Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 09/22/2004 View Tue 09/21/2004 View Mon 09/20/2004 View Sun 09/19/2004 View Sat 09/18/2004 View Fri 09/17/2004 View Thu 09/16/2004
1
2004-09-22 Home Front: Culture Wars
Pentagon wants to make it a court martial offense for troops to use prostitutes
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Penguin 2004-09-22 00:20|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Why not just take a more direct route & let the JAG's and MP's concentrate on more important matters? Just go back to putting saltpeter in the chow! :-D
Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-09-22 12:28:30 AM||   2004-09-22 12:28:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 if AIDS, a slow and hideous death, doesn't deter them, then what makes them think a court martial will?
Posted by 2B 2004-09-22 1:13:42 AM||   2004-09-22 1:13:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 
They can threaten all they want,DMS(don't mean sh&t).They Millitary tried this many times.never worked,never will.
ex:Regs aginst Fraternization post-WW2 Germany and Japan.


Posted by raptor 2004-09-22 8:54:40 AM||   2004-09-22 8:54:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 This is going to be interesting "Defense officials have drafted an amendment to the manual on courts martial that would make it an offense for U.S. troops to use the services of prostitutes". The UCMJ is simply a subsection of Title 10 U.S. Code. That will literally require an act of Congress. When the congressional committee gets this, they'll also be hit by the 'Gay' lobby to amend the same law to permit openly gay members to be in the military since Sodomy is a specific charge already on the books. There's no need for anything new. Just place the establishments and the area of the establishments 'Off Limits'. Anyone caught in the area on sweeps would be subject to existing UCMJ punishment for disobeying a lawful order.

And whatca going to do in countries where the worlds oldest profession is actually lawfully legal? Little things like that have a tendency to run afoul of the Status of Forces Agreements, treaties. Outlawing something that is perfectly legal in the host country doesn't usually sit nice with the locals. Best avoid any suggestion and just use existing processes.

Or just issue a Haliburton sub-contract out of Nevada for professionals!
Posted by Don 2004-09-22 9:25:36 AM||   2004-09-22 9:25:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This is the old "God's army" refrain of the Nasty Nellies going back to WWI. Even Saint Douglas MacArthur tried to quench the terrible thirst for lust by stopping the issue of condoms to the troops in Korea. This lasted until the theater medical officer got the following month's stats on venereal disease, and is alleged to have physically jumped up on Mac's desk while screaming at him.
I highly recommend that saner heads require a significant appropriation of funds to enforce the new rules, say $100B.
Posted by Anonymoose 2004-09-22 9:52:33 AM||   2004-09-22 9:52:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Union General Joe Hooker would agree with OS's observation, methinks.
Posted by .com 2004-09-22 10:11:37 AM||   2004-09-22 10:11:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I think it was Sheriden. A soldier who won't f**k, won't fight.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-09-22 10:58:46 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-09-22 10:58:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 the "camp follower" is common throughout history.

Which actually connects to a trivia about Jeanne D'arc's father once saying that he'd rather kill his daughter than see her "go with the troops".

*g* He is believed to have meant a far different "go with the troops" than history later came to know of Jeanne.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-09-22 11:08:42 AM||   2004-09-22 11:08:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 This is the old "God's army" refrain of the Nasty Nellies going back to WWI.

