President Barack Obama vowed Friday to stand up for women on issues including health care and equal pay, offering a high-profile and not-so-subtle contrast to likely presidential rival Mitt Romney.
Speaking at the White House Forum on Women and the Economy, Obama said that “women are not an interest group” and “shouldn’t be treated that way.”
You want to know how women shouldn't be treated?
Like they're not worthy of your basketball games, like they're not good enough for your golf games.
From October 2009, Meghan Casin (Telegraph of London):
Mr Obama had been censured by liberal
bloggers after a basketball game last month in which only male members
of his cabinet and Congress participated.
In an interview with NBC Mr Obama said the allegations of sexism were
"bunk". He went on to say: "I don't know if there are women who were
Members of Congress who play basketball on a regular basis". But Robert
Gibbs, his spokesman, said the criticism was "well taken".
The
demographics of White House employees are almost evenly divided between
genders, and the president has appointed women to high positions, most
prominently Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State.
He went after Hillary with sexist language throughout 2008 and it is not forgotten and it will never be forgiven. Never.
Russell Goldman (ABC News) reported on the revelations about sexism at the White House in the last half of 2011:
President Obama, who rose to power on a message of inclusion and equality, came under fire this week when an author quoted female members of his administration as saying the White House was a sexist and "hostile" work environment.
Since excerpts leaked from the book "Confidence Men," journalist Ron Suskind's take on how the Obama administration handled the financial crisis, Anita Dunn, former White House communications director, and Christina Romer, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, have denied the substance of their remarks and said they were misquoted.
"I felt like a piece of meat," Romer was quoted in the book as saying of one meeting with Larry Summers, former chairman of the National Economic Council, complaining she was "boxed out" of the discussion.
According to the Washington Post, Dunn says in the book: "This place would be in court for a hostile workplace because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."
Let's also not forget all those creepy jokes about his daughters. "Gross," Angus Johnston noted of one at Student Activism:
And this isn’t the only time he’s made that kind of joke.
Two years ago, at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, he told the Jonas Brothers that his daughters were “huge fans.” He then warned the singing group not to “get any ideas” because he controls an arsenal of predator drones.
Last year, speaking at a Tennessee high school’s commencement, he noted that the school’s principal’s daughter had chosen to go to a different school because she “was worried that the boys would be afraid to talk to her if her mom was lurking in the hallways.” Because of this, he said, he’d decided to announce that his “next job will be principal at Sasha and Malia’s high school — and then I’ll be president of their college.”
A few months later a reporter, noting that he’d given the girls a puppy when he first won the presidency, asked what he’d get them if he won re-election. He replied that he’d “be getting them a continuation of Secret Service so that when boys want to start dating them, they are going to be surrounded by men with guns.”
These jokes are freaking creepy. Set aside the fact that Obama’s predator drones are estimated to have killed more than a hundred innocent children. Set aside the fact that Obama was joking about three men aged seventeen, twenty, and twenty-two ”getting ideas” about girls who were then eight and eleven years old. Set aside the inappropriateness of a father meddling in the romantic decisions of his college age kids. (And set aside as well the casual, ugly assertion that his daughters will be interested in, and only interested in, “boys.”)
The biggest problem with all these jokes is that at their core they’re not really jokes.
When the Obama administration overruled the FDA’s scientists and policymakers on expanding morning-after pill access for teenagers last December, he said he endorsed the decision “as the father of two daughters,” and claimed that “most parents” would agree with him. Though he claimed that the decision was based on the possibility of “a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old” being able to “buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect … alongside bubble gum or batteries,” the fact is that drugstores are filled with over-the-counter medications far more dangerous than Plan B, any one of which any ten-year-old can buy without restriction.
Again, he has been no friend of women and no friend of reproductive rights.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
|
Friday,
April 6, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Home Depot gets sued by
the US Justice Dept over the firing of a National Guard member, KRG
President Massoud Barzani visits the US and discusses Article 140 (and
more), now Nouri doesn't want Tareq al-Hashemi to return to Iraq, Ammar
al-Hakim calls out Nouri's raid on the Communist Party last week, and
more.
Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is
currently on a diplomatic tour of the surrounding region having already
visited Qatar and currently Saudia Arabia. Raman Brosk (AKnews) reports
that State of Law is arguing that al-Hashemi should not be allowed to
re-enter Iraq and Iraqiya's spokesperson Maisoun al-Damlouji is
responding, "This is not acceptable at all. Hashemi is the vice
president of the Republic and he will return to the region." In
December, after most US troops left, Nouri al-Maliki upped the
political crisis by insisting that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh
al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and that Vice President Tareq
al-Hashemi be arrested on charges of 'terrorism.' Both al-Mutlaq and
al-Hashemi are members of Iraqiya (both are also Sunni) which is the
political slate that won the most votes in the March 7, 2010
elections. Nouri's State of Law slate came in second to Iraqiya. The
two slates are political rivals. As an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers observed at Inside Iraq this week:
In
a press conference Maliki said that he had a criminal file on Hashimi
that he had been sitting on for three years, and was now ready to
prosecute him. For the objective observer, the timing of this
announcement was telling. [. . .] Confessions of Hashimi's security
personnel were aired on state television and an arrest warrent for
Hashim himself was issued and also made public on state TV -- All this
publicity on Maliki's side in order to burn the bridges and make any
political deal impossible in this country where government is glued
together with political deals.
A
day after al-Hashemi went to the KRG, Nouri issued the arrest warrant.
Tareq al-Hashemi has remained in the KRG as a guest of Iraqi President
Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. Sunday he left for a
diplomatic tour of some of the neighboring Iraq countries. He has
visited Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Providing
background on Nouri's relationships with Qatar and Saudi Arabia would
require many, many snapshots. So we'll just drop back to last week's
Arab League Summit held in Baghdad. Abeer Mohammed and Khalid Walid (Journal of Turkish Weekly) report:
While Iraq hoped the high-profile Arab League summit in Baghdad last week would mark a step forward in relations with its neighbours, observers say many regional states used the event to snub the government. Although officials declared the event a success, only ten leaders from the 22 Arab League member states turned up. Apart from Kuwait, no Gulf state was represented at a high level. Saudi Arabia and Oman merely sent their Cairo-based Arab League ambassadors. As demonstrated by actions this week (see Liz Sly's Washington Post report from yesterday) the Arab League Summit changed nothing of importance for Iraq. This despite all the money spent on it. And several countries were able to use the summit to send a message. That message was received loud and clear by Nouri who responded by attacking Qatar and Saudi Arabia over the weekend -- before al-Hashemi arrived there. And the attacks continue. Today Alsumaria reports that Nouri's State of Law again elevated the rhetoric against Saudi Arabia and Qatar today as Abbas al-Bayati declared that the press for both countries was carrying out their governments' attack on Iraq's government.
AFP reports
that a spokesperson for Tareq al-Hashemi declared today -- as
al-Hashemi has all week -- that he will return to Iraq after he's
concluded his diplomatic mission and "that for Hasemi to remain abroad
was 'the wish of his enemies,' in a clear reference to Maliki." There
is something very comical about Nouri's attitude as the week ends.
It
started with him and his spokespeople blustering and bellowing about
how Qatar would hand al-Hashemi over to Baghdad (they didn't) and how
INTERPOL would show up if needed to remove al-Hashemi from Qatar and
bring him to Baghdad. That was never going to happen as we explained on
Sunday and Monday
-- it is written into INTERPOL's charter that it does not take part in
political arrests and that is so that INTERPOL will be seen as
impartial. So he demanded Qatar hand the vice president over and then
demanded the same of Saudi Arabia, insisted INTERPOL would return him
and now Nouri's position is that Tareq al-Hashemi should not be allowed
to re-enter the country?
In addition to the
laughs prompted by Nouri's flip-flops, grasp that Nouri's court is
supposed to try al-Hashemi May 3rd. And Nouri's position is that
al-Hashemi can't come back into Iraq?
In Iraq, the political crisis continues and intensifies.
The
March 7, 2010 elections were followed by over 8 months of gridlock
known as Political Stalemate I. Nouri al-Maliki did not want to abide
by the Constitution or the will of the Iraqi people expressed at the
ballot box. He did not want to stop being prime minister. In 2014 (or
2015 the way Nouri drags his feet), this may be an issue again because
although when Iraqis took to the streets in large number protesting
against corruption in his government and more (February 25, 2011), he
swore he would not run for a third term, his spokespeople and attorney
have repeatedly told the press that Nouri is not bound by that and may
decide to run again.
With the White House
backing him for a second term, Nouri knew he didn't have to compromise
and could just stomp his feet in the hopes of getting his way.
In
an attempt to soothe the stubborn child, the political blocs agreed to
end the stalemate by signing off on the US-brokered Erbil Agreement.
That was November 2010. By the end of December 2010, it was obvious
that the only thing Nouri really intended to honor from that agreement
was that he would get a second term as prime minister. For months, the
other political blocs waited and waited for the agreement to be
implemented. It never way. Over the summer last year, the Kurds made
it clear that the country needed to return to the Erbil Agreement.
Iraqiya quickly joined that call, then Moqtada al-Sadr and then
others.
Many
Iraqis -- Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike -- fear that the U.S.
withdrawal has given Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, a conservative
Shiite Islamist, free rein to consolidate power and turn himself into
an intractable strongman.
Those worries were only compounded when the White House last month named Brett McGurk the new U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. As adviser to the past three envoys, McGurk had garnered a reputation among Iraqi political elites as a die-hard Maliki booster who turns a blind eye to the prime minister's emerging dictatorial streak. "They basically sent someone from Maliki's office," one Sunni politician grumbled privately about the Obama administration's choice.
In
December of last year, when Nouri went publicly nuts (deploying tanks
to circle the homes of political rivals, for example), Speaker of
Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani began
calling (December 21st) for a national conference to address the
crisis. That was supposed to have taken place yesterday; however, it
was called off at the last minute. Al Mada notes
that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is calling for a new date to be set
for a national conference to resolve the ongoing crisis in Iraq and
that State of Law, as evidenced by the statemetns of Hussein Shahristani, is pleased that the conference was cancelled.
In what Nouri hopes is an isolated move, Al Mada reports
State of Law MP Jawad Albzona has withdrawn from Nouri's coalition and
stated that he would prefer to be independent which, he believes, will
allow him to better represent Iraqis by distancing himself from
political squabbles and moving towards the needs of the citizens of
Iraq. He is the second State of Law MP to announce a departure since
2010. Since December, he has repeatedly made public statements decrying
the current political crisis and asking for the politicians to work on
issues directly effecting the lives of Iraqis. An issue effecting
Iraq's internally displaced refugees is living among piles of garbage Al Rafidayn reports.
Currently the United Nations estimates there are 1.3 million displaced
Iraqis within Iraq. On Albzona's departure from State of Law, Al Rafidayn notes the MP declared he will remain a member of the National Alliance (a larger coalition of Shi'ite political blocs).
Meanwhile
the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (also a member of the
National Alliance), Ammar al-Haskim, has weighed in on two key issues. Al Mada reports
he declared the poverty program of the last two years a failure, noting
that it has not reduced the rate of poverty in Iraq. He is calling not
only for a new program and strategy but for the budget to reflect a
strong goal to reduce poverty. In regard to the raid Nouri ordered last
week on the Communist Party's newspaper headquarters, al-Hakim stated
that when security forces violate the rights of the people negative
images are reinforced and that the role of the security forces is to
protect freedoms (not attack them). He decried the arrest of 12 people
in the raid on the Communist Party. Last week, Iraqiya leader Ayad
Allawi condemned the raid. From the March 28th snapshot:
We'll
close by noting the disturbing news of the day and news that wasn't
picked up and front paged but should have been. Nouri al-Maliki is now
going after Iraq's Communist Party. Al Mada reports
that Nouri's security forces stormed the political party's headquarters
and arrested 12 people who were arrested and questioned about protests.
Ali Hussein (Al Mada) notes
the Communist Party has a long history of fighting for Iraq, not
against it. Hussein reports that Nouri's tanks have been sent to
surround the homes of Communist Party members in Baghdad. Those who
paid attention in December will remember that Nouri ordered tanks to
circle the homes of Iraqiya members right before he demanded that
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his posts and
ordered the arrest of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on charges of
terrorism. Both al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are members of Iraqiya as well
as Sunnis. Ali Hussein notes that Nouri also ordered tanks to circle
the homes of Communist Party members last year.
