gdp's Comments

Kit Up! : BH_HPFU_Jacket

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:47:46 +0000

Here are some comments from my Facebook page: Chris: The thing that is overdue is the need to examine the issue. I have known female soldier to try to use these things as a weapon. The soldier I am referring to did not like one of her male NCO's so she lured him into her room and then tried t...o bust him with a sexual harassment complaint. I think she lost because two things came out during the investigation, the first was that she did not like the man before the incident and the second was that she had asked him up to her room. She used the lure of needing help with "remedial PT" to get the sergeant up to her room. It was pretty common for female soldiers to file rape charges during the opening phases of OIF. There was almost a set pattern that was heard over and over again. Female soldier has her male soldier friend in her quarters after hours when there are supposed to be no males in the female barracks. She is watching movies and eating pizza and drinking beer with her male friend. She gets drunk, passes out and then in the morning shows up at the MP station to report the rape and get the rape kit done. As a result the army loses two soldiers. In those instances both knew that the male soldier was not supposed to be in the female barracks after hours, both knew the army policy on drinking etc. both had broken several direct orders and general orders....and yet as a "rape" it gets lumped into the numbers with the other rapes, the real forced rapes that were perpetrated as an assault, the date rapes, and the "rapes" that were reported as rapes but may have been something else. Of course when the woman goes through the process and has a "rape kit" done, signs of force are documented, but even when it was the result of violence the "rape kit" is not 100% and often the victim does not report actual rapes or waits to long to report and the "rape kit" is not conclusive. There are rapes in the service, and its not just heterosexual rapes, there are homosexual rapes too. The services have a lot of people and with that many people there are going to be a few bad actors. The question that is often missed is the question of how reliable is the report. Whose fault was it? The reported perpetrator is almost always to blame, for them not to have the blame the report would have to be a completely false report, and the number of false reports are small but false reports are still possible and do happen. But there are also situations where the victim is somewhat to blame also. While there is nothing that can justify sexual assault, in cases such as the too often repeated pizza and beer after hours in the female barracks case, what blame does the young woman have for breaking rules and going against direct orders and inviting the male soldier to her barracks room after hours and mixing alcohol into the situation? For those situations complicated by the presence of alcohol, too much alcohol may take from her the ability to give consent, but I don't believe that any court would view his intoxication as a mitigating defense. But all of those complicated situations that often end up with a young woman filing a complaint at the MP station almost always end up costing the army two soldiers as both the perpetrator and the victim are lost. So what is the solution the only way to be sure to make it impossible for female soldiers to be raped would be to have no female soldiers. That is just not possible. To make female soldiers the "ever victim" where they are assumed to have not possibly have also played a role only opens the door, extremely small though it may be, for a female soldier to use this as a weapon. This has to be one of the more difficult problems and it will only be made worse now that DADT has need scrapped. I'm certainly not smart enough to figure out what the services should do, I just hope there is someone who is. -0- Kathy: Blame the victim is a common refrain. Way more rapes go unreported than falsely reported. I can't imagine how ending the legislated discrimination of people based on their sexual orientation will make the problem of women being assaulted by their male peers or superiors worse. I'm not sure what to think of the lawsuit, but I do believe an anti-female culture exists in many organizations that makes it all too easy to blame the victim and to make some men believe these acts wouldn't be dealt with too harshly. -0- Ronald: It's sad it had to come to a lawsuit, which I think is ridiculous. But the truth is there are epidemic amounts of sexual assault and harassment. But does anybody think about what we train these men to do on these combat missions? How they ne...ed to act? Then we want them to return to the barracks and stand down. Give them alcohol and put young inebriated women in their path? Not a recipe for success. Whatever we need to do to maintain the LETHALITY of our forces...while protecting all of our troops, men or women, from violent attacks and sexual assaults, is what we need to do. NOW. if that means a draft, and no females in combat zones, so be it.

Kit Up! : Danner Gets Big New Boot Order

Sun, 9 Jan 2011 04:25:25 +0000

Here's a dissenting comment from a friend of mine who didn't want to "call me out" in public: "There's a difference between a woman who holds rallies to fire up followers and uses words like don't retreat, reload and puts a map with targets on her website and a guy who wrote a book about climate change. At some point, she DOES become responsible for advocating radical action - esp when she fabricates things like "death panels" knowing that kind of rhetoric will hit a nerve. There is no evidence so far to point to anything definitive ... but I do believe when someone goes over the edge (whether this is the guy or there's still a guy to come), people who mouth off like Limbaugh, Beck. and Pain hold some responsibility for yelling fire in a crowded theater. They know someone's going to get trampled."

Kit Up! : Infantry Automatic Rifle 'Could' Replace all SAWs

Sun, 9 Jan 2011 02:49:09 +0000

Uh.. guilty as charged. I could use a few dozen copy editors.

Kit Up! : Jon Stewart, 9/11 Responders, and Media Myths

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:42:03 +0000

Here's a good follow up on the the media myths of Murrow and Cronkite: http://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/li...

Kit Up! : DADT Repeal: Honesty IS the Best Policy

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:39:09 +0000

I kinda c what ur sayin'...

Defense Tech : CV-22 Crash Caused by Pilot Error, Engine "Power Loss" May Have Contributed

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:57:27 +0000

It seems like the investigation went out of its way to avoid blaming the aircraft, but it's clear with out the engine failure the pilot would have had more options than to "press ahead" with the landings. More thoughts and the full accident reports at http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2010/12/17/v-22-os...

Kit Up! : Richard Holbrooke has died.

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:51:25 +0000

Ah, yes, but in 1989 CNN was all-news all the time. Now it's part-news, part of the time.

Kit Up! : Mythbuster: The Pentagon's Ground Zero Café

Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:18:51 +0000

Never found it in 16 years of wondering the 17 and 1/2 miles of corridors... Maybe if I had one more year...

Kit Up! : Common Sense on WikiLeaks - Part 2

Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:17:57 +0000

So Jim how does this not equally apply to the New York Times, or CNN, or ME?

Kit Up! : Ralph Nader's Wrongheaded Hubris

Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:44:31 +0000

Two interesting takes: Why Bloomberg Won's Run - Daily Beast - Dec. 12, 2010 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/20... And A Decade after Bush v. Gore - George Will -- Dec. 12 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...

Kit Up! : Death to Assange!

Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:02:50 +0000

You do realize I'm employing sarcasm when I say, "Death to Assange," right? I mean, as I say, on some level the New York Times, and every other organization is equally as culpable. I would feel better if Assange employed more judgment and was less gratuitous gossip-mongering with his invasions of privacy. Journalists are in favor of exposing wrong-doing, but Assange's indiscriminate wiki-leaking is provoking a backlash that will make it harder for real whistleblowers inside government to get protection, and for responsible journalists to do the hard work of exposing the truth. But as I said he's no hero or mine, but he's not the bad guy either. He's just a middleman who's never met a secret he likes.

Kit Up! : RUMINT: Aussies Going MultiCam

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:58:23 +0000

Eliza. I take your point. By the way there's an old adage in the news business that if you put a question mark after a headline it means the story is probably not true. It's a joke, but many a truth is said in jest. I think you can tell by my post I'm conflicted by the leak. On one hand I appreciate the ability to read these reports that normally journalists would not have access to. And I have no sympathy for anyone trying to cover up wrongdoing. But I do question the motives of the WikiLeaks folks and their purist (some would say extremist) view that no one has a right to privacy or secrecy. Sunshine can be a great disinfectant, but do we really want to live in a world where nothing can be done in private? Where anyone who can beg, borrow or steal confidential information and share it with the world. My point is we appear to have no choice. It's the world we live in. Is is extreme to label extremists "info-terrorists?? Well, just wait until WikiLeaks posts all YOUR personal files, emails, pictures, and maybe you be asking the same question.

Kit Up! : RUMINT: Aussies Going MultiCam

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:18:04 +0000

Looking for an example of positive change that came from WikiLeaks posting???

Kit Up! : "I was Taliban Last Time, Jimmy . . ."

Mon, 5 Jul 2010 16:58:39 +0000

I'm curious. Which part of this article should I be "deeply ashamed" of? The part where I suggest journalists shouldn't write puff pieces to get access later? Or the part where I warn sources nothing they say is REALLY off the record? Or the part where I say journalists should be able to look their sources in the eye and say they treated them fairly? Or the part where I suggest reporters should not be disparaged just because they haven't served in the military? Or the part where I say what we really should be debating is our strategy in Afghanistan? Which part should I be "deeply ashamed" of?

Kit Up! : "I was Taliban Last Time, Jimmy . . ."

Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:18:37 +0000

Andrew, GREAT point. This would make a great paper at the war college.

Kit Up! : A Tactical Firing Range in Your Pocket

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:45:12 +0000

The Washington Post weighs in: with editorial "Pentagon should rescind decision to expel reporters from Guantanamo" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti... "The Pentagon is right to be concerned about protecting the identity of witnesses who may be subject to harassment, threats or worse. Naming those whose identities are subject to protective orders also could scare off future witnesses. But the expulsion of the four reporters was not justified; the decision should be reversed. Mr. Claus's identity and his role in the Khadr case were well-known long before he took the stand; the information is a matter of public record and, as a lawyer for the journalists notes, can be found on Mr. Khadr's Wikipedia page. Allowing the news groups to send different reporters does not erase the harm of banning four veteran journalists who have spent years covering Guantanamo and bring a depth of knowledge to their coverage that novices would lack."

Kit Up! : Department of Redundancy Department

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:10:39 +0000

Yes, but shouldn't that question be answered BEFORE you buy the plane???

Kit Up! : Fear the Reaper

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:09:22 +0000

Yes, I know the picture is a Predator, not a Reaper, but I couldn't resist...

Kit Up! : A Tactical Firing Range in Your Pocket

Fri, 28 May 2010 18:46:20 +0000

I got this feedback from someone close to the process, who shared it with me directly. I wanted to post a portion of the comments because I think it helps explain the other side of the story. After thoughtful consideration I still think it’s a wrongheaded notion that the court has jurisdiction over more than what is said in court. And the witness in question, wasn't outed by outside reporting, he outed himself. I could envision a lengthy debate on this issue between two competent, impassioned advocates. The other side of the story: "The fact that Carol was involved, or that she is an experienced "GTMO hand," is immaterial. She, and three others, knowingly and repeatedly violated the judge's protective order and the agreed-upon ground rules. The penalty for violation was clearly laid out in the documents they all signed. There were 11 other journalists at GTMO that week and only four chose to disregard the rules and publish the name of a protected witness. That his name was "in public" two years ago is also immaterial -- at the time his name was reported he wasn't "Interrogator 1" in a commissions hearing testifying under condition of anonymity. Using the logic that his name was previously published and therefore "fair game" for reporting means that almost anyone who testifies under protection could be "outed" by the press since nearly everyone's identity can be ascertained with simple on-line research these days. To allow such a breach to go without sanction creates a chilling effect on future witnesses who can't be guaranteed that their identities will be withheld by reporters covering the proceedings."

Kit Up! : Ramping Up MultiCam Production

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:06:35 +0000

When you are a reporter, you live by the source and die by the source. And NO, Rick Whittle is not the source, in fact I think he's among the people who thinks maybe my source is mistaken. So all I can say is its a good source, in a position to know, who has always been reliable in the past. As with any sourced report, eventually the facts will be be released, and we can measure the sourced report with the official release. Jamie