Former Coast
Guard members and others with ties to the Coast Guard Academy were praising the
academy's handling of its first court-martial, saying the firm action will help
the school's reputation rebound. Many in the region with ties to the academy
said the fact the school did not hide the allegations and followed through with
a court martial would help its reputation rebound. "The academy has
excellent processes in place to deal with this," said John Maxham, Vice
President of Development for the Academy Alumni Association. "The most
important thing is it was handled in the proper fashion."
Judith
Buttery, 50, of Oakdale and a former member of the Coast Guard Band, said the
rape allegation was something other colleges and universities have dealt with
for years. "It happens so often in every other place," Buttery said.
"It's just one of those things the Coast Guard will have to deal with. The
Coast Guard Academy will weather this storm."
Chris Morello
of Norwich, the Capt. Paul Foyt Chapter co-president of the Coast Guard Academy
Parents Association, called the incident disappointing, but was glad the
academy handled it well. "It's disappointing for the best of the cadets
that work as hard and are dedicated and disciplined to have a few put a black
mark on the school," Morello said. "It's not good to judge anything
based on one decision or challenge."
I was not one
of those praising the Coast Guard Academy for its handling of its first
court-martial. It was appalling to me that it should have been a General
Court-martial. I agreed with the Article 32 Investigating Officer that the
charges could have been resolved at an Article 15 Captain’s Mast. Non-judicial
punishment would have been more than sufficient.
I felt that a
great miscarriage of justice had occurred. The life and career of a very
promising cadet had been sacrificed. There were no processes in place to deal
with allegations of sexual assault. They were making them up as they went
along. This was an experiment. I do not think it will ever happen again.
Fortunately
for the family of Webster Smith there were some white knights in the wings
watching what I considered a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of process. I am
referring primarily to the law firm that took his case on appeal. The case was
taken as a pro bono case by the Wilmer
Cutler Hale and Dorr law firm.
In December of
2007 as we were waiting for the decision on appeal from the Coast Guard Court
of Criminal Appeals, it occurred to me that the best Christmas present the
Coast Guard could give to the Lawyers from the Wilmer Cutler Hale and Dorr law firm representing cadet Webster
Smith would be to rule against them.
It appeared
that the best payment the Law Firm could get for representing Webster Smith
would be another chance to make history. Taking this case pro bono, it was
obvious that they would not receive any direct financial compensation for their
services; but, they already had more money than they can spend.
Far more than
money, a chance to make history by arguing the case before the Supreme Court
would have been just compensation.
I believed
that they had followed this case from day one. They had a premonition of its
precedent setting nature. When would another case of this unique nature come
along? Not in a thousand years.
Like God up in
Heaven, hoping that Pharaoh would not give in and let the Hebrews go free, just
so He could give the world repeated displays of his awesome power, Wilmer Cutler Hale and Dorr may have
been secretly in its heart of hearts hoping the Coast Guard was as perverse as
some had said that they were. That would give
Wilmer Cutler Hale and Dorr a
chance to make it to the Supreme Court to argue a really very simple and easy
case of the wrongful prosecution of the first Black Cadet at the Coast Guard
Academy.
Now, that
would be a trophy worth more than a million dollar retainer. That would add a
modern and impressive new paragraph to their website. They would continue to
stroll down the corridors of history as the nation's preeminent civil rights
law firm.
Knowing the
Coast Guard as I did, I felt reasonably certain that they are about to get the
number one item on their Christmas Wish List; that is, a chance to argue before
the United States Supreme Court on behalf of a poor Black boy from Texas who
had been abused by the military justice system.
Little did I
know at the time that the case would be appealed to the Supreme Court, only to
have the nation’s court of last resort deny the appeal with not one word of
explanation.
Could it be
that the Court-martial of Webster Smith was just intended to attract media
attention? Was Admiral James Van Sice trying to send a message to U. S.
Representative Christopher Shays and the Pentagon and the other 3 military
academies that this is how the Coast Guard Academy handles sexual assaults?
