Military Rape Documentary Funded and Distributed by Serial Predator and Hollywood Movie Executive Harvey Weinstein

Listen to a NYPD sting operation recording of Harvey Weinstein here.

Both “The Invisible War” and “The Hunting Ground” were documentaries produced and directed by Hollywood filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering. The Invisible War was an unvetted documentary about sexual assault and rape in the U.S. military. It was lauded by the masses, showcased at the Pentagon, and apparently used to influence Senator Claire McCaskill’s military justice legislation. Before we could wrap our heads around how these filmmakers had silenced veteran’s voices (again), they released The Hunting Ground, another unvetted documentary about sexual assault and rape on our nation’s campuses. And now we are learning that these documentaries were both funded and distributed by serial predator and Hollywood movie executive Harvey Weinstein of the Weinstein Company. In the wake of this provable scandal, Amy Ziering came to the defense of the indefensible and admitted in an interview that The Invisible War resulted in thirty five pieces of legislation passed by Congress.

The problem is the only laws passed were Senator Claire McCaskill’s bills. By taking credit for Claire McCaskill’s legislation (that military and veterans did not want), Ziering is admitting to undermining veteran’s efforts to secure due process rights for service members. We wanted them to have due process rights in the military justice system AND with non judicial punishment, retaliation, mental health, security clearance, and discharge. There’s nothing to take credit for unless you back Senator Claire McCaskill’s flawed military sexual assault legislation. Veterans resoundingly wanted the Military Justice Improvement Act sponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and supported by multiple bi-partisan Senators including conservatives who saw the constitutional issues with the command directed approach. BUT it was railroaded by Senator Claire McCaskill, Senator Carl Levin (now retired), and Senator Kelly Ayotte (now fired). And obviously backed by the filmmakers of a documentary about sexual assault funded and distributed by the very serial predator veterans were trying to hold accountable, especially the leadership tasked with implementing Senator McCaskill’s bills.

The connection has been made. In the wake of the flawed and failed policy in both the military and on college campuses, what these folks felt they knew was best actually created new victims. And it isn’t coincidental that the legislation passed in the military mirrors the unconstitutional use of preponderance of the evidence (50%+) on college campuses. This 2011 guidance came from Obama’s Department of Education Office of Civil Rights and Senator Claire McCaskill and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand are trying to get the policy codified as law with the CASA Act. In a stunning twist, newly appointed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos reversed the harmful policy and reinstated due process protections for the accused on campus. The days of believe all women OR ELSE and holding institutions of authority hostage if you don’t believe the alleged victim are over on our college campuses. Campuses are able to reverse the harmful policy guidance but veterans have to reverse 35 pieces of sexual assault specific legislation that have had devastating consequences on military members and their families.

For all of its flaws and fabrications, “The Hunting Ground,” Harvey Weinstein’s activist documentary film about sexual assault on college campuses, finally succeeded in helping to actually identify a real predator — the filmmaker himself. And, although some of his apologists like filmmaker Rob Reiner tried to excuse Mr. Weinstein’s predatory behavior by saying that he should be lauded for having funded the film to expose the epidemic of rape on college campuses, “The Hunting Ground” helped to fuel a moral panic about sex abuse that directly led to Mr. Weinstein’s own professional demise…The good news is that as more and more powerful people become swept up in the hysteria surrounding sexual assault and people see themselves as vulnerable to such charges, the panic will end as spontaneously as it began. In some ways, a moral panic can be viewed as a “correction” — not unlike a market correction. We needed to bring attention to the Harvey Weinsteins lurking among us. Perhaps now we can now begin to look at sexual assault more rationally — identifying the “real” predators among us. Prof. Anne Hendershott, Washington Times

Related Links:
Claire McCaskill’s ‘lonely’ sex-assault stand
The war in Congress over rape in the military, explained
How The Hunting Ground Blurs the Truth
The big lie behind the campus-rape crusade
Major Study On Campus Sex Assault Debunked
19 Harvard Law Professors Defend Law Student Brandon Winston, Denouncing His Portrayal in “The Hunting Ground”
Professors Dispute Depiction of Harvard Case in Rape Documentary
How The Hunting Ground Spreads Myths About Campus Rape
The continuing collapse of ‘The Hunting Ground,’ a campus sexual assault propaganda film
Betsy DeVos’s full speech on Title IX and campus sex assault
Harvey Weinstein: Secret recording of undercover sting
Wendy Williams: Harvey Weinstein Speaks Out
Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood and hypocrisy
Actress Heather Graham Confirms EVERYONE Knew About Weinstein
Harvey Weinstein Proves Money Matter to Democrats, Not Women’s Lives
Hillary Clinton falsely claims Donald Trump is an ‘admitted sex assaulter’ as she compares him to Harvey Weinstein – but claims allegations against Bill are ‘clearly in the past’
Here’s A Live Look At The Women’s March Group Protesting Hollywood’s Rampant Sexual Abuse
Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades
Jane Fonda Feels ‘Ashamed’ for Not Speaking Out About Harvey Weinstein Earlier
Hollywood’s dishonest campus rape panic
An Interview with the Producer of the Harvey Weinstein-Distributed Rape Documentary
Harvey Weinstein’s history begs for a documentary about Hollywood abuses. But can it be made?
California’s Attempt To Reject Betsy DeVos’s Campus Rape Policies Just Failed

