History In The Making

"I've been the victim of a concerted effort by cowardly military officials who want to smear my name and reputation prior to publication of my tell-all book, which, in part, exposes defense contractor fraud and revolving door corrupt practices in the U.S. Navy." - Syneeda Penland

This former Naval Officer, Syneeda Penland, is the only woman in U.S. military history to be court-martialed and locked up for adultery. Military law experts say that a decision such as this is rare, even unprecedented, especially for something that’s not illegal in the civilian world. Any conviction at general court-martial is a felony, so as a result, she was being charged with felony adultery. A threat was made to spread nude photos of her, allegedly by the top naval officers, because she refused to "shut up" and "look the other way." The pictures are of a man and a woman and show no visible faces.

They thought they could destroy her reputation by putting Syneeda on trial at court martial then sending her to the notorious Miramar Brig, where the Navy's most aggressive female criminals are imprisoned. Penland was fined $9,000 and spent two months in the brig.

"Just to be denied my right to continue serving my country is depressing," she said.

Syneeda Penland was denied a retirement pension after serving more than 19 years on active duty. She survived her incarceration at Miramar Brig and is currently publishing a book guaranteed to "tell all" about her experiences and about the lesbian subculture in the Navy prison. She claims that her bosses bent rules to pay for building construction and upgrades and allowed civilian contractors to manage military personnel — according to her, all things that violated either federal laws or Defense Department regulations.

Her problems began on Feb. 26, 2007, when she received a letter of instruction from her commanding officer accusing her of missing deadlines and having personality clashes with co-workers. She then received a fitness report grade of 1.0 — after the same command gave her a 4.33 on her previous report. On March 26, Penland (who is single) was told that she was suspected of having a sexual relationship with a married lieutenant junior grade, and that she called the man’s wife (coincidentally, a Navy chief) at work to question her about it.

"How I came to be prosecuted is a travesty, it's an injustice," Penland explained.

"Not only am I wearing the scarlet letter," she said, "but they've ruined my life; not just my career but my life."

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

"Don't ask, don't tell" (Also known as DADT) is the official United States policy on homosexuals serving in the military until September 20th of this year. After this date, the ban will end thanks to President Barrack Obama.

 The policy prohibits military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from serving their country. It disallows applicants who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the US because they "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." It prohibits any homosexual/bisexual person from telling anyone of his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any gay relationships, including marriages, whilst in the armed forces. It specifies that service members who confess that they are gay or engage in homosexual acts shall be discharged.

"Don't ask" refers to the policy in that superiors should not investigate a serviceman's sexual orientation when they haven't displayed any prohibited behaviours.

Number of discharges:
Since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military.
<>

<>

<>

Year	Coast Guard	Marines	Navy	Army	Air Force	Total
1994	0	36	258	136	187	617
1995	15	69	269	184	235	772
1996	12	60	315	199	284	870
1997	10	78	413	197	309	1,007
1998	14	77	345	312	415	1,163
1999	12	97	314	271	352	1,046
2000	19	114	358	573	177	1,241
2001	14	115	314	638	217	1,273
2002	29	109	218	429	121	906
2003*	–	–	–	–	–	787
2004	15	59	177	325	92	668
2005	16	75	177	386	88	742
2006*	–	–	–	–	–	623
2007*	–	–	–	–	–	627
2008*	–	–	–	–	–	619
2009*	–	–	–	–	–	428
2010*	11	–	–	–	–	261
Total	≥156	≥889	≥3,158	≥3,650	≥2,477

Australia has no ban. Since 1992, we have allowed them to serve. This decision has had no impact on military readiness, according to a new University of California study. In fact, many senior Australian military commanders believed the policy change had been a success that had helped to build "greater equity and effective working relationships within the ranks.' The US can learn from our example.

Mexican Military Injustice

Two Indigenous women in Mexico, Valentina Rosendo Cantú and Inés Fernández Ortega, were both raped by members of the Mexican military in 2002. As they were unable to get justice in Mexico, they took their cases to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found in their favour in 2010. It is one of of four cases in which the Inter-American Court has issued judgements against Mexico since November 2009 for major human rights violations by members of the army.

Mexican authorities were ordered by the Court to carry out effective investigations of the violations, and to reform the military justice system so that all allegations of human rights infractions committed by military personnel are excluded from military jurisdiction and dealt with by the civilian justice system.

Amnesty International is campaigning with the survivors and their families to ask the Mexican authorities to end military jurisdiction over cases of human rights violations committed by members of the military.

“The harm that the government did to me can never be repaired, it will be part of my life forever and I will never forget what happened. I demand justice. I demand that the government accept publicly that it was the military who abused me”. - Valentina Rosendo, January 2009

Australian Military Injustice

In Afghanistan, February 12th of 2009, three Australian soldiers were ordered to go to the home of a suspected Taliban leader and capture him. When they arrived, he opened fire on them. They responded with returned fire and lobbed a grenade into the room. The firing ceased. As they cautiously crept into the room, they saw a horrific scene, impossible to forget.
The suspected Taliban leader lay dead amongst a human shield comprising women and children. Six people in total were killed, five of them were children. Two other children and two adults were wounded. The soldiers allegedly attacked the wrong house.
These three men faced charges of manslaughter and two counts of dangerous conduct, with negligence as to consequence.
They were in a unique situation: the prosecution had been unable to find previous cases where manslaughter charges were brought in an active combat situation and that showed the difficulty in proving a duty of care.
Two of the three soldiers were to defend themselves against the accusation.The men say their actions saved the lives of other Australian and Afghan troops. 
The charges against these men came from the Australian Government. The soldiers were ordered by their superiors to carry out this task. They have been double-crossed by our political leaders who have exposed them to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Ask yourselves, is this fair? If it were your son or brother, would you want them to be accused of manslaughter when they were ordered to fulfill this mission?