The Iraq Communist Party Tweeted
last week, "Iraqi Communist Party condemns raid of its newspaper
headquarters by security forces." They state that the raid took place
late in the evening Monday and that their headquarters were ransacked
by federal police who entered claiming that they were doing a sweep of
the area for the Arab League Summit. An old weapon ("piece of junk")
was on the roof and they used this as a pretext to arrest 12 of the
people who were held overnight and only released after they signed
documents -- documents they were forced to sign while blindfolded.
While they were held, the federal police returned to the now empty
headquarters and ransacked the place.
Add a
third political leader to the list. In DC yesterday, Kurdistan
Regional Government President Massoud Barzani was asked if Nouri's
authoritarian ways were reason to be concerned as he consolidated
complete control of the security forces and Barzani responded, "The
new Iraqi army needs to be built on the basis of being the army of the
country, not an army of an individual. So to be an army that belongs to
the people of Iraq and the state of Iraq in accordance with the
Constitution and the laws. And also the Iraqi army should not
interfere in the internal political differences of the country. "
ABC News notes,
"Barzani, who was in Washington to meet with President Obama and Vice
President Joe Biden, said that unless Baghdad resolves simmering
disputes involving its ethnic and political factions, the situation
would be ripe for an autocratic government." Hurriyet Daily News adds,
"The Obama administration has pressed Kurdish Regional Government (KRG)
leader Masoud Barzani to re-engage with Baghdad amid high tension over
the status of fugitive Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi.
Al-Hashemi arrived in Saudi Arabia on April 4 and accused his country's
prime minister of waging a systematic campaign against Sunni Arabs in
Iraq." Today's Zaman reports:
"Barzani
visited the US to complain about Maliki," said one diplomat on Friday,
speaking on condition of anonymity. Barzani met with President Barack
Obama and with Vice President Joe Biden separately on Wednesday, and
told them that Maliki is consolidating power in a dictatorial way. He
said Obama and Biden reassured him that the United States would remain
committed to cooperation with Kurdistan and committed to helping Iraq
solve its serious internal political problems.
[. . .]
Bilgay
Duman, an expert on Iraq from the Ankara-based Center for Middle
Eastern Strategic Research (ORSAM), stated that Barzani's reception by
high-ranking US officials should be perceived as a warning to Maliki to
abandon his sectarian-based policies in the country. Iraq is suffering
from severe instabilities due to daily clashes between Shiite and Sunni
groups, which escalated after US troops withdrew from the country in
December. The KRG is striving to maintain balanced ties with Iraq's
rival Sunni and Shiite groups as they vie for influence in the country
following the US withdrawal. Turkey is very critical of Maliki, saying
the Shiite prime minister is using the arrest warrant against Hashemi
to sideline Sunni political groups in the administration and hoard
power for dominance of the Shiite bloc.
"The
stance of Arbil and Ankara against Baghdad are very much in line, due
to the fact that both are disturbed by Maliki's dictatorial
government," affirmed Ali Semin, a Middle East expert from the Turkish
think-tank -- the Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies (BİLGESAM). He
added that the US is now trying to forge ties between KRG and Turkey in
order to secure the unity of Iraq.
So that we're all on the same page, the 2005 Iraqi Constitution includes Article 140:
First:
The executive authority shall undertake the necessary steps to complete
the implementation of the requirements of all subparagraphs of Article
58 of the Transitional Administrative Law.
Second:
The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of Iraqi
Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional
Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority
elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it
accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a
referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the
will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December
2007.
The census and referendum are to
take place no later than December 31, 2007. Nouri al-Maliki becomes
prime minister in 2006. He took an oath to the Iraqi Constitution. He
never ordered the census or the referendum before the end of 2007. His
first term ended with him unable/unwilling to abide by the Constitution
he took an oath to uphold. There has been no census or referendum. He
is and remains in violation of the Constitution.
With
that understanding, we'll now note what KRG President Massoud Barzani
declared yesterday in DC at the forum put on by the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy on the issue of Kirkuk and Article 140.
President
Massoud Barzani: Article 140 is a Constitutional Article and it needed
a lot of discussions and talks until we have reached this. This is the
best way to solve this problem. It's regarding solving the problems of
the territories that have been detached from Kurdistan Region. In
fact, I do not want to call it "disputed areas" because we do not have
any disputes on that. For us it is very clear for that. But we have
shown upmost flexibility in order to find the legal and the
Constitutional solution for this problem. And in order to pave the way
for the return of these areas, according to the Constitution and the
basis of law and legally to the Kurdistan Region. And we have found
out that there is an effort to evade and run away from this
responsibility for the last six years in implementing this
Constitutional Article. And I want to assure you that implementing
this Constitutional Article is in the interest of Iraq and in the
interest of stability. There are people who think that time would make
us forget about this. They are wrong. Time would not help forget or
solve the problem. These are Kurdish countries, part of Kurdistan and
it has to return to Kurdistan based on the mechanism that has been
stipulated in the Constitution. And at the end of the day, as the
Constitution stipulates, it's going back to what the people want to
determine. So there is a referendum for the people of these areas and
they will decide. If the people decide to joing Kurdistan Region,
they're welcome and if the people decide not to, at that time, we will
look at any responsibility on our shoulders so people would be held
responsible for their own decisions.
Barzani
is not calling for any additional steps to resolving the issue of
Kirkuk, he is only asking that what was already agreed to and written
into the Constitution be followed. In addition to taking questions,
Barzani delivered a speech at the forum and you can see yesterday's snapshot for that.
President
Massoud Barzani: As far as the second part of your question, the Erbil
Agreement. In fact, the agreement was not only for the sake of forming
the government and forming the three presidencies -- the presidency,
the Speakership of Parliament and premier. In fact, it was a package
-- a package that included a number of essential items. First, to put
in place a general partnership in the country. Second, commitment to
the Constitution and its implementation, the issue of fedarlism, the
return of balance of power and especially in all the state
institutions,the establishment in [. . .] mainly in the armed forces
and the security forces, the hydrocarbons law, the Article 140 of the
Constitution, the status of the pesh merga. These were all part of the
package that had been there. Had this Erbil Agreement been
implemented, we would not have faced the situation that we are in
today. Therefore, if we do not implement the Erbil Agreement then
there would certainly be problems in Iraq.
Again,
the political crisis did not start over the accusations Nouri hurled at
Saleq al-Mutlaq and Tareq al-Hashemi. The failure to follow the Erbil
Agreement -- the document ending Political Stalemate I -- is what
caused the current crisis -- a crisis that has now lasted over a year
and four months.
Turning to the United States, yesterday Caitlin Duffy (Forbes) reported
of Home Depot, "The home improvement retailer's shares are once again
hitting fresh multi-year highs, with the stock up 1.4% on the day at
$50.56 as of 12:35 p.m. in New York trade. Call activity on Home Depot
suggests at least one strategist is gearing up for the bullish momentum
to continue in the near term." But how long will the outlook remain
bullish as word leaks out about a new lawsuit? The US Justice Dept
issued the following yesterday:
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department announced today the filing of a complaint in U.S. District Court in Arizona against Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. for violating the employment rights of California Army National Guard soldier Brian Bailey under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The department's complaint alleges that Home Depot willfully violated USERRA by terminating Bailey's employment because of his military service obligations. Bailey, an Iraq War veteran, worked at a Home Depot store in Flagstaff, Ariz., as a department supervisor while at the same time serving in the California Army National Guard. Throughout his employment with Home Depot, Bailey took periodic leave from work to fulfill his military obligations with the National Guard. According to the Justice Department's complaint, Bailey was removed from his position as a department supervisor after Home Depot management officials at the Flagstaff store openly expressed their displeasure with his periodic absences from work due to his military obligations and further indicated their desire to remove him from his position because of those absences. Bailey initially filed a complaint with the Labor Department's Veterans' Employment and Training Service, which investigated the matter, determined that the complaint had merit and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division subsequently decided to represent Bailey in this matter and filed this lawsuit on his behalf. USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating against National Guard soldiers, such as Bailey, with respect to employment opportunities based on their past, current