| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Army Brings AWOL Charges Against Oregon Woman |
| 2006-09-28 |
| PORTLAND, Ore. — Army Spc. Suzanne Swift spent five months in a seacoast town hiding out, smoking cigarettes and reading. Meanwhile, her military police unit was half a world away in Iraq. It was the second tour of duty in Iraq for the 54th Military Police Company. But Swift couldn't take part because she had been sexually harassed by three noncommissioned officers, her mother said. The 22-year-old was charged Wednesday with being absent without leave and missing movement. The latter means she wasn't with her company when it left in January for its four-month tour of duty, said Fort Lewis spokeswoman Sgt. Maj. Yolanda Choates. Swift, of Eugene, could face a reprimand or a court-martial, Choates said. She was arrested at her home in Eugene in June. Swift, who served in Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005, claimed she had been harassed or abused by three noncommissioned officers — two in Iraq and one at Fort Lewis. The Army said it was able to substantiate one allegation, involving an officer at Fort Lewis, and took disciplinary action. But it said it was unable to substantiate allegations that one officer in Iraq sexually harassed her and another forced her into a sexual relationship. The Army said it had delayed disciplinary action to conduct a "thorough, impartial investigation" into her allegations of sexual harassment and said that Swift, on the advice of her lawyer, did not provide a sworn statement to investigators. Her mother, Sara Rich of Eugene, said her daughter suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and should have a medical discharge to deal with it. She has been traveling to talk to groups that have taken up Swift's cause. Rich said that as her daughter prepared to deploy in January she realized she couldn't go through with it. She "froze with her keys in her hand and said, 'I can't do it,' " Rich said. ...Something does not smell right here. Now, I want to make clear that if there is a provable case of continuing sexual harassment here, somebody needs to go down for it and go down hard. The trouble is that when the modern US military does a sexual harrassment investigation, it's about as thorough as it can get. If the other two allegations could not be substantiated, there's a good chance that it didn't happen the way she said it did. My questions are as follows: 1: Did she follow her chain of command, and I mean the WHOLE chain of command, up through the unit CO and the IG before refusing to ship? 2. Did she avail herself of her RIGHT to speak to her elected representatives? (It stikes me that in lefty Oregon, some politician would have jumped on this one and not let it go.) 3. Having helped investigate matters like this on a couple of occasions, I have to ask this - where are the other women who were harassed/abused? When things like this happen, the harassers don't limit it to just one woman. 4. Why did the Army let her remain in that unit? 5. Why did her lawyer tell her not to submit a statement? 6. Why is this soldier AT HER RESIDENCE? Even if a decision was made not to send her along with her unit (and it's possible somebody quietly made that call), she should have either been discharged, crosstrained, transferred, OR BROUGHT ON BASE. Mike |
| Posted by:Mike Kozlowski |
| #26 Just do with her what should be done with the chucklehead 'CO' discussed yesterday. Admin separation, an OTH, and escorted back to the street |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-09-28 22:59 |
| #25 There is an element of this that sounds like she had some kind of sexual relationship with someone in her command that went sour and would have made redeployment more unbearable than any other deployment to Iraq. My understanding of sexual harassment is that it is more about power than about sex so sexually harassing someone into a relationship seems not to be the norm. As for females missing deployment or abusing sickcall, my experience is that dirt-bags let the team down - both male and female. Often women dirt bags have feminine problems while dirt bag men have mysterious orthopedic mishaps and gun accidents. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-09-28 22:54 |
| #24 Oh and will somebody take that Semtex away from LOTP! I'm fairly certain she knows how to use it. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-09-28 21:40 |
| #23 This one is just odd. I would rather be charged with treason than sexual harrassment. At least I could defend myself. I see it now, it's November and Kennedy is standing wiht this poor girl who had to run and hide from the terriblr Bush/ Rummy machine. It just smells of political set up. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-09-28 21:38 |
| #22 Whahahahahaaa |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-28 19:39 |
| #21 I suspect that would be a popular option with a lot of people here at the Burg. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-28 19:37 |
| #20 There's big trouble brewing in River City, lol... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-09-28 19:36 |
| #19 sentex? you ment semtex! Watch Out Besoeker! Bawawawawwaw! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-09-28 19:35 |
| #18 WACs were limited to being file clerks in uniform, more or less. Pfeh. Posted by lotp 2006-09-28 19:01|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top Girdle or not, all that WAC training paid off Lotp, your typing, grammar and sentex are impeccable! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-28 19:32 |
| #17 Lol, exJAG. Tell Mr exJAG we're on board, too, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-09-28 19:27 |
| #16 Being AWOL over 30 days itself is an aggravating circumstance. I don't see anything here that would be a mitigating factor besides this sexual harassment business, which seems pretty flimsy. A genuine mitigating circumstance might be something like, your only surviving blood relative falls deathly ill, can't care for him/herself, can't pay the bills, and has no other way to get by. But in that case, you'd tell the command, take leave, and put in for a hardship discharge. A strong showing could be made that she had the intent to remain away permanently, "to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service," which defines desertion, a capital offense in wartime. I can't decide if actually carrying that out would be a good idea or not. There are just too many of these seditious jerkoffs floating around, such as Watada and Aguayo, serving as fodder for the leftist propaganda machine. Mr. exJAG favors blowing up CNN relay towers, which seems like a good compromise solution to me. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-09-28 19:19 |
| #15 BTW, with regard to my comment above: No offense or disrespect meant to the service of those women who did join and stay in the WAC. I honor anyone who takes on the uniform and choses to serve. But military, it was not, at least at the time and place I saw it, just before it was disbanded. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-28 19:16 |
| #14 I had two ladies in my unit in England that were sexually harassed - one bordering on rape. It took weeks to get them to even admit the actions had happened, and over six months to get the second one to agree to file charges. I'm not surprised about that part of it. To some (at least a few that I've met), the actions do strange things to their minds, and their behavior reflects it. Unfortunately, our unit was disbanded before I learned the outcome of the hearings, and the people scattered throughout the US Air Force. I am surprised she was at home for almost 8 months, and the local law enforcement or military police did nothing to locate her. I know from conversations with OSI types that the first place these people look is at the AWOL person's home address. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-09-28 19:16 |
| #13 No surprises on this one. Back in the 70's they trashed a professional organization, the Woman's Army Corps (WAC) and integrated everyone. We've been living with it ever since. BS, Besoeker. BS. I knew the WAC. When I considered pursuing a commission during the Vietnam war the WAC was still in existence and I did their College Junior program (which was a route to OCS after graduation). I saw it up close and personal. Professional organization my ass -- that summer we got NADA, zilch, zero that was military. We were, however, instructed on wearing girdles in uniform. (long ones were preferred as it gave a nice smooth outline under the skirt.) WACs were limited to being file clerks in uniform, more or less. Pfeh. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-28 19:01 |
| #12 who cares if she becomes another Sheehan. Sheehan is a goofy granny reliving the glory days of her youth. She meets up with some professional PR people and they let her go make a complete ass of herself day after day. She's made a fool of the entire lefty loons and they are so out-of-touch they don't even realize it. The lefty PR handlers did it with that poor Jessica whats-her-name. You know, that poor girl that we've already forgotten who got kidnapped during the push to Baghdad and then said negative things that got her a book deal and a 2 week celebrity blitz. I actually feel sorry for her. Her actions caused her to lose the only support group who was interested in helping her beyond the useful news cycle. This girl will get her 15 minutes of fame and she will live with the consequences for her entire life. I actually kind of feel sorry for her because it's clear her mother did a crappy job letting her go and is sticking to her like Sheehan's stomach to polyester. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-09-28 18:58 |
| #11 29 and a wake-up. But the mythology of the game included bits like never throwing away the military ID and such could save your ass. exJAG, are there any legit mitigating circumstances for being genuinely AWOL over 30 days? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-09-28 18:48 |
