| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| New Model Army |
| 2006-01-10 |
| A U.S. Navy lieutenant is being facing a court martial on three criminal charges; failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation; conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen; and indecent language. Thatâs because he made some crude sexual remarks in the presence of female midshipmen (from the U.S. Naval Academy). The superintendent of the academy, Vice Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, believes in zero tolerance when it comes to sexual harassment, and the admiral believes this is a case that should be prosecuted vigorously. Many of his subordinates, including the female officer who investigated the incident, do not agree. And it appears that the admiral is acting more to protect himself from accusations of being soft on sexual harassment. But the admiral is not alone. As of last October, it is illegal for any uniformed member of the armed forces to patronize a prostitute. Doing so, and getting caught, makes you subject to court martial, and punishment of up to a year in prison, forfeiture of pay and dishonorable discharge. So you canât say anything, you canât do anything, and, to a certain extent, you can think about anything lewd. There are also restrictions on the posting of âlewdâ pictures in barracks, or the sale of same in the PX. As a result, out troops are not only deadly, they are pure as well. As a practical result of all this, the troops risk punishment to get laid, drunk (booze is not allowed in combat zones) and sexually stimulated (the Internet is an excellent source of porn). The troops quickly learn which officers to avoid when using salty language. However, if you do get caught, and your commander is into "zero tolerance," your military is toast, and you might end up in prison as well. The risk is not so great that there is a noticeable effect on recruiting and re-enlistments. Senior NCOs, and many officers, unofficially conspire with the troops to ignore this official Puritanism. The troops understand that, being in the military means exposure to some form of official nonsense and harassment. We'll know it's come full circle when they start marching to paslms. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #11 TW- Its not their web site per se, but essentially it works that way. |
| Posted by: SFRedbook 2006-01-10 18:07 |
| #10 Ok, now I'm surprised. There is a prostitutes' Guild, and it has a website?!? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-01-10 17:51 |
| #9 "twelve-month beauty queens" Definition for us civilians, please? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-01-10 17:50 |
| #8 If he brings proof he is a soldier or marine who just got back from Iraq or Afghanistan, a guy could probably get a freebie from the hookers guild in the SF Bay Area. If he justs posts on line, the web site members will steer him in the right direction. Most of us are ex military anyway, and would be glad to help. |
| Posted by: Redbook 2006-01-10 15:43 |
| #7 I remember some a-hole Corps commander decided to ban moustaches. This made me, a moustache wearer, nervous at the time, until another moustache wearer, an NCO, said "Yeah, the next time you see the general, I bet you get in trouble." Come to think of it, I never even saw a picture of the dude. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-10 13:01 |
| #6 Crack troops are trouble. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-10 12:52 |
| #5 This is one of those things that comes and goes. punishment to get laid, drunk and sexually stimulated. Booze is not allowed in combat zones these days as a result of the ODS experience. The commanders like having 1/100th of the usual garrison discipline problems. Alk is a big contributing factor. Ditto with actual sex. Think dogs fighting over the bitch in heat. On the other hand, the porn ban I suspect is pure, craven lawyer-proofing. The stuff bout "respecting Females" is just eyewash. I'm sure it is illegal to whack off too. Are they supposed to be soldiers or monks? Bigjim, Yes it is (see UCMJ, sodomy, Definintion of), and probably yes to both, when it's thought about at all. Remember, though, the motoviation for this is not Neo-Puritanism, but rather simply cutting down on the discipline problems. LIC/MOOTW/COIN/etc. is inherently politicaly sensitive. With the MSM looking for anything they can bash Bush and or the military with, well lets just say that minimizing potential problems is a high priority at Brigade staff echelon and above. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-01-10 12:47 |
| #4 The effects of the Tailhook Scandal continue to reverberate |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2006-01-10 12:08 |
| #3 I'm sure it is illegal to whack off too. Are they soldiers or monks? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-01-10 12:02 |
| #2 All at the same time that pressure is being applied for Gays to be permitted to serve openly in the military. What is this? Reverse discrimination for straights? Gays are usually not subject to court martial or Art. 15s, just discharged. Little inconsistant isn't it? We'll suppress hetero behavior while promoting gay behavior. |
| Posted by: Glavique Gloth5539 2006-01-10 11:37 |
| #1 As of last October, it is illegal for any uniformed member of the armed forces to patronize a prostitute. I wondered how long that would take. Back when we had bases in the Phillipines, there were females trying to get the rules changes so servicemen couldn't go offbase. Seems the "twelve-month beauty queens" couldn't compete. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-01-10 10:09 |