Former
Congressman Shays, from Connecticut, a 10-term incumbent who lost a re-election
bid in November 2008, was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He
never wore a military uniform. He is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal, a
former Democratic senator from Connecticut, who had drawn scrutiny for saying
he served in Vietnam when he actually received deferments between 1965 and 1970
and then joined the Marine Reserve.
At the very
moment that the court-martial of Webster Smith was underway, U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican and
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and
International Relations, was holding a hearing concerning how officials were
handling sexual assault cases in the military and its academies. The Hearings were
held in Washington, D.C.. Coast Guard Rear
Admiral Paul J. Higgins from the Coast Guard Academy was on the witness list.
Military officials said they have worked hard to improve
critical areas such as victim support and confidentiality while providing
training for all cadets to prevent sexual harassment and assault.
Congress created a task force in 2004 that recommended many such
changes. “The Air Force Academy has come a long way in addressing sexual
assault and violence since the events of 2003 and before,” Brig. Gen. Susan Y.
Desjardins, Air Force Academy commandant of cadets, said in prepared testimony.
But Shays suggested that more needed to be done: “We must provide an environment in the
military at large that does not condone hostile attitudes and inappropriate
actions toward women,” Shays said. (Note 17)
It is
strangely ironic that in April 2006 Representative Shays hosted a briefing on
Capitol Hill where a former female Coast Guard Academy cadet, Caitlin Stopper, told of how her life
became an "absolute hell" after she accused a fellow cadet of
sexually assaulting her. Ms Stopper said that Academy officials tried to blame her
for the alleged attack. (Note 16) Her attacker was white. He was allowed to
quietly resign his cadet appointment. One has to wonder, if the rapist had been
a Black cadet, would he have been allowed to quietly resign; or, would he have
received a General Court-martial? That was truly a rape case. The Webster Smith
case was not.
And then,
along came Webster Smith. He was Black. The age of blaming the alleged victim,
apparently was over. Since the academy had excellent processes in place to deal
with things like this, it was time to crank up the machinery. The most
important thing was that it had to be handled in the proper fashion, but it was
time to paint a face on crime at the Coast Guard Academy, that crime being
sexual assault. This appeared to be an ideal case for racial profiling. Racial
profiling is what happens when you take a set of circumstances associated
with a certain crime and used them to identify the type of person likely to
commit it.
Rapes have
occurred at the Coast Guard Academy or onboard the Academy training ship, USCGC
Eagle since as far back as 1977. From 1993 until the spring semester of 2005,
the Coast Guard Academy had 10 reported incidents of sexual misconduct,
according to information provided by the CGA. If we were to profile all of the
sexual assailants from 1977 until the Caitlin Stopper sexual attack, we would
get a composite of who should be the poster child for sexual assault at the
Coast Guard Academy.
This is what
we would get. He would be a white male between the ages of 17 and 21. He would
be intelligent and athletic, but he would tend to be an introvert except when
he has consumed a small amount of alcohol. Being something of a social misfit,
he would prey on lonely or homely girls who solicited his assistance. Typically
he would be asked for assistance with homework or with some aspect of an
athletic skill that he had excelled at. These situations would tend to lure the
unsuspecting female into his orbit of greatest achievement. His superior
abilities in these areas would tend to bolster his confidence and give him the
courage to mount an assault. Afterwards he would be able to convince himself
that she asked for it, or he could fantasize that she came on to him. It was
all her fault. He would feel little or no guilt.
According to a 2008 General Accounting Office Report, from 2003 to 2006
there were NO sexual-harassment complaints at the Coast Guard Academy, but
there were 12 incidents of sexual assault reported to the Coast Guard
Investigative Service (CGIS), with one incident in 2003, one in 2004, “NONE” in
2005 and 10 in 2006.
The 10 incidents reported in 2006 would appear to have occurred after the
Webster Smith court-martial. Webster Smith was removed from Chase Hall in 2005.
Who was doing all of the sexual assaulting in 2006? Why were none of these
people brought to justice? They could have been tried along with Webster Smith.
Labels: Cadet Webster Smith.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home