Archive for pentagon

Military spouses, fearing loss of benefits, stay mum about sexual misconduct of husbands

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

military spouses wife toughest job

Military spouses have it tough enough, what with worrying if their husband or wife will come home in one piece or even in a box. But military spouses of cheating husbands have been under additional pressure to keep quiet about the extra-curricular activities of their lawfully wedded philanderers. Why? Because if they dare expose the betrayal, they could lose "a lifetime of military benefits if their husbands were dismissed from the Army."

"You're advised to keep your mouth shut and let him retire because you could lose everything."

And so adultery and other sex-related military crimes went unreported. This is tragic.

The Los Angeles Times has an eye-opening report about women finally demanding that their families be protected if their cheating husband is punished harshly for misconduct:

Fear of losing benefits keeps many military wives from exposing sexual misconduct or other offenses committed by their husbands, say many of those familiar with the military criminal justice system. [Kris] Johnson kept quiet about her husband, Col. James H. Johnson III, while he carried on an affair with an Iraqi woman while deployed to that country.

But when Col. Johnson moved his mistress into his military quarters in Italy, his wife turned him in — painfully aware that she and her two children might be cut off from benefits as a result... In both the Johnson and [Rebecca] Sinclair cases, court concerns that dismissing the officers would also punish their families helps explain the relatively light sentences.

As a result of wives campaigning for changes, Congress is requiring the Pentagon to consider "transitional benefits." A study will begin in May. Yes, a study. But it is a step in the right direction. And it's about time. Since 2000, more than 19,000 service members were booted from the military for sexual misconduct. That meant no health or dental care, military IDs, or housing for military spouses and their children. How's that for family values?

Kris Johnson, who urged a petition to Congress for the changes, said her husband, Brig. Gen. Sinclair, and other senior officers felt invincible. "When they had their zippers unzipped," she said, "they weren't' thinking of their families."

Yes, it's highly unlikely that they take their wives and kids into account mid-shtup.

Prosecutors told her that her husband was kept in the Army to protect benefits for her and her children.

Johnson said she supported her husband's career for 25 years, constantly moving and enduring multiple deployments while caring for two children. Like many military spouses, she was unable to build her own career; she relied instead on military benefits...

She finally turned her husband in after enduring his living arrangements with his mistress, the woman who was also by his side when he socialized with fellow officers. Hence the adjective "invincible"... or as I like to call it, sleazy, vile, despicable, and shameless.

You can see why these military spouses were up to here with losing a lifetime of benefits because of these bottom feeders. Let's hope the Pentagon "study" next month produces real results real fast.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Video- September 11th Observance Ceremony at the Pentagon

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Bonus Cartoon of the Day- Female Distraction

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

femdis

Via.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Video- 1st Time Ever, Gay Military Allowed To March In Uniform At San Diego Gay Pride Parade

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Gay Military can march openly, in uniform in a gay pride parade, but the Boy Scouts still don't even openly allow gay people in. What a country.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Video- Pentagon Celebrates Gay Pride For First Time

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Who woulda thunk. Via Talking Points Memo.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Pentagon planning first-ever event to recognize gay, lesbian troops

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Best. Headline. Ever.

June is gay pride month, and this is something to be very proud of:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Officials said Thursday that they're planning the first-ever event to recognize gay and lesbian troops. They declined to give details about what the event will be, but officials said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta feels it's important to recognize the service of gays in the armed forces. 

Anyone hear anything yet about how repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell turned all our troops into evil French gay socialists?

Me neither.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

In the defense authorization bill: Legalizing propaganda, misinformation from our own government

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Say hello to another bad idea, this time courtesy of a bi-partisan amendment to the defense authorization bill, one that is sponsored by Rep. Mark Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington state.

It would legalize propaganda directed at us by our own government.

Via BuzzFeed:

The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee's official website.

The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.

If you're a Democrat and trust this kind of activity under a Democratic administration, then think again... and then think how it would be, and was, under a Republican administration.

The bill also includes indefinite detention and a ban on gay marriage at military installations. But I digress:

The bill's supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online.

Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens.

This is dangerous territory, and exploiting the "protect us from the terrorists" excuse isn't good enough to trump protecting Americans from our own powerful government propaganda campaigns intended to sway public opinion.

The upshot, at times, is the Department of Defense using the same tools on U.S. citizens as on a hostile, foreign, population.

Let's hope this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare