Army General's Sex Assault Case May Be Dismissed

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:49:36 -0400

Breaking news out of Fort Bragg. Due to alleged mishandling of the case by the Pentagon, Brigadier General Sinclair's sex assault case may have to be thrown out. Your thoughts on this development? We'll try to keep this thread updated as more news happens on this.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 2:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:57:30 -0400

Not surprised at all. File this one under just another officer getting away with something that an enlisted SM would have already been dishonorably discharged or received jail time for.<br>

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 2:57 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:57:36 -0400

To be expected. Sounds about right. This is part of the reason the chain of command should not be involved in these types of cases. Many Soldiers, even after admitting guilt find a way to slip through the cracks or get off on a technicality. There is no surprise here, as I thought it would have been dismissed already.<br><br>(the like is for the attention brought to it, NOT the dismissal)<br>

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Mar 10 at 2014 3:22 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:22:41 -0400

On March 6, 2014, Sinclair entered a guilty plea to the lesser charges of improper relationships with two female Army officers, violating orders by possessing pornography in Afghanistan, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Mar 10 at 2014 3:36 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:36:12 -0400

What message does this send not only to the military community but civilians? Want to get away with rape (allegitly), sexual harrasment/assualt (at least), and breaking orders without getting in trouble is by ranking up as high as possible and be protected by the system. I think we are not painting a proper picture of how justice works in the military or in the civilain world with this. This General admits guilt and he will not even have to bear the title of a sexual deviant, but I am sure his signature is on one or more dishonorable discharge papers for a similar or lesser act.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 3:40 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:40:35 -0400

*** Update Mon 3/10/2014 @ 3:31 PM EST (multiple independent sources ) ***

CPT Kletzing,

General Sinclair's defense team requested and were denied pre-trial email they would have alleged demonstrated command interference with the proceedings. They allege their offer to plead to lesser charges was rejected due to political command influence.

The Judge in charge of the Courts Martial / Trial will not dismiss the charges. He has offered the defense could have the plea offer considered by independent prosecutors and reviewers or continue the current trial on original charges as originally planned.

The defense has until Tuesday morning to pursue newly offered outside review option.

Warmest Regards, Sandy

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/judge-won-t-dismiss-general-s-sex-assault-charges-1.272177

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-sexual-assault-charges-against-general-1.271139

Judge won't dismiss general's sex assault charges

A military judge has declined to dismiss sexual assault charges against Army Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Mar 10 at 2014 3:45 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:45:24 -0400

While I understand why some people are seeing this as the "good-ol-body club" coming to the rescue (and it might be); there were signs that this might happen.  The female CPT magically found the iPhone that she used to text back and forth to the General after she testified under oath she had no idea where it was is one example that the case was on rock ground to start with.  <div><br></div><div>I think the bigger complain is as said below, what does this "show" to the public?  How will they view the military especially because this case involved a General.  It doesn't matter if it was BG Sinclair or a General Patton, civilians see the word "General" and expect certain things not to happen.  Sometimes we hold these men up so high that we could forget they are also human.  They put their pants on one leg at a time just like we do and should be held to the same standard they are entrusted in enforcing.  </div><div><br></div><div>This is certainly an interesting turn in the case; my fear is that regardless of what happens, more than just BG Sinclair's career will be seen in a lower light.  The military as a whole will feel the fall out from the actions of this one man.</div>

Response by SFC James Baber made Mar 10 at 2014 8:09 PM

SFC James Baber — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:09:36 -0400

<p>While many are saying there are too many discrepancies in the accuser's claim and testimony or evidence, you have to remember the defense has gone to any length they deemed necessary to discredit her and any other witnesses on the prosecution side, all the while never really denying any of the activities that took place, the General himself was ready to plead guilty to the improper relationships with not one but two subordinate officers, that alone says volumes towards the credibility of the charges as a whole. Now as far as the accuser, she has been shaken and most likely could be diagnosed with PTSD from all that has occurred over the years of the relationship and what has transpired since it came to light, she could also fall under the diagnosis of battered wife syndrome based on the interaction between her and the BG as he held her career in his hands in garrison and while deployed in a combat zone, so everyone needs to look at the whole picture and see the politics of it all as well.</p><p><br></p><p>But with the current issues arising, it makes it look as if it will be another senior officer indiscretion will be swept under the rug based on political views and for minimal technicalities, something that becomes common place in Officer prosecutions if you research many of the ones that have taken place in the last 5 years or so.</p><p><br></p><p>This has been dragging out for so long, it is 1 being made public to be used as fodder to claim that Big Army is not allowing there to be misrepresentation disparagement between enlisted and officer infractions, but at the same time it has been going on so long it can now be shown as unraveling from discrepancies and most likely will be dismissed or declared a mistrial, just another aspect of political sweep under the rug tactics. How many times have we seen senior officer cases drug out until it either disappears or they are allowed to retire before it actually goes to trial, too many to decipher, but the enlisted side is usually open and shut, and they end up in jail, are registered sex offenders, and are dishonorably discharged with loss of all benefits for them and their families. Great disparity between the two ranks.</p>