or future uniformed service obligations. Under USERRA, it is unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee because he has to miss work due to military obligations. Among other things, the suit seeks compensation for Bailey's lost wages and benefits, liquidated damages and reinstatement of Bailey's employment with Home Depot. "The men and women who wear our nation's uniform need to know that they do not have to sacrifice their job at home in order to serve our country," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Civil Rights Division is committed to aggressive enforcement of USERRA to protect the rights of those who, through their bravery and sacrifice, secure the rights of all Americans." "The National Guard is composed primarily of civilian men and women who serve their country, state and community on a part-time basis," said Acting U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel. "National Guard members, and their employers, should know that we will employ all of USERRA's tools to protect the employment rights of those in uniform while they sacrifice time away from their families and jobs for training and active duty." This case is being handled by the Employment Litigation Section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona. Additional information about USERRA can be found on the Justice Department websites www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp and www.servicemembers.gov, as well as the Labor Department website www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm. 12-434 Civil Rights Division
Staying with the issue of the US military, on Saturday, David Brown (Washington Post) reported
on studies -- apparent Pentagon studies -- that researched the
signature wounds of the modern wars and demonstrated a weak link
between TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) and PTSD (Post-Trumatic Stress
Disorder) and "outright violent behavior." As we have noted for years
here, those suffering from PTSD are far more likely to self-harm than
to harm others. That was true not only in the early research on PTSD
during these wars but true as well when you go back to studies on
similar conditions such as what was once known as "shell shocked." In
all of that, self-harm could and sometimes did include self-medicating
with alcohol or other drugs. What's distrubing about the Post report
is "outright violent behavior." Some might agree (some might not) with
the conclusion that a drunken brawl with a friend isn't "outright
violent behavior." I would hope at this late date, in the US, no one
would conclude -- as the Pentagon apparently has -- that domestic abuse
is not "outright violent behavior." Domestic abuse is a crime. it is
a serious crime. The military can do whatever they want with drunken
brawls among friends, I don't really care (some people may), but when
you classify domestic abuse as something other than "outright violent
behavior," we do have a problem -- a very serious problem. Domestic
violence is a crime, it is violence and I think a strong argument can
be made that it's a form of terrorism. As Maureen Orth detailed in Vanity Fair nearly nine years ago, there are life and death consequences.
The US military has a long history of looking the other way when a
woman is assaulted or raped. Supposedly that's changed. We heard it
over and over, for example, from then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
when he would appear before the Congress. But if the climate actually
had changed, beating a woman would not be classified as something less
than "outright violent behavior."
In related news on this still-existing culture of denial within the higher ranks of the US military, Sandra S. Park (ACLU Blog of Rights) noted the following disturbing event on Monday:
While it is estimated that over 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military in 2010, a rate far higher than among civilians, the government has failed systematically
to investigate complaints, appropriately punish perpetrators, and treat
trauma and other health conditions suffered by survivors. The profound
personal and social consequences that arise from the government's
systemic failures are powerfully profiled in the new film, The Invisible War.
Turning a blind eye to these crimes has allowed them to continue,
imperiling the lives of victims and degrading their service.
On
Friday, a federal district court judge cited yet another example of the
military's unwillingness to acknowledge sexual violence within its
ranks. In response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Service Women's Action Network (SWAN) and the ACLU
seeking records from the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
regarding their response to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and
domestic violence in the military, the Army Crime Records Center
claimed it couldn't provide records about "sexual assault" because its
records are organized by specific criminal offenses such as "rape," not
under the general heading of "sexual assault."
"'Sexual
assault' is easily read as encompassing rape and other non-consensual
sexual crimes defined in the Army's offense codes," the judge found.
"The fact that the agency was unwilling to read the Plaintiffs' request
liberally to include such terms seems to be almost willful blindness."
The
judge further ruled that several other sections of the Departments
failed to adequately respond to our requests and ordered the government
to fulfill its obligations under FOIA. We will continue to press the
government for the information we need to truly understand, address, and end the epidemic of sexual violence in the military.
|