Hillary Clinton Picks Senator Tim Kaine, Who Has Blocked MJIA Since 2013, As VP Running Mate

579232cae10ae.image

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Last night we learned that Hillary Clinton picked Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia as her Vice Presidential running mate. What is interesting about this pick is at one point in a Time magazine article in 2014, Clinton showed public support of the Military Justice Improvement Act, yet she chooses Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) as her vice presidential running mate who has been blocking the bill since 2013. Of course Senator Angus King (I-ME) endorses this choice since he too has been blocking the due process bill sponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Ted Cruz, and many other bi-partisan Senators advocating for constitutional rights for military personnel and veterans.

“The move was surprising in that it means that if she becomes President, the normally hawkish Clinton would go against the advice of military brass and remove the cases from the chain of command. It also must have had a little bit of a silver lining dig at McCaskill, who endorsed Barack Obama over Clinton in 2008.” ~Time (2014)

Continue reading

Heath Phillips, Active Duty Military & Veterans Advocate, a Voice for Male Victims of Crime

Screenshot9520160630-155103

Heath Phillips, US Navy

Heath Phillips is a US Navy veteran who served his country honorably up until he became a victim of sexual assault while on board the ship he was assigned to. As a result of the crimes, Heath chose not to go back to the ship in an effort to escape the hazing, retaliation, and further sexual and physical assault that awaited him. Instead he went Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and was eventually given an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge from the military. As a result of the discharge status, his life has been impacted greatly up to and including not having the ability to access veteran’s health care and compensation at the Department of Veterans Affairs for the injuries he sustained in the line of duty. Since 2009, he has been an active voice for male victims of crimes in the military and has helped to educate the public about male military sexual assault issues. He has helped Representative Jackie Speier gain support for the Sexual Assault Training, Oversight, and Prevention Act (STOP Act). He has supported Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in efforts to pass the Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA). He advocated on behalf of the Human Rights Watch organization for passage of the Fairness for Veterans Act. He continues to work closely with organizations and members of Congress to elevate support for male victims of crimes in the military and improve care for them in active duty and veteran status.

Uniform Betrayal: Rape in the Military (Documentary)
Heath’s Story of Surviving Military Sexual Assault
Military Rape Speech 6 by Congresswoman Jackie Speier
Rape in the Military, The Rest of the Story…
Male sailor went AWOL to avoid being repeatedly gang raped
Service members choose AWOL over rape
Breaking the Silence: Men who are sexually assaulted in the military often find it difficult to report the crime, that’s one reason they rarely get justice.
Gillibrand Opening Statement at Senate Subcommittee Hearing Examining Impact of Military Sexual Assault, Links to PTSD and Suicides
Son, Men Don’t Get Raped
Sexual assault survivor addresses Soldiers of Combat Aviation Brigade
Command Highlights (April 2016): A Look at What the Army Commands Are Doing In Their SHARP Programs (FORSCOM)
Booted: Lack of Recourse for Wrongfully Discharged US Military Rape Survivors
Military Sexual Assault Victims Discharged After Filing Complaints
Derogatory discharge papers blight lives of military who report sexual assault
New Report Says Pentagon Not Doing Enough For Sexual Assault Victims
Derogatory Discharge Papers Blight Lives Of Military Who Report Sexual Assault
Military must do right by wrongly-discharged sexual assault victims, advocates say
Coffman Introduces Fairness for Veterans Act (Ensures veterans with PTSD receive due consideration in post-discharge appeals process)
Why the Navy is making a major change in its approach to PTSD

The Real News: Senate Unanimously Passes Sexual Assault Bill, But What Will it Change? (2014)

Jennifer Norris: Senate bill will still keep military sexual abuse cases within the chain of command of the military, leaving victims vulnerable to retaliation

Military Justice Improvement Act Falls Short of Votes & Substance

The MJIA fell short of the votes it needed to pass in Congress. But it’s really nothing to get upset about because the bill falls short of substance.

The MJIA had good intentions. It gave the victim a different place to report other then an immediate supervisor or the Commander. It would have allowed victims to report to a military prosecutor instead. The bill also included all violent crimes, ie sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder.

But in reality, how is that going to work? There aren’t enough military prosecutors to report to. There was one, maybe two in the State of Maine JAG office and they were located hours if not days away from some of the places we trained and deployed.

The Commander atleast is going to have to be privy as to why their troop is absent. They also need to know if they have an alleged rapist in the ranks. We can never completely remove the Commander but we can hold them accountable.

We can ask them to mind their own business, keep the information confidential until further action must be taken, and provide an environment supportive for the victim. That includes allowing the victim take some leave, get the help they need, deal with the legal process, and transfer if necessary.

A military prosecutor can simply prosecute a case. Why don’t we refer those who have been harmed to the police to make a statement then to a hospital for DNA evidence collection. The Commander is going to have to know what is going on with the troop if they are absent or will be forced to push Absent Without Leave (AWOL).

We need a system in place that ensures these Commanders treat people with respect and do not take action that compounds the acute stress in any way. If the Commander is not supportive, then they are part of the problem and the soldier needs a safe place to turn where they know their communications are confidential. How do we hold a Commander who behaves criminally or unethically?

Claire McCaskill’s military justice bill keeps everything status quo but does give us some additional layers of protection that provide some checks and balances. Until it is implemented, we cannot determine if these measures will work either. For example, have they accounted for corrupt military prosecutors or rogue OSI agents? What about an inspector general who is drinking buddies with the leader accused of wrongdoing.

Based on the work I have done with active duty in the past three years, I can say with the greatest of convictions that the military justice system itself is broken. This is definitely not the Commander’s fault. We are trained to be warfighters not to police our own. We need an objective third party that oversees helping our troops get justice, care, and help with moving on with their career seamlessly.

We should not lose our careers simply because we reported a violent crime. We should not be retaliated against because we are trying to hold a criminal accountable. How do we attack the internal beat down from our peers after the rapist claims that we made it all up or changed our minds?

We are not reporting for a number of reasons. Reporting to a prosecutor is not going to protect us from the situation we may be faced with. We may have been raped by a supervisor or maybe even the Commander. Someone is going to have to help us navigate being a military member who was the victim of a crime. Why don’t we just utilize the existing law agencies in place so we can work together on catching these violent criminals?

The nationally based, Crime Victim’s Organization says the following: “with solid support and information, many sexual assault victims do choose to participate in prosecution of an offender”

The Military Justice Improvement Act Helps Guarantee Constitutional Rights for All (2013)

1907

I support the Military Justice Improvement Act for a number of reasons but first and foremost because it will provide a safe place for survivors to report. And if survivors can report, we can prevent others from becoming victims of these same criminals. The whole premise behind this law is to remove the gatekeepers (Commander and Chain of Command). Not because they all are incapable and incompetent of doing the right thing but because they are trained to be warriors not police, detectives, and prosecutors. Therefore, they can quite potentially hurt a case by meddling in it.

The Commander may know both parties and cannot be impartial in this case. Therefore, we need to treat all cases as if they are worst case scenario so that our response is uniform and consistent. This law is only the first of many steps that need to be taken in order to ensure a fair process for both the victim and the accused. No one wants special rights; no one wants bias in the process.  As a matter of fact, we are making the military’s response to violent crime similar to that of the civilian system. For example, would you report a crime to your boss?  No. You would report a crime to the police, a rape crisis center, etc.

Since not all bases have legal and support services available to them, the next logical step is to turn to the Judge Advocate General, who is more of a legal professional then the Commander. Commanders are not trained to assist traumatized victims, conduct investigations, or study the modus operandi of predators. Most prosecutors are schooled in these techniques automatically just because of their legal training. The ideal scenario would include one place to call or go to assist them with the process. We can’t do this until they report. The SARC or SAPRO can act as a support system but only if they have a supportive Command.  Therefore, we need to guarantee a support system that will review the situation from an objective point of view. The good soldier defense and how long you have served should not determine your credibility.

If you don’t believe the military has a reporting problem, then you don’t know the numbers.  The numbers are staggering and illusive.  The 26,300 troops that the Department of Defense reports are sexual assaulted per year does not include the military service academies, the Coast Guard, or sexual harassment cases.  Unfortunately, the Department of Defense is still referring sexual harassment cases to the Equal Employment Opportunity office, which is a Commander’s program. Therefore once again, if the EEO representative is not supported by the Commander then they cannot help you. Of the 26,300 estimated troops, only 3,374 reported the crimes perpetrated against them.  Sixty-two percent of those that did not report the crime did not report because of fear of retaliation and the impact on their career, and rightly so.

Give Our Troops Constitutional Rights for Veteran’s Day, Pass the Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA)

MJIA

The Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA), although not the final answer, is a great first step in our fight for justice for crime victims. Currently, the Department of Defense (DoD) estimates that 26,300 service members are victims of military sexual assault (touching). These numbers do not include other violent crimes, sexual harassment, stalking, bullying, hazing, etc. Of those numbers, the DoD estimates that more then half of them are male victims, which proves that this is not a female issue but instead a repeat offender issue.

The military’s current justice system elevates an individual Commander’s discretion over the rule of law. The MJIA legislation would help us create an impartial system where victims would feel safe to report. They are telling us in their own voices that they do not trust the Chain of Command to handle their cases effectively. Recent DoD studies have shown that 62% of those who reported were in fact retaliated against which reinforces others to remain silent.

The MJIA would not only give them a safe place to report confidentially but would allow a legal professional to determine whether or not a case should be tried in a court of law. The biggest problem with military sexual assault is underreporting. We can’t fix the problem unless the soldiers feel safe enough to report. We can’t rid the military of perpetrators if we do not work together to get a conviction and protect our military and civilians.

Learn more here.

Link

RetaliationBreaking the chain: Sen. Gillibrand’s mission to change military policy on sexual assault

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is on a mission to change how the military prosecutes sexual assaults. She points to one statistic to explain why: 60 percent of those who reported sexual assaults last year were retaliated against by their superiors. “The victims tell us over and over again that they don’t trust the chain of command,” Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, told “The Fine Print.”

Gillibrand is calling for removing sexual assault cases from the chain of command, so decisions on whether to try such cases would be made by military prosecutors, not commanders.

Watch video: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/breaking-the-chain–sen–gillibrand%E2%80%99s-mission-to-change-military-policy-on-sexual-assault-213205898.html?vp=1

Gillibrand Fact Sheet on Sexual Assaults in the Military

Stacey Thompson MJIA

Gillibrand Fact Sheet on Sexual Assaults in the Military

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s office released the following facts today. Any of the following can be attributed to Senator Gillibrand’s office:

Today we heard more of the same in opposition to the bipartisan coalition sponsoring the Military Justice Improvement Act. This carefully crafted legislation supported by 44 Senators from both sides of the aisle seeks to reverse the systemic fear that numerous victims of military sexual assault have told us they have in deciding whether to report the crimes committed against them due to the clear bias and inherent conflicts of interest posed by the military chain of command’s current sole decision-making power. According to the 2012 SAPRO Report, 25% of women and 27% of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated the offender was someone in their military chain of command.

According to DOD, 50% of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done with their report. Even the current top military leadership admits the current system “has failed” and victims do not come forward because “they don’t trust the chain of command.” The bill is supported by the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and all the leading victim’s advocates groups, including but not limited to, Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), Protect Our Defenders (POD), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the National Women’s Law Center, Vietnam Veterans of America, The National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV), plus former Generals, former JAG officers and survivors of sexual assault across the country.

This legislation was drafted in direct response to the testimony heard in the Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel from victims of sexual assault in the military, and the testimony of the military leadership. Unfortunately, in opposition to the victims, the full SASC committee chose to strike the Military Justice Improvement Act during the mark-up of the NDDA, protecting the current broken system.

The problem of sexual assault in the military is not new, neither are the pledges of “zero tolerance” from the commanders and senior members of the committee, which date all the way back to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1992. Below is a fact sheet correcting some of the misinformation used by opponents of the Military Justice Improvement Act:

Myth: Moving the decision over whether prosecutions move forward from the chain of command to independent military prosecutors will increase retaliation against victims. If an independent prosecutor, and not the commander, moves the case forward others will take it less seriously and retaliation will increase.

Fact: There is absolutely zero statistical or anecdotal evidence that would lend any credibility to this theory. Contrary to that theory, in the current DoD SAPRO survey, of those who responded they have been victims of USC, 62% say they have already been retaliated against which demonstrates the current chain of command structure some are seeking to protect is not working to protect victims. The idea that a commander putting forth the court martial “protects victims from retaliation” is directly rebutted by victims own reports, and ignores anecdotal evidence that commanders are also sometimes the assailant, or have conflicts of interest when a superior officer victimizes a lower ranking servicemember. Additionally, according to a 7 month investigation by the San Antonio Express, a survey of 1,200 service members who sought help since 2003 at the Military Rape Crisis Center found that 90% of victims who reported sexual assault where involuntarily discharged and diagnosed with mental disorders (an extreme form of retaliation).

Myth: We will have more prosecutions from within the chain of command because commanders move forward cases that civilian lawyers would not. Under the Gillibrand bill, if the lawyer doesn’t want to prosecute a case, it ends. Under the Levin bill, the commander can move forward even if the prosecutor doesn’t want to.

Fact: To claim keeping prosecutions inside the chain of command will increase prosecutions is not supported by the statistics. Of the DoD’s 26,000 estimated cases, only 2,558 victims sought justice by filing an unrestricted report and only an abysmal 302 proceeded to trial. A chain of command orientated system that produces only 302 prosecutions of 2,558 actionable reports is simply not holding enough alleged assailants accountable under any metric. The Military Justice Improvement Act will increase victims perception that they can receive an unbiased chance at justice, increasing unrestricted reporting and the number of successful prosecutions, which will put more sexual predators behind bars unable to victimize men and women in uniform again and again.

While the claim that under the Levin bill a commander can proceed against the lawyers recommendation is true, it omits the fact that rarely does a commander currently disagree with his JAG attorney. Additionally, it omits that in the current structure that the NDAA protects, the JAG making the recommendation to the commander is in the commander’s direct chain of command. Under the Military Justice Improvement Act, the JAG making the decision to proceed to trial would be independent of the commander and any possible bias from within the chain of command, such as the current ability for a commander to choose a jury pool.

Lastly, the argument that we should go all the way in the other direction by reducing the civil liberties of the accused does not adhere to the fundamental values of a fair and independent American justice system.

Myth: Critics say this lets the commanders off the hook. How can you hold them accountable when you reduce their power?

Fact: This is a false choice and just plain inaccurate. There is nothing about this proposal that lets commanders off the hook. Commanders will still be held accountable for setting the command climate whether or not they make this one legal decision.  They are still fully responsible for and in control of their troops.  In fact, this proposal leaves many crimes within the chain of command, including 37 serious crimes that are unique to the military, such as going AWOL or insubordination, in addition to all misdemeanor type crimes under Article 15. That’s why a law professor and former Air Force officer wrote in the New York Times, “Everything about the proposal takes military needs into account, except for the fact that military leaders don’t like change.”

Myth: Victims can already report the crimes committed against them outside of the chain of command.

Fact: Of course they can, but under the current system, regardless of whom you report the crime to initially, it ultimately ends up on the desk of the commander who becomes the sole decision maker over whether a case moves forward. The commander holds all the cards regardless of where the crime is reported and it is this bias in the system that keeps victims from coming forward and reporting the crime anywhere because they do not believe they can receive justice.

Myth: This proposal will lead to fewer trials since prosecutors are concerned about their win/loss record and will only recommend cases they can win.

Fact: This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the military justice system works. JAGs move back and forth between defense and prosecution assignments, so they are less concerned about their prosecution numbers. Prosecutors are detailed to the billet for 2-3 years and take whatever cases are given to them by their department head.  The department head takes the cases that are preferred/referred.  Under our new structure the O-6 JAG would have the disposition authority to decide if a case proceeds to trial based on the strengths/weaknesses of the evidence.  In the military, prosecutors are professionally graded on a whole host of matters – not just wins/losses.  In fact, military prosecutors often receive praise from their superiors for being willing to take tough cases to trial.

Important Facts:

  • Of the Active Duty women who indicated experiencing USC and did not report it to a military Authority — 66 percent said they felt uncomfortable making a report.
  • Of the Active Duty women who indicated that they experienced USC and did not report it, 50 percent believed that nothing would be done with their report, and 43 percent heard about negative experiences other victims went through who reported their situation.
  • Of those women who experienced USC and did not report it, 47 percent indicated fear of retaliation or reprisal as the reason for not reporting.
  • Across the services, 74% of Females and 60% of Males perceived one or more barriers to reporting sexual assault.

Original Link: http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/gillibrand-fact-sheet-on-sexual-assaults-in-the-military

Link

USAF SealAir Force lawyers draw fire over sexual assault policy

Top Air Force lawyers are under fire after urging subordinates to rally  against a Senate proposal that would overhaul the military’s sexual assault  policies.

A letter obtained by POLITICO shows Lt. Gen. Richard Harding,  the Air Force judge advocate general, and Col. Jeffrey Rockwell, urging their  fellow military lawyers to take sides against a Senate amendment expected to  come up for a floor vote before Thanksgiving that removes the command chain from  major criminal prosecutions.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/air-force-lawyers-sexual-assault-policy-99099.html