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 9:30 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:30:41 -0400

Let me get on my high horse for just a minute. I know the media likes to be on top of things, but I often wonder what effect the media circus has on such matters. <div><br></div><div>I know we all see things differently, but to pull in another controversial case, look at Zimmerman. We all know he was guilty. However, the way the prosecution went after the case is what affected the outcome. Had things been done properly and they not been too overzealous, he would have been convicted. In hindsight, they let the media get the best of them and went after the biggest and baddest charges, though they were unable to make a valid case for the charges he was brought up on.</div><div><br></div><div>Are we seeing a similar pattern here? Often times investigations are not conducted properly, especially in the military. I still wonder what really happened to PFC LaVena Johnson. </div><div><br></div><div>In many cases, whether guilty or not, when the accused is found guilty in the media and public opinion, the prosecution slacks off and the accused is found not guilty. Just look at all of those that should have been convicted. Sometimes, as in O.J. Simpson's case, they keep up their antics and end up paying for another crime. If he walks, who can really blame him. If one knows how to play the system, they will never have to pay. </div><div><br></div><div>Let me make it clear, I in no way condone this type of behavior, in fact, I am appalled and disgusted. However, it is the way of the world. As long as the prosecution thinks they have it in the bag and all of these shenanigans continue, he will be let off easy. Luckily the judge is standing up and trying not to let this all blow over. I just wonder if it'll be enough. </div><div><br></div><div>Ok, I'm off of my high horse and back on solid ground where I belong. Rant complete.</div>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 10:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:43:57 -0400

Right is right and wrong is wrong. We have a uniform code of military justice so that shmoes like me do not have to pass judgement on people like the general here. There was a lot wrong with this situation; way more than i know or care to know. Who holds the lion share of the blame? Who cares? As I said, wrong is wrong. Does it matter who was wrong-er? Does it matter who was wrong first? I don't think it does. The matter at hand is alleged sexual assault. Did he or didn't he? That's the question that the court will have to answer. She could have walked past his doorway naked. Nobody deserves to be assaulted. So, if he did, get rid of him. I hope they dishonorably discharge him as a private (E-1). I know they won't but that's what he will deserves at that point. Whether she cheated or not, pursued him or not, had sex with him for three years our not...no means no. Let's not be so quick to make snap judgements on his guilt or innocence based on the word of an organization that is more concerned with circulation and advertising dollars than they ever will be with the welfare of any of the people involved. Also, lets not forget, these are still people...Soldiers.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 1:06 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:06:50 -0400

<p>This wouldn't have been a civilian case since the lead witness is a confirmed liar. She told the prosecutes and defense that she couldn't find the iPhone with all of her texts with Sinclair on it. When they found the phone they found not only had she powered it up but attempted to delete the texts. He admitted to the adultery which is about all he should be found guilty of and should be forced into retirement. </p>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 3:22 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:22:38 -0400

I think this is absolutely shameful.  I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, but I also don't think he should get all charges dropped because of this.  If he is accused of committing a crime and there is sufficient evidence that crime took place, then he should stand trial for it.  If this gets thrown out, it will only send the message that sexual assault is okay if we can somehow figure out some way to manipulate the system.  The General admitted to an extramarital affair, and that is against the UCMJ.  At a minimum, he should be punished for that.<div><br></div><div>As leaders, we are supposed to be the standard bearers.  We are all human and make mistakes, got it.  I make mistakes.  But when I do something wrong, and I know its wrong, I try to fix myself to not repeat that mistake.  This General had a long-term affair, which is not making a mistake and learning from it.  That is an example of not caring about what the rules are and doing something wrong anyway.  What does that say about his "honorable" character?</div><div><br></div><div>I am glad it didn't end up getting thrown out.  Back to my original idea: if you commit the crime, you do the time...</div>

