Perhaps due to feminist pressure, Air Force drops court-martial against Cassandra Hernandez
September 16th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: Feminists have been vociferously protesting the case of Cassandra Hernandez (pictured). They claim she is the victim of a gang rape, who then was re-victimized by the military when they brought charges against her of underage drinking and committing indecent acts.
I was surprised and disturbed by the case, and asked one of my most intelligent readers, Stan Eads, to review the information in the case. I did not ask him to find reasons why the feminists are wrong--I told him, "what you find is what you find."
Stanton researched the issue and has come to the conclusion that the feminists have a legitimate cause for protest here. Based on his research, I think the facts surrounding the alleged rape are murky, and that the feminists may well be correct.
To read what Stan found, as well as the feminist view of the case and other information, see my blog post Are Feminist Protesters Correct on the Cassandra Hernandez Rape Case?
Perhaps in response to feminist pressure, the Air Force has decided that Cassandra Hernandez will not face a court-martial for charges of underage drinking and committing indecent acts. The article, from Kelcey Carlson and Anne Leake of WRAL in North Carolina, is below.
Alleged Air Force Rape Victim Won't Face Court Martial
(WRAL, 9/14/07)
Pope Air Force Base — An Air Force enlisted woman who claimed to be the victim of a rape at Pope Air Force Base will not face a court-martial for offenses stemming from the case, the military announced.
Airman First Class Cassandra Hernandez had been scheduled to face a court-martial on Sept. 24 for charges of underage drinking and committing indecent acts.
Instead, 43rd Airlift Wing Commander Col. Timothy Zadalis administered nonjudicial punishment for the underage drinking charge. He also decided nonjudicial punishment was inappropriate for the indecent acts allegation and handled that charge through administrative action, a Pope spokesperson said.
Hernandez may appeal the rulings and submit information in response to the administrative action, officers said. She will remain in the Air Force.
"The actions taken are meant to be rehabilitative," Capt. Beverly G. Mock said in a press release. "The Air Force and the 43rd Airlift Wing Commander expect that Airman Hernandez will successfully continue to serve the Air Force and the nation."
The charges stemmed from events at a party on May 13, 2006. Hernandez reported to military officials that she was gang-raped by three other airmen at the party.
The Air Force charged Airman Russell J. Basile but dropped the case when Hernandez refused to testify. Later, Hernandez said she felt pressured by the Air Force judicial process and intimidated by Basile’s defense attorney, an Air Force lawyer, who she said interviewed her without her victim’s advocate present.
In February, Lt. Col. David Knight, the commander of Hernandez's unit, the 43rd Operations Support Squadron, signed papers charging Hernandez with committing an indecent act by having sexual relations with Airman 1st Class Jerrell W. Apache while Basile and Airman Rotez J. Butler Butler watched. She was also charged with underage drinking.
"));
19 queries. 0.312 seconds.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
That was probably the right decision. The military is notorious for covering up wrongdoing in its midst.
Although I'm still skeptical that a trained soldier would feel 'intimidated' by an attorney. It really is in her interests to testify and if she refuses she may have something to hide. Then again, she may not, we have no idea.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Hi Callum:
She is in the Air Force, so she isn't a soldier but an airman. Trained? She made it through basic training and was trained in her Air Force career field, just like is done in a community college. There is a big intimidation factor in the military, so I don't doubt she was probably more afraid to refuse to answer when it wasn't necessarily appropriate than she might have been out in the "civilian" world.
She won't have reason to "testify" because she isn't going to court as she would if the Air Force was going through with the court-martial. Non-judicial punishment is a written reprimand and can include forfeiture of pay and a rank reduction, depending on what her commander believes to be appropriate.
I have no idea what the administrative action will be since the article didn't say, but I agree with her commander that the non-judicial punishment didn't fit what she did and I'm inclined to feel that a court-martial was appropriate. Her actions were severely detrimental to the cohesiveness and overall welfare of her unit and deserves severe punishment which I feel would be putting her out of the Air Force. There may be a double standard here, but that's the way it is. Women are just not the same as men, no matter how much we try to deny it.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:37 am
P.S. I sure would like to know what that "administrative action" will be.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
When women are "equal," they will be charged with rape if they have sex with an intoxicated man -- who, being intoxicated, could not say "yes" to her seduction. Right? By the way, in the rest of the law, people are held responsible for the consequences of getting drunk -- they are presumed to intend the "natural consequences of their actions." The hypocracy of Feminism and its adherents is truly breathtaking. Won't the ladies have fun when the chickens finally come home to roost!!? Women's treatment of men under feminism is analogous to an animal trainer who has been kicking a bear in the balls in order to get what she wants -- forgetting that she is trapped in the cage with the bear. A happy outcome at the end of the day cannot be expected. Oh, well. What goes around comes around.