| #10 AWOL? Five months is desertion. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-09-28 18:45 |
| #9 I thought so. Sounded as though she had a super weak complaint or if she stuck to her story she would perjure herself. Yes she is a BIG Celeb with the left these days. After she is found guilty and tossed by the military she will take her place next to Sheehan. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-09-28 18:37 |
| #8 Oh yeah. Where's SPoD? Red meat for lawyer-haters: go meet Swift's legal team here. They're all former JAGs. It's one thing when you're detailed defense counsel and you're under orders to represent whoever comes your way. It's another entirely when you get out and voluntarily choose to make a living this way (rather a good one too). |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-09-28 18:03 |
| #7 Another fucking traitor, brought to you by Democracy Now Military Families Speak Out Veterans for Peace Iraq Veterans Against the War (War Resisters Remix) Code Pinko Courage to Resist Committee for Countering Military Recruitment Her mom, a Cindy Sheehan wannabe And she's a huge hit on counterpunch, indymedia, truthout, etc. etc. Sarge, leftist legal tactics aren't designed to make sense or win cases; they're designed to generate a media orgy -- pure agitprop that taps into the decency of ordinary Americans who may, for a moment, be tempted to feel sympathy. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-09-28 17:54 |
| #6 i wanted to add what lame-ass lawyer would tell his client NOT to swear out a valid complaint? Ex-Jag any ideas on that one? Legal tactic? Stupidity? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-09-28 17:29 |
| #5 "Smoking cigerettes and watching Captain Kangaroo." We've all heard it a thousand times...."Where is SPC Susan Tentpeg this morning? or...Tentpeg calls in aroung 0900 and says, "I won't be in today, my ***** hurts, maybe not tomorrow either. Sick call? yea, if I feel like it." No surprises on this one. Back in the 70's they trashed a professional organization, the Woman's Army Corps (WAC) and integrated everyone. We've been living with it ever since. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-28 15:59 |
| #4 CyberSarge- Agree wholeheartedly. Sexual harassment charges in the modern US military are 'guilty-till-proven-innocent', and it takes a LOT to get cleared of them. Whatever the problem is here, the Army needs to get to the bottom of it NOW. [RANT/ON] Along these lines, I have had a suspicion that if the Donks get decisively clobbered during the upcoming elections (i.e.; they LOSE seats)that we will see active efforts to subvert the force and convince people to desert, go AWOL, file CO, file false charges of harassment or criminal activity, ANYTHING to criple the war effort. Unless people get the message that false charges and running won't work, I fear we are in for a concerted effort to give us a military with such rotten morale that it can't be used. [RANT/OFF] Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-09-28 15:33 |
| #3 Agreed, Sarge. Based on what I saw in 10 years in the military, one whiff of a sexual harrassment allegation getting to the higher ups, and the thunder would come down. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-28 15:16 |
| #2 I read this story about a week ago and it did seem that there was substance to the charges of sexual harassment. However, she chose not to press charges when asked to do so. My overall take on the story was that life is hard but it is harder when you are stupid. I came away thinking she was just kind of dumb and she wasn't capable of handling the situation she was in. It seemed a logical conclusion that she would just run home to have mommy protect her. Not to worry, though. Mommy will still be there for her through the court marshall, the prison sentence and will have her room waiting for her when she gets out. Isn't it nice for mommy that she never has to grow up and leave her all alone. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-09-28 14:29 |
| #1 I agree Mike that her story stinks. I was in the military for 20 years and sexual harassment is just below treason on the seriousness scale. It’s also a bell that cannot and will not be unrung, once you are accused it will follow you forever. I know they claim that they expunge the records but trust me it follows you and it will hurt your career. Her story is full of convienent holes that would otherwise convict a person (not giving a sworn statement for starters). If she felt comfortable enough to accuse someone she should be comfortable enough provide a sworn statement to that affect. She could have done myriad of things that would have kept her from deploying and punished those that supposedly harassed her. Also when you hear someone was “punished” by the military for a sexual relation just remember that they don’t have the same standards as civilians. An Officer/Enlisted, NCO/Subordinate, Married/Married, and Married/Single are all relationships that will cause you harm under the UCMJ. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-09-28 14:07 |