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 10:16 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:16:44 -0400

simply put...you were in a position of TRUST

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2014 6:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 18:33:31 -0400

Somehow, I figured something like this would happen. <div><br></div><div>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/16/army-gen-jeffrey-sinclair-agrees-to-plea-deal-that-drops-sex-assault-charges/<br></div><div><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/0/0/jeffreysinclairAP.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/16/army-gen-jeffrey-sinclair-agrees-to-plea-deal-that-drops-sex-assault-charges/">Army Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair agrees to plea deal that drops sex assault charges</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Defense attorneys say an Army general has agreed to a plea deal that includes the dropping of sexual assault charges against him.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 17 at 2014 12:17 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:17:56 -0400

Typical.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 17 at 2014 12:29 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:29:43 -0400

It's a plea agreement which happens quite often, regardless of rank. The sentencing phase is what you must wait for in order to determine if he "got over" or not. I caution you ahead of time, you rarely see anyone get the ax sentence (or anything owe to max), and that is regardless of rank. Bottom line is the actions hurt (emotionally shattered) the victim and there is no sentence he can get that will repair her spirit. Now we must wait.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 12:48 AM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:48:19 -0400

My impression is that if there were command influence on the case, the Army got what it deserved.  The politicization of what is essentially a criminal act, no more or less acceptable than any other, led to this.  This is what happens when our leaders define SHARP as a priority instead of our mission.  Let's focus on our mission and let the courts do their job.<br>

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Mar 17 at 2014 9:37 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:37:56 -0400

While I understand where everyone is coming from on this, the one thing that being a my unit's EOR taught me was there is two sides to the coin.  Not to excuse the actions that BG Sinclair admitted to or the alleged actions brought up during the case, the reason that he was able to under this plea agreement was because the victim lied under oath about her side of the facts.  While I'm not in anyway saying that BG Sinclair is in the clear, the alleged actions brought forward by the victim could not be upheld and therefore the defense had to drop the charges.  What would be worse, for the Army to continue pushing forward on a case that stood on facts that could not be verified or to go down this road?  If the Army were to continue going after the case knowing that the victim lied about some of the things brought up, where would it end? <div><br></div><div>I think the next few days will show us and the public how serious the DoD is about cracking down on this sort of thing.  Keep in mind, he is still looking at 15 years in jail.</div>

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 8:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:46:31 -0400

What's troubling is that many women do suffer abuse and coercion and that must totally end.   

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 18 at 2014 10:41 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:41:53 -0400

He should go to jail for those side burns and haircut alone.

Response by SSgt Marlon Hobbs made Mar 19 at 2014 3:40 PM

SSgt Marlon Hobbs — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:40:45 -0400

Horrible...Where is the justice?? An enlisted person would have been court martial and dishonorably discharged before there was a trial! Horrible!!!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2014 3:43 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:43:59 -0400

Interesting how he has hair that is out of compliance with the 82nd Blue Book...does that mean something? Are the people who make and enforce the rules also compelled to abide by the rules?

While I wouldn't want someone punished for sexual assault when they did not commit a sexual assault, it sickens me that someone in a position of authority, responsible for administering justice to Soldiers, violated law, regulation, policy, and trust committing acts that he has probably punish Soldiers for.

Every person is going to have failings (some will have major failings) but when leaders fail it is especially heinous if they have been hypocritical in the manner they treated their Soldiers.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Mar 20 at 2014 10:33 AM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:33:49 -0400

There ya have it

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9473633

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 10:49 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:49:53 -0400

Here's a little satire about the entire situation.

He was my BDE Commander when I was deployed to Iraq. Didn't really know him all too well. I heard rumors and what not, and always had the feeling that he was a bit shady.

The Military Needs To Take Sexual Harassment Seriously, Except In My Case

The following is an opinion editorial article written by Brig. Gen. Jeffery Sinclair. Guess who’s back? Back again. Jeffy’s back. Tell a friend. That’s right, mother fuckers! Brigadier Fuckin’ General...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 7:56 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:56:14 -0500

While we know he did something wrong, he didn't do what they alleged he did. That relationship was consensual as evidenced by the text messages sent to one another. He tried to break it off and she threatened him with suicide. When that didn't work, she went after his career. I agree that he needs to be punished for the affair, but what they went after him for was beyond the scope.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Nov 3 at 2014 8:26 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:26:58 -0500

