who is eligible that I have actually witnessed with my own eyes during my lifetime:

The wealthy parents who can can afford enough doctors visits to prove that their son is not healthy enough to serve for whatever medical reason. Their sons don't get drafted do they?

But the kid who's parents can't afford to build up such a medical case with repeated doctors visits? Healthy or not chances are their boy gets drafted doesn't he?

So to say "there would be no exceptions" and everyone will get drafted is bit of a misconception isn't it?

As for the innocent until proven guilty stuff does the military normally discipline 80 military recruiters during one year if they have not been found to have done something wrong? Why would they do that?

Don


>>>More than 100 young women who expressed interest in joining the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their recruiters. Women were raped on recruiting office couches, assaulted in government cars and groped en route to entrance exams.

A six-month Associated Press investigation found that more than 80 military recruiters were disciplined last year for sexual misconduct with potential enlistees. The cases occurred across all branches of the military and in all regions of the country.<<<


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Your proposal?
How do you propose to fix this then? I stand by my contention that wholesale vilification of the military is wrong. For every person who dishonors the uniform there are a thousand that bring credit to the Country through their service. If there is a problem with the method of getting people to enter the ranks then obviously a different method is required. I still believe a two year stint of National service, as I said not necessarily military, would be a positive for the Country as a whole.

I believe it is an idea that is overdue. The benefits accrued from such a program would be enormous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. There's no relation between the two subjects-except that conscription
will largely eliminate recruitment. (Conscription will largely eliminate recruitment but not completely eliminate it. Universal conscription would eliminate recruitment in all but name.) Whether the wealthiest families find a way out for their kids of a renewed draft has no tendency to increase the incidence of sexual abuse in the recruitment office, so there's no bearing on the problem with that "objection". Indeed since it appears that the plan you object to would close up most recruitment offices and drastically reduce the numbers of personnel tasked with recruiting vulnerable young people, it's plain that far fewer kids would have a reason to ever see a recruitment officer, lessening the chances for abuse by reducing the volume of raw opportunity represented by face to face encounters. The Army would have all the bodies it needs with conscription, and thus the tendency for the Army to draw on kids in trouble with "the system" in some way, who are kids needing into the Army to stay out of jail, and who are kids that a sexual predator in uniform could exploit would also be greatly lessened along with the number of meetings between recruiters and kids. The "system" which needs warm bodies in uniform presently countenances the military scraping the bottom of the barrel. It smiles on the Army's focus on kids with bad grades at school, and it adjusts its own rules to allow juvenile offenders a way out of detention through enlistment--because the Army must rely on volunteer recruits alone and because in a time like this, when the Army is being ground down in a pointless ugly conflict in Iraq, the prospect of Army life (and Army death) convinces the better qualified that they are better off taking their chances in the civilian job market even if it means bagging groceries and living with Mom.

Furthermore, the richest families aren't sending their kids into the armed forces to serve as enlisted under the system of a volunteer military that we have today, so you're condemning the other person's plan because it doesn't fix a problem A) which was not under discussion in this topic in the first place, and B) that the present plan for the composition of the military has no way to redress, nor any intention of redressing, since as a plan the "volunteer military" was arguably conceived in order to give the military bodies contractually obligated to service (willing victims whom nobody much pities since "they asked for it"), while simultaneously giving the rich and well-off a guilt-free pass to opt-out. They don't even have to opt-out since the military is now an opt-in only insitution--for most rich people the idea never even occurs and you can't very well feel guilty about something you've never been asked to think about. Your objection to the other person's plan is even more valid as an objection to the present sytem which you would leave in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyLib Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. How about pressure down the line on recruiters?

I wonder, has the recruiting branch ever been under such pressure since the draft ended? The several recruiters I've met would be the last to break ranks, so---My Lai potential, ethically speaking.

Go to the top: Rumsfeld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
10. Never trust anyone in a uniform! (What *do* they teach kids these days?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. wow
NEVER trust ANYONE in a uniform??

Bit of an extreme statement dont you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. A good joke to live by -- yes, absolutely, never trust anyone in a uniform
Sorry bud. I don't really care if you take it as insulting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niallmac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. In America? WTF? This nation needs a time out. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
18. This is a very disturbing situation and there is no way it can be ...
looked at w/o distress and disgust. The #'s appear to be in line w/other sexual predator crimes and should be viewed as a serious problem. One of these occurrences is too one too many.

With that said, it is important that each of these cases be dealt with on an individual basis. If a recruiter is guilty of such behavior, the military takes a very dim view of this type of thing, and there is room in Leavenworth for these wretches. But no one should think that this is the "norm" for the military. The vast majority of these and other members of our armed services are decent and dedicated individuals and should not be included in some sort of "blanket" view of guilt. If statistics hold true, 10-20% of the claims are baseless, but that leaves 80-90% being accurate to some degree, and as I said in the beginning of this post, 1 incident is one too many.

Let us remember...the majority of recruiters are far from guilty in this matter, and those that are, should be dealt with swiftly and severely. As a Vet, I find this whole incident despicable, and I know our troops are far better than this.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyLib Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Yes, but...
sh*t rolls downhill. Does a local or higher up commander want to jeopardize his enlistment numbers by scrutinizing his recruiters' actions, following up on "iffy" complaints or rumors, and otherwise creating a ton of paperwork for himself?

Better, IMO, to see this alarming rate as a red flag for the system.

I'm a vet and grow more alarmed at what's happening to the forces every week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I know how that goes as well...but a Sr NCO or a Commander would be
pretty foolish to allow something like this to go w/o an investigation. If it were proven later that such things happened, they have a career killer on their record...No Field Grade, much less any other officer wants that. Far better to have on record that an investigation into the situation was initiated or action taken that to be seen as a party to a 'cover-up'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC