Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
IDF's Handling of Sexual Assult Cases?
44 views
Skip to first unread message
(PeteCresswell)
May 20, 2013, 2:22:07 AM5/20/13
to
Does anybody know whether the IDF prosecutes sexual assault cases within
the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
than the UK.
--
Pete Cresswell
the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
than the UK.
--
Pete Cresswell
David Makowsky
May 20, 2013, 3:33:59 PM5/20/13
to
All of this despite the fact that the evidence was so poor that the case would never even have gone to a jury in the US civilian system. The commander did the right thing.
I don't care which system is used as long as all politics is excluded and only evidence is included.
W. Baker
May 20, 2013, 3:57:52 PM5/20/13
to
David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are far greater issues in this than you bring up. If it is the
supaeior or commanding officer who commits the sexual crime it is quite
futile for the lower ranked individual to bring charges against the person
to whome s/he must report the offense! It is also the chaim of ccommand
issues in which higer leve officers do not want to get their people n
touble and don't want this kind of issue on their own record. It is ffar
more complicated than just one case that was overturned by the commanding
officer.
Wendy
supaeior or commanding officer who commits the sexual crime it is quite
futile for the lower ranked individual to bring charges against the person
to whome s/he must report the offense! It is also the chaim of ccommand
issues in which higer leve officers do not want to get their people n
touble and don't want this kind of issue on their own record. It is ffar
more complicated than just one case that was overturned by the commanding
officer.
Wendy
JJ
May 20, 2013, 4:09:16 PM5/20/13
to
"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kndv56$sgm$2...@reader1.panix.com...
... and apparently much more prevalent that we had been led to believe
before...
Jay
news:kndv56$sgm$2...@reader1.panix.com...
before...
Jay
David Makowsky
May 20, 2013, 5:52:25 PM5/20/13
to
I only gave the example I did because that case is being used as a justification to go to a system in the US military where it will be more difficult to get at the truth. This is all being brought about by the PC people.
W. Baker
May 20, 2013, 8:40:24 PM5/20/13
to
David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't understand why having a diconnected juditial system without the
chain of command problems would be less likely to get at the truth. It
would be far more objective and not have the issues of favoritism and
threatening the career of the person who makes the charge as low man on
the totem pole.
Wendy
chain of command problems would be less likely to get at the truth. It
would be far more objective and not have the issues of favoritism and
threatening the career of the person who makes the charge as low man on
the totem pole.
Wendy
mm
May 21, 2013, 2:16:41 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:52:25 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
you make this claim?
> The
>> : commander did the right thing.
Did you hear all the evidence?
>> : I don't care which system is used as long as all politics is excluded and
>> : only evidence is included.
What is evidence is ofteb the subject of dispute and sometimes the
topic of appeal. What do you claim was introduced that should not
have been, and why would an appeal to an appellate court not have been
the better remedy/ I'll tell you why. When there's a war on and
every person is needed to pursue the war, the military wants to handle
this stuff quickly, and that might be a good reason, but there is no
war going on now that takes everyone's attention, and there's no
reason appeals couldn't be heard by disinterested parties.
>> There are far greater issues in this than you bring up. If it is the
>> supaeior or commanding officer who commits the sexual crime it is quite
>> futile for the lower ranked individual to bring charges against the person
>> to whome s/he must report the offense! It is also the chaim of ccommand
>> issues in which higer leve officers do not want to get their people n
>> touble and don't want this kind of issue on their own record. It is ffar
>> more complicated than just one case that was overturned by the commanding
>> officer.
>
>I disagree. The case I brought up was an example of the point I made. That point is the system that is selected needs to be the best way to get at the truth. In fact you provided areas of concern that could get in the way of getting at the truth.
>
>I only gave the example I did because that case is being used as a justification to go to a system in the US military where it will be more difficult to get at the truth. This is all being brought about by the PC people.
When a woman working at Macy's is raped on the job, she doesn't have
to report the rape to her supervisor and let a bunch of Macy's
employees gather the evidence and try the case. And if there's a
conviction the department manager at Macy's doesnt' get to overturn
the verdict, and without giving a reason no less.
References to PC are useful when one side has no good arguments.
You would change your mind, probably, if your sister or daughter were
raped, chas v'sholom.
--
Meir
<dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:57:52 PM UTC-5, W. Baker wrote:
>
>> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> : On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:22:07 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>> : > Does anybody know whether the IDF prosecutes sexual assault cases within
>> : > the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
>
>> : > My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
>
>> : > The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
>> : > harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
>> : > experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
>> : > than the UK.
Good question.
>On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:57:52 PM UTC-5, W. Baker wrote:
>
>> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> : On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:22:07 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>> : > Does anybody know whether the IDF prosecutes sexual assault cases within
>> : > the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
>
>> : > My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
>
>> : > The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
>> : > harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
>> : > experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
>> : > than the UK.
>
>> : The issue in the US I believe is that a commander overturned a conviction
>> : based on various factors including inconsistencies in victim testimony (That > : was nowhere near the only reason). The PC crowd was so upset by this that
>> : there have been Congressional hearings and the commander who overturned the > : conviction will probably never be promoted again.
>
>> : All of this despite the fact that the evidence was so poor that the case
>> : would never even have gone to a jury in the US civilian system.
Are you a lawyer? What do you know about the trial? On what basis do
>> : The issue in the US I believe is that a commander overturned a conviction
>> : based on various factors including inconsistencies in victim testimony (That > : was nowhere near the only reason). The PC crowd was so upset by this that
>> : there have been Congressional hearings and the commander who overturned the > : conviction will probably never be promoted again.
>
>> : All of this despite the fact that the evidence was so poor that the case
>> : would never even have gone to a jury in the US civilian system.
you make this claim?
> The
>> : commander did the right thing.
>> : I don't care which system is used as long as all politics is excluded and
>> : only evidence is included.
topic of appeal. What do you claim was introduced that should not
have been, and why would an appeal to an appellate court not have been
the better remedy/ I'll tell you why. When there's a war on and
every person is needed to pursue the war, the military wants to handle
this stuff quickly, and that might be a good reason, but there is no
war going on now that takes everyone's attention, and there's no
reason appeals couldn't be heard by disinterested parties.
>> There are far greater issues in this than you bring up. If it is the
>> supaeior or commanding officer who commits the sexual crime it is quite
>> futile for the lower ranked individual to bring charges against the person
>> to whome s/he must report the offense! It is also the chaim of ccommand
>> issues in which higer leve officers do not want to get their people n
>> touble and don't want this kind of issue on their own record. It is ffar
>> more complicated than just one case that was overturned by the commanding
>> officer.
>
>I disagree. The case I brought up was an example of the point I made. That point is the system that is selected needs to be the best way to get at the truth. In fact you provided areas of concern that could get in the way of getting at the truth.
>
>I only gave the example I did because that case is being used as a justification to go to a system in the US military where it will be more difficult to get at the truth. This is all being brought about by the PC people.
to report the rape to her supervisor and let a bunch of Macy's
employees gather the evidence and try the case. And if there's a
conviction the department manager at Macy's doesnt' get to overturn
the verdict, and without giving a reason no less.
References to PC are useful when one side has no good arguments.
You would change your mind, probably, if your sister or daughter were
raped, chas v'sholom.
--
Meir
David Makowsky
May 21, 2013, 9:22:29 AM5/21/13
to
David Makowsky
May 21, 2013, 10:29:51 AM5/21/13
to
> > The
> >> : commander did the right thing.
> Did you hear all the evidence?
> >> : I don't care which system is used as long as all politics is excluded and
> >> : only evidence is included.
> What is evidence is ofteb the subject of dispute and sometimes the
> topic of appeal. What do you claim was introduced that should not
> have been, and why would an appeal to an appellate court not have been
> the better remedy/ I'll tell you why. When there's a war on and
> every person is needed to pursue the war, the military wants to handle
> this stuff quickly, and that might be a good reason, but there is no
> war going on now that takes everyone's attention, and there's no
> reason appeals couldn't be heard by disinterested parties.
> >> There are far greater issues in this than you bring up. If it is the
> >> supaeior or commanding officer who commits the sexual crime it is quite
> >> futile for the lower ranked individual to bring charges against the person
> >> to whome s/he must report the offense! It is also the chaim of ccommand
> >> issues in which higer leve officers do not want to get their people n
> >> touble and don't want this kind of issue on their own record. It is ffar
> >> more complicated than just one case that was overturned by the commanding
> >> officer.
> >I disagree. The case I brought up was an example of the point I made. That > >point is the system that is selected needs to be the best way to get at the
> >truth. In fact you provided areas of concern that could get in the way of
> >getting at the truth.
> >I only gave the example I did because that case is being used as a
> >justification to go to a system in the US military where it will be more
> >difficult to get at the truth. This is all being brought about by the PC
> >people.
> When a woman working at Macy's is raped on the job, she doesn't have
> to report the rape to her supervisor and let a bunch of Macy's
> employees gather the evidence and try the case. And if there's a
> conviction the department manager at Macy's doesnt' get to overturn
> the verdict, and without giving a reason no less.
> References to PC are useful when one side has no good arguments.
> You would change your mind, probably, if your sister or daughter were
> raped, chas v'sholom.
(PeteCresswell)
May 21, 2013, 10:30:09 AM5/21/13
to
Per David Makowsky:
I'm thinking that, if they do it outside of the chain of command, that
approach probably works well enough. OTOH, if they have kept it within
the chain of command, there is probably a good reason.
--
Pete Cresswell
>I don't care which system is used as long as all politics is excluded and only evidence is included.
But does anybody know how the IDF does it?
I'm thinking that, if they do it outside of the chain of command, that
approach probably works well enough. OTOH, if they have kept it within
the chain of command, there is probably a good reason.
--
Pete Cresswell
Fred Goldstein
May 21, 2013, 1:48:30 PM5/21/13
to
The military "justice" system, while not perfect (nor is the civilian
one), nonetheless has a "finding of fact" stage, a military
court-martial. In the instant case, the finders of fact did find that
the charges were valid. However, rather than being solely subject to
appeal within a judicial system, as in the civilian courts, the guilty
party simply went to his superior officer, who overturned the court's
finding of fact. And he justified it not because the alleged facts were
wrong but because of loyalty. In other words, a criminal got away with
it because personal allegiances put them above the law.
If the facts were as weak as you allege, then an appelate court should
have overturned the conviction. This isn't about PeeCee. It's about
crime. And yes, even crimes against women count -- the law does not view
women as chattel.
David Makowsky
May 21, 2013, 4:23:57 PM5/21/13
to
> The military "justice" system, while not perfect (nor is the civilian
> one), nonetheless has a "finding of fact" stage, a military
> court-martial. In the instant case, the finders of fact did find that
> the charges were valid. However, rather than being solely subject to
> appeal within a judicial system, as in the civilian courts, the guilty
> party simply went to his superior officer, who overturned the court's
> finding of fact. And he justified it not because the alleged facts were
> wrong but because of loyalty. In other words, a criminal got away with
> it because personal allegiances put them above the law.
It is evident from what is publicly available that the victim did have major inconsistencies in her story. Also the PC people have taken on this case and they are attempting to make changes for all the wrong reasons. It is this point that upsets me.
You also need to consider that the members of the military jury may have had to consider their own careers if they came back with a not guilty verdict. The reaction of the PC crowd to what the commander did certainly justifies that fear.
> If the facts were as weak as you allege, then an appelate court should
> have overturned the conviction. This isn't about PeeCee. It's about
> crime.
> And yes, even crimes against women count -- the law does not view
> women as chattel.
(PeteCresswell)
May 21, 2013, 9:57:13 PM5/21/13
to
Per Fred Goldstein:
is also about the effectiveness of the military under the two different
approaches.
That is what prompted my OP: wondering if maybe a
successful/real-world-functioning military like the IDF might have gone
to the outside-chain-of-command model and found that it worked well
enough for them.
I am, as usual, disappointed with the news media - even PBS News Hour
and Charlie Rose - for not exploring this.
--
Pete Cresswell
>This isn't about PeeCee. It's about
>crime.
From what I have read so far, there are those on both sides who say it
>crime.
is also about the effectiveness of the military under the two different
approaches.
That is what prompted my OP: wondering if maybe a
successful/real-world-functioning military like the IDF might have gone
to the outside-chain-of-command model and found that it worked well
enough for them.
I am, as usual, disappointed with the news media - even PBS News Hour
and Charlie Rose - for not exploring this.
--
Pete Cresswell
mm
May 22, 2013, 2:25:23 AM5/22/13
to
much hope for your success. I think we have a better chance of
Charlie Rose posting here.
--
Meir
mm
May 22, 2013, 5:07:56 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:29:51 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
remind me that IIRC, I don't think the standards are supposed to be
the same. In situations not involving sex, iiuc, the military justice
system has worked pretty well afaik. There's plenty of evidence it's
not working here.
>> Are you a lawyer? What do you know about the trial? On what basis do
>> you make this claim?
>
>After all the publicity stirred up by the PC crowed I actually read up on the trial. There are several lawyers who go to my Schul, one of whom is a former prosecutor and another is an excellent criminal defense attorney, with whom I periodically discuss legal issues that interest me.
You haven't give a single piece of information that even hints at what
you say.
hearsay, but since you provide nothing, it's not even that.
Constitutional right. It's neither. If they don't do as good a job
as another system would, then they have no right, even while they
continue to have the power.
>and this commander may never get another promotion.
Maybe he doesn't deserve one.
but you should know that the conserviative dummies like to blame PC
for all kinds of problems which they ridicule.
Maybe you think nothing bad happeneed in this case, but you have yet
to say one word of compassion for the women in the miliarary who have
been raped or sexually assaulted. And you use the words PC over and
over again like you're ridiculing all of them and what happened to all
of them, and you come off like someone who would make one excuse after
another if his son were accused of rape, or his brother, or his
friend, or the guy who lived down the block that you dont' even know.
It's too late for me, but if you want anyone else to ever respect you
when give this crap about how you know the man wasn't guilty (even
though he was convicted by a court martial) you'd better leave out all
references to PC or synonyms or you'll come off like you do here.
> Do you think there would not be Congressional hearings and a push to strip commanders of these powers were it not for the PC crowed? Do you think this commander would no longer have a chance for promotion were it not for the PC crowed? As I previously mentioned if it is best to do so then do so but don't do it for PC reasons.
>
>> You would change your mind, probably, if your sister or daughter were
>> raped, chas v'sholom.
>
>You are probably correct. However just as in the Michael Dukakis debate question (1988 Presidential campaign in which he flubbed the answer) policy should not be based on if it were my sister or daughter. All objectivity is lost.
You have already lost your objectivity, if you ever had any on this.
--
Meir
<dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:16:41 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:52:25 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
>> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:57:52 PM UTC-5, W. Baker wrote:
>
>> >> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> : On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:22:07 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>> >> : > Does anybody know whether the IDF prosecutes sexual assault cases
>> >> : > within
>> >> : > the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
>
>> >> : > My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
>
>> >> : > The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
>> >> : > harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
>> >> : > experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
>> >> : > than the UK.
>
>> Good question.
>
>> >> : The issue in the US I believe is that a commander overturned a conviction
>> >> : based on various factors including inconsistencies in victim testimony
>> >> : (That > : was nowhere near the only reason). The PC crowd was so upset
>> >> : by this that
>> >> : there have been Congressional hearings and the commander who overturned
>> >> : the > : conviction will probably never be promoted again.
>
>> >> : All of this despite the fact that the evidence was so poor that the case
>> >> : would never even have gone to a jury in the US civilian system.
I'm not granting your statement here at all, but it does perhaps
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:16:41 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:52:25 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
>> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:57:52 PM UTC-5, W. Baker wrote:
>
>> >> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> : On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:22:07 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>> >> : > Does anybody know whether the IDF prosecutes sexual assault cases
>> >> : > within
>> >> : > the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
>
>> >> : > My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
>
>> >> : > The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
>> >> : > harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
>> >> : > experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
>> >> : > than the UK.
>
>> Good question.
>
>> >> : The issue in the US I believe is that a commander overturned a conviction
>> >> : based on various factors including inconsistencies in victim testimony
>> >> : (That > : was nowhere near the only reason). The PC crowd was so upset
>> >> : by this that
>> >> : there have been Congressional hearings and the commander who overturned
>> >> : the > : conviction will probably never be promoted again.
>
>> >> : All of this despite the fact that the evidence was so poor that the case
>> >> : would never even have gone to a jury in the US civilian system.
remind me that IIRC, I don't think the standards are supposed to be
the same. In situations not involving sex, iiuc, the military justice
system has worked pretty well afaik. There's plenty of evidence it's
not working here.
>> Are you a lawyer? What do you know about the trial? On what basis do
>> you make this claim?
>
>After all the publicity stirred up by the PC crowed I actually read up on the trial. There are several lawyers who go to my Schul, one of whom is a former prosecutor and another is an excellent criminal defense attorney, with whom I periodically discuss legal issues that interest me.
you say.
>
>> > The
>> >> : commander did the right thing.
>
>> Did you hear all the evidence?
>
>No, but i heard enough. Remember the defense does not need to prove innocence so I did not have to hear all of the evidence.
But you're not going to tell us anything. It woudl be double
>> > The
>> >> : commander did the right thing.
>
>> Did you hear all the evidence?
>
>No, but i heard enough. Remember the defense does not need to prove innocence so I did not have to hear all of the evidence.
hearsay, but since you provide nothing, it's not even that.
>
>> >> : I don't care which system is used as long as all politics is excluded and
>> >> : only evidence is included.
>
>> What is evidence is ofteb the subject of dispute and sometimes the
>> topic of appeal. What do you claim was introduced that should not
>> have been, and why would an appeal to an appellate court not have been
>> the better remedy/ I'll tell you why. When there's a war on and
>> every person is needed to pursue the war, the military wants to handle
>> this stuff quickly, and that might be a good reason, but there is no
>> war going on now that takes everyone's attention, and there's no
>> reason appeals couldn't be heard by disinterested parties.
>
>That has nothing to do with the issue. In this case there was a conviction and the commander overturned the conviction. The PC crowed now wants to take away a commanders right to do this
You make it sound like this is a God-given or at least a
>> >> : I don't care which system is used as long as all politics is excluded and
>> >> : only evidence is included.
>
>> What is evidence is ofteb the subject of dispute and sometimes the
>> topic of appeal. What do you claim was introduced that should not
>> have been, and why would an appeal to an appellate court not have been
>> the better remedy/ I'll tell you why. When there's a war on and
>> every person is needed to pursue the war, the military wants to handle
>> this stuff quickly, and that might be a good reason, but there is no
>> war going on now that takes everyone's attention, and there's no
>> reason appeals couldn't be heard by disinterested parties.
>
>That has nothing to do with the issue. In this case there was a conviction and the commander overturned the conviction. The PC crowed now wants to take away a commanders right to do this
Constitutional right. It's neither. If they don't do as good a job
as another system would, then they have no right, even while they
continue to have the power.
>and this commander may never get another promotion.
>
>> >> There are far greater issues in this than you bring up. If it is the
>> >> supaeior or commanding officer who commits the sexual crime it is quite
>> >> futile for the lower ranked individual to bring charges against the person
>> >> to whome s/he must report the offense! It is also the chaim of ccommand
>> >> issues in which higer leve officers do not want to get their people n
>> >> touble and don't want this kind of issue on their own record. It is ffar
>> >> more complicated than just one case that was overturned by the commanding
>> >> officer.
>
>> >I disagree. The case I brought up was an example of the point I made. That > >point is the system that is selected needs to be the best way to get at the
>> >truth. In fact you provided areas of concern that could get in the way of
>> >getting at the truth.
>
>> >I only gave the example I did because that case is being used as a
>> >justification to go to a system in the US military where it will be more
>> >difficult to get at the truth. This is all being brought about by the PC
>> >people.
>
>> When a woman working at Macy's is raped on the job, she doesn't have
>> to report the rape to her supervisor and let a bunch of Macy's
>> employees gather the evidence and try the case. And if there's a
>> conviction the department manager at Macy's doesnt' get to overturn
>> the verdict, and without giving a reason no less.
>
>I don't think this example is similar enough however it does not matter. I have no problem in general if commanders are stripped of these powers if that is the best way to get at the truth and not for PC reasons. The problem is based on the facts in the case I brought up the commander was correct and if he did not have these powers someone might be severely punished when that person should not be punished.
>
>> References to PC are useful when one side has no good arguments.
>
>In this case PC is exactly what is going on.
No it's not. And I'll tell you something. I'm not calling you one
>> >> There are far greater issues in this than you bring up. If it is the
>> >> supaeior or commanding officer who commits the sexual crime it is quite
>> >> futile for the lower ranked individual to bring charges against the person
>> >> to whome s/he must report the offense! It is also the chaim of ccommand
>> >> issues in which higer leve officers do not want to get their people n
>> >> touble and don't want this kind of issue on their own record. It is ffar
>> >> more complicated than just one case that was overturned by the commanding
>> >> officer.
>
>> >I disagree. The case I brought up was an example of the point I made. That > >point is the system that is selected needs to be the best way to get at the
>> >truth. In fact you provided areas of concern that could get in the way of
>> >getting at the truth.
>
>> >I only gave the example I did because that case is being used as a
>> >justification to go to a system in the US military where it will be more
>> >difficult to get at the truth. This is all being brought about by the PC
>> >people.
>
>> When a woman working at Macy's is raped on the job, she doesn't have
>> to report the rape to her supervisor and let a bunch of Macy's
>> employees gather the evidence and try the case. And if there's a
>> conviction the department manager at Macy's doesnt' get to overturn
>> the verdict, and without giving a reason no less.
>
>I don't think this example is similar enough however it does not matter. I have no problem in general if commanders are stripped of these powers if that is the best way to get at the truth and not for PC reasons. The problem is based on the facts in the case I brought up the commander was correct and if he did not have these powers someone might be severely punished when that person should not be punished.
>
>> References to PC are useful when one side has no good arguments.
>
>In this case PC is exactly what is going on.
but you should know that the conserviative dummies like to blame PC
for all kinds of problems which they ridicule.
Maybe you think nothing bad happeneed in this case, but you have yet
to say one word of compassion for the women in the miliarary who have
been raped or sexually assaulted. And you use the words PC over and
over again like you're ridiculing all of them and what happened to all
of them, and you come off like someone who would make one excuse after
another if his son were accused of rape, or his brother, or his
friend, or the guy who lived down the block that you dont' even know.
It's too late for me, but if you want anyone else to ever respect you
when give this crap about how you know the man wasn't guilty (even
though he was convicted by a court martial) you'd better leave out all
references to PC or synonyms or you'll come off like you do here.
> Do you think there would not be Congressional hearings and a push to strip commanders of these powers were it not for the PC crowed? Do you think this commander would no longer have a chance for promotion were it not for the PC crowed? As I previously mentioned if it is best to do so then do so but don't do it for PC reasons.
>
>> You would change your mind, probably, if your sister or daughter were
>> raped, chas v'sholom.
>
>You are probably correct. However just as in the Michael Dukakis debate question (1988 Presidential campaign in which he flubbed the answer) policy should not be based on if it were my sister or daughter. All objectivity is lost.
--
Meir
mm
May 22, 2013, 9:25:31 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:23:57 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
Nonsense. It just means your apologetic wasnt' a good one.
> However your insult, a violation of the charter for this group, is noted.
Fred's words were not an insult. They descibed what you had written,
and in polite enough terms. If you're basing your claim on the word
"rapist", keep in mind that we're not obliged to accept your notion
that there was no rape.
--
Meir
> However your insult, a violation of the charter for this group, is noted.
and in polite enough terms. If you're basing your claim on the word
"rapist", keep in mind that we're not obliged to accept your notion
that there was no rape.
--
Meir
David Makowsky
May 22, 2013, 10:26:16 AM5/22/13
to
My response to this having been rejected by the moderators as being outside the defined topic of this newsgroup, and in the hope of increasing Jewish unity, I would like to both thank you for your response and to let you know that I will consider what you wrote.
Shelly
May 22, 2013, 2:59:27 PM5/22/13
to
On 20/05/2013 02:22, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Does anybody know whether the IDF prosecutes sexual assault cases within
> the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
>
> My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
>
> The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
> harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
> experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
> than the UK.
Really harry? You think there are only about 60 people in Israel who
> Does anybody know whether the IDF prosecutes sexual assault cases within
> the chain of command or from outside of the chain of command?
>
> My impression is that the UK does it from outside.
>
> The USA is debating whether going outside the chain of command would be
> harmful. I'm thinking that the IDF would have more "real world"
> experience because they are more involved in actual military operations
> than the UK.
are Reform? Think again.
BTW, the last I knew the STATE OF ISRAEL recognized anyone having a
Reform conversion in another country as qualifying under the law of return.
--
Shelly
JJ
May 22, 2013, 3:08:59 PM5/22/13
to
"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:knj47u$drp$5...@dont-email.me...
It does. The person qualifies for citizenship, but the rabbinate is not
obligated to marry him or her.
Jay
news:knj47u$drp$5...@dont-email.me...
obligated to marry him or her.
Jay
Shelly
May 22, 2013, 4:47:34 PM5/22/13
to
responded as I did.
-- Shelly
0 new messages