If that's the case, the "G-d's Army" refrain added an "anti human-trafficking/exploitation of women" verse this time around.
Posted by Pappy 2004-09-22 11:26:25 AM||   2004-09-22 11:26:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 this is my rifle, this is my gun....
Posted by Frank G  2004-09-22 11:26:29 AM||   2004-09-22 11:26:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 It would seem to me that someone at the Pentagon wants reenlistment numbers to drop, or pregnancy rates within the service to rise. I'm not sure I see the logic.
Posted by RJ Schwarz 2004-09-22 11:47:59 AM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-09-22 11:47:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Pregnancies occur in both prostitutes and servicewomen. Don't servicewomen have access to birth control?
Posted by jules 187 2004-09-22 11:57:48 AM||   2004-09-22 11:57:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Isn't this restraint of trade or maybe anti-globalization?
Posted by dorf 2004-09-22 12:06:30 PM||   2004-09-22 12:06:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I am a real hard shell "publican", but I hate the inroads that the religous right has made in the thinking of the military. This in combination with political correctness gives us crap like this. Having been in the Army with nine years duty station overseas, I can tell you stuff like this leads to barracks fighting, low morale and poor motivation. Another is not allowing troops beer etc in moslem countries is another load of bs. There is more to life than band concerts and listening to some half a sleep chaplain talk about clean living. If I had wanted clean living I would have joined a monestary not the army. Argggh!!!
Posted by Old Fogey  2004-09-22 12:22:20 PM||   2004-09-22 12:22:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Didn't anybody even READ the article??

"The move is part of a Defense Department effort to lessen the possibility that troops will contribute to human trafficking in areas near their overseas bases by seeking the services of women forced into prostitution . . . In recent years, "women and girls are being forced into prostitution for a clientele consisting largely of military services members, government contractors and international peacekeepers . . ."

Does anyone on Rantburg care that impoverished young girls and women are being FORCED by other men to serve as the physical/emotional/psychological RECEPTACLES of the base instincts and lack of self-control of our men in uniform? Doesn't anyone think participating in the degradation of girls and women in this fashion, degrades the reputation of the armed forces?

Or is it simply easier to "pretend" about all the "fun and games" American guys can have with those human slaves sexy, willing, free-to-choose "girls of the night." (If so, y'all would get along great with Cat Stevens--he likes to pretend stuff too. He even pretends Islam isn't as bad as it is.)

But I guess when all you can think about is ejaculating into a human slave "pretty little thing," who is feigning sexual interest in you so that she gets the money and is not beaten, tortured, or killed when you're through with her--well, that takes priority.

Hey--maybe Western men have more in common with the sleazeball jihad crowd than I realized. The only thing the Islamos give a shit about is their dicks. Why should our guys be any different. After all, "boys will be boys"--right? As # 8 said: "A soldier who won't f**k, won't fight." I think that should definitely take the place of the Ranger Code. Protecting fellow human beings from being exploited is just "politically correct crap" as # 15 argues.

Okay--you’ve won me over. I say forget 'em. All those little honeys deserve it. I mean, our guys pay good money to make use of them. They should get what they pay for. No one should get in their way--especially not the chain of command. What the hell do they know, anyway?

And to think that all this time I believed honor mattered, and that our guys were different. Silly, silly me.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-09-22 1:32:13 PM||   2004-09-22 1:32:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ex-lib-I care if a person is forced into prostitution, but you know, sometimes it isn't a man that does it. I have read several stories about impoverished southeastern Asian women with large families selling their underage daughters into lifelong prostitution, sometimes out of greed, sometimes to buy food or other necessities for their families. Both men and women are capable of looking upon women as nothing more than pi**pot commodities.

There are other factors to consider: as you named it, contributing to human trafficking, but also the natural sexual urge of people in the military. I am not sure what the answer is for the military as far as sex goes. Do you think demanding abstinance will actually result in abstinant behavior in the ranks? For some maybe...

I plead guilty to your first charge-I should have read the whole article.
Posted by jules 187 2004-09-22 1:55:53 PM||   2004-09-22 1:55:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "I am not sure what the answer is for the military as far as sex goes."

The answer is quite simple and was touched on by an earlier comment. Contract the services out to "Haliburton" type entity, and bring the women into theatre from Las Vegas or some other place where their willingness can be ascertained.

Screw the PC crowd and the Religious Right.
Posted by Analog Roam 2004-09-22 2:23:43 PM||   2004-09-22 2:23:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 As long as
1) They are willing and of age
2) Service member spouses are notified
I have no problem with that.

:)
Posted by jules 187 2004-09-22 2:29:39 PM||   2004-09-22 2:29:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 For ex-lib: I certainly do no advocate forced prostuition. What I was trying to get across is that the concept of a court martial offense for for this is like prohibition, flawed, unworkable, doomed to failure. Any closed social group such as an army post that is under lock and key is much more prone to internal conflicts. The smaller the group the faster these conflicts grow. When you try to supress normal human urges in a closed group the probability of violent conflicts approaches certaintity. Now there is a court martial offense that you can hang your hat on.
Posted by Old Fogey  2004-09-22 4:51:45 PM||   2004-09-22 4:51:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I think the forced prostitution thing is just a front for the greater "moralistic purpose." The recent UN scandal involving forced prostitutes did not involve US troops, and with a reason. If a European soldier sees a pimp slapping around a prostitute, as much as not, they just shrug; but an American will interfere--they don't like that. American troops don't see prostitutes as things, but as people. If you really want to see the motivation of the Nasty Nellies, ask what the policy is about soldiers *marrying* local girls. If it is markedly racist, absolutely forbidden, or extremely difficult, you are seeing the flip side to this b.s. They HATE the idea of US soldiers "polluting" their bodies with dirty, foreign women. Soldiers must remain "pure", then return home to marry American girls. ONLY.
Posted by Anonymoose 2004-09-22 5:13:41 PM||   2004-09-22 5:13:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 This link addresses whether adultery is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and then goes on to describe when and how members of the armed services are prosecuted for adultery. It is not a cut and dry answer.

I imagine the same will prove true of any rules making “use of a prostitute” a crime under the UCMJ. No one is going to get thrown in the brig just because they stopped by a brothel. However, service members should face consequences for bringing discredit upon the armed forces, or engaging in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. THAT WOULD CERTAINLY INCLUDE F**K@NG SOME POOR SEX SLAVE, I WOULD THINK.

The whole point of these rules is to promote cohesion, morale, and discipline by clearly defining the bounds of acceptable behavior, and by clearly informing all service members of the potential consequences for bad behavior. Also, among other things, the rules give effect to the authority of the command structure. I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with tin foil conspiracies about inroads that the religous right has made in the thinking of the military.
Posted by cingold 2004-09-22 5:30:08 PM||   2004-09-22 5:30:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Issue them condoms and insist upon usage.
Posted by Fawad 2004-09-22 10:07:02 PM||   2004-09-22 10:07:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Issue them condoms and insist upon usage.

Even unwilling sex slaves would appreciate not being yet again exposed to a terminal disease.

The problem is, that while some girls are unwilling sex slaves, some have been sold into the life by their families, some chose it themselves as an alternative to starvation, and some actually like the work -- whether because they are sluts or because it might pay better than honest labour.

Do I like prostitution? No, I think for the unwilling it is formalized rape, and for the willing it is soul-destroying. That said, it is something I would consider if there were no other alternative way to keep my children fed.

The sex urge is at least as strong as hunger, thirst and the need for companionship for humans -- both male and female. Requiring long-term abstinence is unhealthy for the psyche, and where intra-unit fraternization is discouraged, another outlet must be available to maintain individual sanity as well as the smooth working of armed forces units as Old Fogey so ably describes.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-09-22 10:32:02 PM||   2004-09-22 10:32:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Couple points as I'm currently active duty mil & see the results of this first-hand:

>raptor's right, the lads are going to find a way to f*ck the local hookers - this will not stop them and the one's who get caught get & end up in trouble for much adoo about nothing imo. We have young guys in a high testerone environment who would otherwise be fornicating like rabbits back in college in the states if not for joining the mil - give'em a break. Unless you've been an 18 - 23 year old male overseas after spending months w/only men training for war you've no idea what I'm talking about. Though, I've always encouraged my lads to stay clear of hookers; I am a realist - I have always advised condoms and a clear understanding of the consequences involved when dealing w/ladies of the night - clap, drip, break up of relationships back home. I also advise married lads to remember their vows.

>don makes a good point about sofa - hooking is legal in okinawa, korea, etc. - Doubtful the politics will change - money is policy & that's the reality.

