Rape case spotlights Pentagon policy By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 9, 1:54 PM ET

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. - As investigators pursued an Air Force officer they suspected of drugging and raping other servicemen, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy hung over their case.

Testimony during the court-martial that resulted in Capt. Devery L. Taylor's conviction revealed an investigation made more complicated by the 1993 law prohibiting the military from asking about the sex lives of its members but requiring the discharge of those who acknowledge being gay.

Among other things:

• Taylor says that to save his career, he initially lied in denying he was gay, and that made him look guilty to investigators. He also claims some of his victims saved their careers by falsely accusing him of rape rather than admit consensual sex.

• Military investigators had to step around the law, telling servicemen they interviewed that their job wasn't to uncover consensual gay activity but that their answers would be reported to their commanders.

• One of Taylor's victims and another man left the military after being interviewed by investigators. The first man testified that he was gay and that Taylor raped him. The second man was forced into early retirement after he told investigators he had a consensual relationship with Taylor.

"When this law was sold to the public, it was said it would protect the privacy of service members, but it has instead put them in difficult positions where they have to choose between their careers and their own safety," said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents military members discharged for being openly gay.

Maj. Kathleen Reder, who prosecuted Taylor, said that despite any complications, the system worked.

"Male-on-male rape in general is an underreported crime. The level of sensitivity and professionalism in the military was so great that these men were able to come forward. This is not only a unique case in the face of the military, it is a unique case on the face of the Earth," she said.

"Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented by the Clinton administration. It represented an easing of the military's policy of investigating suspected homosexuals and discharging anyone discovered to be gay.

Under the law, military investigators cannot question service members about their sexual orientation, but gays can be discharged if they talk about it.

But Ralls and other critics say it can attract sexual predators like Taylor to the military because it often discourages their victims, gay or straight, from coming forward for fear of being kicked out of the service.

"These people were victims of a predator who was able to be more effective in his predatory techniques because of a federal law," Ralls said.

Taylor, 38, was convicted last week of raping four men and attempting to rape two others. He was sentenced to 50 years in a military prison. His attorneys said "don't ask, don't tell" will be a factor in their appeal.

Six victims, including four military men, two of them married, testified at the court-martial that they had felt drugged after drinking with Taylor at bars. They said he then took them to hotel rooms or his apartment and raped them.

Investigators said Taylor had spiked the men's drinks with gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB, which is often called the "date-rape drug" because it leaves people groggy and powerless.

Taylor's defense was that the sex was consensual. His attorney, Martin Regan, argued before the jury of nine Air Force officers that "don't ask, don't tell" gave Taylor's military accusers an incentive to say they were drugged and raped rather than admit consensual gay sex.

Regan said "don't ask, don't tell" also led Taylor to lie at first about having gay sex, and that led investigators to wrongly conclude he was a rapist.

Taylor, the former chief of patient administration at Eglin Regional Hospital, testified at his court-martial that he feared authorities were on "a gay roundup" and that he lied about his activities because he was trying to protect his career and those of his gay friends.

"To defend yourself against criminal allegations, you then have to say I am going to give up my job, walk away from something I love doing, something I've been recognized as one of the best at the base for doing," Regan said.

One longtime Air Force security officer was forced into early retirement because he told the military investigators that he had consensual sex with Taylor. Investigators tracked the man down while looking into Taylor's past relationships.

Another airman, whom Taylor was convicted of raping, left the military after investigators interviewed him. He testified that he was gay and had traveled and shared hotel rooms with Taylor.

But Reder, the prosecutor, said "investigators went to great pains to do their job and respect the privacy of others."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_re_us/military_male_rape

Reguardless of how you feel about gays serving openly in the military, I think this entire thing is screwed up. They are attacked but cant report it for fear of being booted out. I personally think that congress and the military really need to relook at don't ask don't tell and come up with something a little bit better.

I feel that way about lots of things in and out of the army that yes come up with something a little bit better. Hopefully with the strain on army they will look to improve on the DADT, but one only has to leave the country and see that this country may not be perfect but it aint half bad

quote:

Originally posted by WO1 Pyro:
Reguardless of how you feel about gays serving openly in the military, I think this entire thing is screwed up. They are attacked but cant report it for fear of being booted out. I personally think that congress and the military really need to relook at don't ask don't tell and come up with something a little bit better.

They can report if they are sexually assaulted by someone of the same gender without having to worry about getting booted out unless they say that they had a relationship with that person prior to the assault.

The issue of if the victims were homosexual or not is neither here nor there, the investigators were trying to get to the bottom of an alleged rape accusation. However if it were to come out that said rape victim was in fact homosexual, and at some point in the past had consensual sex with the suspect, in my opinion shouldn't be a factor in the investigation being that the investigation was not ordered to find out who's gay and who isn't. Then you've got the don't ask don't tell policy, where if an investigator were to ask a question that requires an answer that would, if answered honestly, reveal the sexual orientation of the person being questioned, would it still apply? Or can service members plead the 5th? It also raises the issue of Soldiers, or rather service members in general, who want to get out of the military; They will claim that they are homosexuals with hopes of being booted out, but it seems that if they don't have super compelling evidence (pictures, video tape, or just being caught in the act) their claim of homosexuality is dismissed for what it is, a feeble attempt to leave the military, and the Soldier returns to duty as if it never happened. I'm sure this happens more often than not a BCT or IET environments. However back on topic, the investigation was to determine if the suspect is in fact a rapist, not to find out if the victims are homosexual, which in my mind would in effect grant them some kind of immunity to the don't ask don't tell policy.

quote:

if the victims were homosexual or not is neither here nor there, the investigators were trying to get to the bottom of an alleged rape accusation. However if it were to come out that said rape victim was in fact homosexual, and at some point in the past had consensual sex with the suspect, in my opinion shouldn't be a factor in the investigation being that the investigation was not ordered to find out who's gay and who isn't

SGT T

Your right that the investigation wasn't to find that out but the fact that the person KNOWS the DADT Policy states that when it comes out that they had consentual sex with someon eof the same gender they KNOW that they are violating policy and the investigation about their lifestyle will be conducted seperatly from the sexual assault investigation. The DADT policy would not be violated if the subject answers a question about his orientation as long as they don't out right ask him "Are you a homosexual" if durin gthe process of the investigation they are told that he had consentual sex with the person of the same gender then it is based in the sexual assault case and not the investigation about that persons lifestyle. He can't plead the 5th but he can choose not to answer the question but if you don't answer questions that let's most good MP's know that your guilty, and they will get you to confess your guilt. There is no "Immunity" to the DADT Policy but the investigations are seperate.