ALCON, here is an interesting case to consider -- also involving a General Officer -- categorically similar accusations, though it would appear what Sinclair did may have been worse. This individual was allowed to retire quietly with a one-rank demotion. Maybe it's comparing apples and oranges in terms of case details -- but regardless, is there anything new to take away from this instance, in terms of consistency of UCMJ applied up and down the chain?

http://www.stripes.com/news/army-general-accused-of-sex-assault-by-adviser-quietly-retired-with-demotion-1.306106

Army general, accused of sex assault by adviser, quietly retired with demotion

A two-star Army general who was fired from his job in Djibouti last year after allegedly groping a female adviser was allowed to retire quietly with a demotion in rank, according to Army officials and military documents.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Nov 4 at 2014 3:13 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 03:13:23 -0500

He should do himself, the Army and the Nation a favor and retire quietly. His behavior was unbecoming to an officer, and is a disgrace to his unit, the Army and the Nation he represents.

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Nov 4 at 2014 3:46 PM

SCPO Larry Knight Sr. — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:46:52 -0500

Ok now you bring up a point that occurs in all branch's of the military. It unfortunately is handled in the same fashion, in all of them the same? We have an inadequate "UCMJ" that is so out of touch with all forms of judicial infractions . This is emphasized in this as well as any other article pertaining to some form of infraction by another party toward another. If we take a step back and take a closer look "Fraternization" period, is against regulations in the armed services to date!

This tends to lead to more serious infractions involving sexual deviates , where it actually becomes intimate with another party in one fashion or the other ie;" voluntary or involuntary" ? Either way it still has the same bearing as before against "Uniform Regulations"... So now we have a former leader accused of something and, it now has gotten to the well stage but she this! (Bullshit) He was involved with a subordinate in a other than professional relationship. He at this point is "Guilty" regardless of he said she said or what ever an there for is punishable to the fullest extent based on the preponderance of the evidence disclosed in the case!!!!!

This evidence is not printed out for everyone to see and base judgment on, so we can only read what the "Media" wants you to see. I seem to remember a phrase "don't assume anything" for this makes an ass out of you and me". lol Now on a more serious note, punishment for the incident 1). reduction in rank to the lowest rank allowable by law 2). Forfeiture of all pay's and allowances 3). Dishonorable discharge vice being allowed to retire with benefits 4). 20 years to life in FT Leavenworth !

Last but most assuredly not least if it were a rape of a subordinate under your command or leadership, then life without the possibility of parole.................. Stop and think about the victim for a minute, they have to live with this for the rest of their life---- one nightmare at a time day in and day out. A former shipmate lives with this every day of her life, and the CO didn't do his job because his focus was on his next promotion!

So yes gentleman and Ladies the armed forces has a long way to go before this "Buck gets Stopped" ....... How do we begin, hold our leadership accountable to the letter without any chance of this not getting fixed the right way period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by SSG David Kaelin made Nov 13 at 2014 3:23 AM

SSG David Kaelin — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:23:46 -0500

That guy with that hair is a General in the United States Army?

Pitiful.

He looks like a serial rapist in that photo.

First, this is nothing new. Generals have held double standards for themselves since the beginning of the US Army (and before in other Armies).

Second, this is not unique to Generals. All Officers hold themselves to a double standard.

There was a Lieutenant who was the Co. XO in my unit in the Old Guard who idolized General MacArthur. This same Lieutenant railed against and promised to crush any soldier who was guilty of adultery.

This was the same era that saw the Sergeant Major of the Army (McKinney) removed for extreme sexually harassing behavior. This guy thought that McKinney should be crucified.

Yet, he never once acknowledged that his beloved MacArthur was a career adulterer. Go back to Ike. Even George Washington carried on a lifelong affair with a woman not his wife. No one knows if the affair was ever consummated. Yet, why would that matter when I have seen NCOs in the Army hammered for "unseemly appearance" or "behavior that could be construed as adulterous." Yes, that happened. Making matters worse, the Battalion Commander who gave these punishments was engaging in the same behavior with an NCOs wife. That NCO was in his Battalion.

Again, there is nothing new.

The Double Standard is an Officer Specialty and always has been.

This is why so many Enlisted and NCOs refer to Officers in derogatory terms such as "Zero."

I wouldn't put the Good to Bad officer percentage as high as 50%.

And it starts at the top with the Generals.

Petraeus (Betray Us) is a perfect example. He burned many NCOs and Enlisted men for violation of General Order #1. I saw it first hand. All the while, he was guilty of the same behavior.

I have seen many a General drinking in Afghanistan. I've seen many Garrison Commanders drinking. I drank with some of them. I saw these same commanders burn Enlisted and NCO for the same behavior.

I have been out of the Army since 2000. I've worked in Afghanistan since 2003. I have seen Senior Officers in many places where they should not be iaw General Order #1. Yet, all of these Officers will come down hard on their men for doing exactly as they do.

The other issue is that the US Military seems to think that it must push the values of it's Christian Officer's down the throats of everyone else. That is the puritanical origin of the idiot General Order #1.

The erroneous "justification" of the US Military for General Order #1 is "respect for the culture." Prohibiting Sex, Alcohol and pornography is not respecting anyone's culture. It's laughable.

I interact with Afghans regularly. They drink. They fuck. They look at pornography. They do everything that Americans do.

I have been in Mosques all over this country. I've been given tours of Mosques all over this country by the ANP, ANA and by local Imams and Mullahs. Many (if not most) appreciate when a respectful foreigner visits. As long as one is respectful, there is not an issue. They were surprised when I took off my shoes prior to entering the Masjid Jami in Herat as they didn't feel it necessary for a "military" person to do so. I did so out of respect. They appreciated it.

Most, if not all, of General Order #1 goes against Napoleon's maxim of not creating unenforceable regulations. Some of General Order #1 actually inhibits the mission.

Most Generals are so out of touch that they cannot see this truth.

The greatest fool of a General to ever step foot in Afghanistan was Dan Bolger. I hold him directly responsible for at least 6 Contractor deaths. Bolger is the idiot who mandated all travel in country be in uparmored vehicles placing a bulls eye on every American and Coalition member in the country.

MPRI was in country for 6 or 7 years and had 1 casualty. That loss occurred when one of the MPRI guys was travelling in a military convoy. Prior to Bolger, we traveled in regular SUVs (NTVs) and those little, ubiquitous Toyota vans that the Afghans use as taxis. We were never hit.

In comes the brilliant Dan Bolger who cowardly mandates travel in UAV only for all personnel. The hits started and have only increased. Where before we flew under the radar, we are now targets for every suicide bomber who wants to hit someone. The upshot of this decision (order) is that 3 or 4 years later and nearly no one leaves the FOB. We've stopped almost all interaction with the Afghan people. Great strategy for us if we want them to misunderstand, abhor and distrust us. Thanks General Bolger. This is the most risk adverse military on the planet. Some of that is on Barack Obama. He's a greater coward than his Generals.

Dyncorps has always driven around in UAVs, they were hit all of the time. MPRI drove around in NTVs, these were never hit. Apparently, that escaped the limited intelligence of Bolger and his crew of morons.

Bolger wrote his book, Why We Lost, and I've heard no Military criticism of said book.

Personally, I think it was poor Generalship and Political Leadership such as that provided by morons like Bolger which is the reason that Afghanistan and Iraq have been so poorly managed and led.

Apparently, we've promoted too many self serving turds like General Sinclair, Bolger and Petraeus.

They and their self serving, lead from the rear double standards which are encouraged by letting them off the hook time after time is one of the greatest problems and why our military hasn't been able to truly defeat ragtag militias such as the Taliban & Ba'athist insurgents. It's also why we'll never be able to do anything real regarding ISIS and other Islamist groups that are rising up in response to our constant meddling in the ME and CA.

So, no...BG "Hairdo" Sinclair is nothing new. He is an example of the good old boy system of the Officer Corps of the US Army/Military.

He should be stripped of all rank and benefits and thrown in Leavenworth. Period. Generals should be held to the highest standards and punished with extreme prejudice. All Officers should be held to account in this manner. Yet, this will never happen.

Response by SSG David Kaelin made Nov 13 at 2014 3:39 AM

SSG David Kaelin — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:39:31 -0500

The military attitude towards sexuality and sexual relations is reminiscent of ISIS, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban.

This sexual repression and oppression is why incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault are so high.

When natural, healthy and enlightened sexuality is prohibited, the darkness of humanity will always find an outlet.

These puritan Generals all need to be fired.

Find us Generals who know how to win wars and get rid of the puritans and politically correct managers who fill out the ranks of the General Officer cadre.

They're a pathetic lot of careerists.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2017 7:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 19:28:03 -0400

All UCMJ 120 investigations since 2011 have been contaminated by Unlawful Command Influence.