>right on RJ - beer and broads (no offense lady ranters) keeps them (usually) pretty happy. They will still bitch, but a bitching Marine is a happy Marine, its when they are quiet I start to worry because that means morale is really down the pisser. You want to see morale down the pisser - take away the beer & broads.

>I agree w/OF a lot. Cingold - The religious right did want porn mags out of the px's on base and tried to pass congressional legislation - this was a f*cking stupid move. Many Marines love their porn, don't try to understand it (ladies & bible bangers) just let them have their porn and if you want to say a prayer for their souls then good on ya. I've got guys who've seen the worst war has to offer and some asshole back home who can recite me all of Ezekiel but never served a day in his life is worrying about some servicemen popping a chubby over Miss November? Give me a break. Trust me, after seeing dead towel heads day on stay on, Miss November's a good deal.

>ex-lib the dod is going to get into the law of unintended consequences wrt trying to clean up other nations prostitution problems. Like OF, I deplore forced sexual labor but the easy fix is just making known establishments of these practices off-limits to service members - just like certain adult entertainment places are off-limits to us here in N.C. DOD is bringing a bazooka to a knife fight w/this. I think Analog had the best solution w/the halliburton angle though using tax payer's dollars to fund brothels would be an interesting debate imho. BTW ex-lib, get off the horse about comparing my lads to jihadis and the whole dick thing. Drawing any comparison no matter how far removed is an insult and you ought to be ashamed. As I doubt you've walked a mile in my boots or any other man in uniform who has as you put it "no self-control", our daily life involves a discipline I doubt you could ever fucking comprehend. Though I hate to break it to you -our job is not too right the wrongs of the whole damn world, we are not fucking boy scouts, we are rough men w/weapons that get the grity jobs done that most people want nothing to do with, and when that's done some guys are going to blow off steam buy utilizing brothels - so what? Lose the rose colored glasses please. Yes, forced sex labor is despicable as I already noted, but no, I don't lose much sleep over it as I'm more preoccupied in defending your ass against the jihadis you compared me to. Luckily, many others like me have chosen to support and defend the constitution of the U.S. which includes the 1st Amendment thus giving you the ability free of government reprisal to make such stupid comments in the first place.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-09-22 11:20:51 PM||   2004-09-22 11:20:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I tried to ignore this one, but I just can't.

I used to just think that officers should be canned if they went in for that stuff - I saw the negative effects on shipboard dicipline caused by some pretty piss-poor examples CO's in this arena. Bosnia has changed my mind.

I have a high opinion of the enlisted kids that we are recruiting and deploying overseas. Let the soldiers from the UN and EU enslave the child-women of the Balkans.

There are quite a number of "time honored" military traditions that the American military has banned much to its credit. Here are a few:

1. Liquor on Naval vessels
2. Robbing the dead
3. Summary executions
4. Adultery
5. Looting
6. Bribery
7. Loan-sharking
8. Recreational Drug-use

The list goes on. I can't see that turning a blind eye to prostitution is a policy that enhances readiness. Encouraging soldiers to become johns overseas and then expecting them not to continue that activity state-side is unrealistic. Part of solve this problem is to keep oir troops out of situations like the Balkans where there are other troops present engaged in institutionalized whore-mongering and human trafficing.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-09-22 11:25:37 PM||   2004-09-22 11:25:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by OldSpook 2004-09-22 9:36:00 AM||   2004-09-22 9:36:00 AM|| Front Page Top

09:36 OldSpook
04:07 OldSpook
04:02 OldSpook
02:34 OldSpook
02:24 OldSpook
02:19 OldSpook
00:47 OldSpook
00:42 OldSpook
00:40 OldSpook
00:35 OldSpook
00:34 OldSpook
23:34 Anonymous
16:52 Alaska Raul
01:52 Anonymous
08:36 Mike Sylwester
02:23 Pappy
02:11 Zenster
01:30 Long Hair Republican
01:01 trailing wife
00:58 trailing wife
00:47 Super Hose
00:23 lex
00:16 lex
00:10 Memesis









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com