Slate's Bizbox
war stories: Military analysis.

The Air Force Academy's Show TrialThe academy's new mascot should be the scapegoat.

By Dave Cullen
Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 2:55 PM ET
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty

The Air Force wants to resolve one scandal by creating another. Since the Air Force Academy rape controversy broke in January, the service has been working feverishly to control the damage. It scrupulously owned up to mishandling the rape accusations, mandated a barrage of reforms to improve the school's climate, and installed a tough new academy regime to enact its agenda. Then it started criminal proceedings against some of the accused—that's where it went terribly wrong.

Last week the academy's newly installed, get-tough Commandant Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida announced the first court-martial arising from the scandal. Sophomore Douglas Meester is charged with rape, forcible sodomy, indecent assault, and providing alcohol to a minor. He faces two life sentences if convicted on the most serious charges.

But Meester appears increasingly like a convenient scapegoat. After Meester's Article 32 hearing in May—the military analogue of a grand jury—the presiding investigating officer found the charges so flimsy that he recommended the court-martial be scuttled. And Weida's own legal adviser, Staff Judge Advocate Col. James Moody, advised the commandant of the court-martial's futility in a June memo: "To be frank, the rape and forcible sodomy charges are unlikely to result in findings of guilty." Yet he curiously recommended court-martial anyway. (Moody's statements were leaked to the Colorado Springs Gazette and independently confirmed by Slate.)

No wonder the military lawyers are dubious. The case against Meester is weak: Two cadets got really drunk and had sex. She regretted it in the morning; that made him a rapist.

This was not a gangbang or an ambush. There was no accusation of premeditation to get her drunk and take advantage. The "victim" testified in open court that she never recalls protesting in any way. Instead she described flirting with Meester and his buddy Robert Rando, sitting in Rando's lap, "clinging" to Rando, and exchanging body shots with both. She initiated one body shot and chose to lick Rando's chest rather than his neck. When Meester began to kiss her, she said she kissed back.

After about six tequila shots and one mixed drink, she was "falling over like a rag doll." But by this time, Meester and Rando were both convinced she was interested, and Rando thought she would come back to his room. When Rando left to coax his roommate out, Meester seized the opportunity. He undressed her, drew her into bed, and engaged in oral, anal, and vaginal sex. She described drifting in and out of consciousness once things got going. Investigators estimated her blood alcohol content at 0.19 percent, his at 0.17 percent. When investigators questioned her a few days later, she said in a sworn statement, "I know for a fact that he probably thought what we were doing was consensual."

If getting drunk and hooking up is illegal, then half the college population in America should be remanded into custody. On any other campus, prosecuting a student for doing what Meester did would have provoked an outrage. But the academy has been so humiliated and demoralized that no cadet or faculty member would dare step forward to defend the accused. They would be crushed by the media as rape deniers. The perception inside the academy is get tough or get crucified.

The painful irony is that the Meester show trial has emerged from a bona fide soul-searching by the Air Force and a sincere effort to re-instill core values. Meester broke academy rules and he should be punished. In addition to behaving like a louse, he is clearly guilty of fraternization with a freshman, drinking in the dorms, and providing alcohol to a fellow minor. Based on current standards, he deserves a slew of demerits, several marching tours, and a period of restriction to barracks. Instead, he is facing life behind bars. Even if he beats the rape charge, he could get two years just for sharing the tequila.

Meester's show trial isn't likely to commence until the fall, but its germination can be traced back to January, when the academy reacted so feebly to the budding scandal. Female cadets charged they had been literally raped by their wingmates and symbolically raped by commanders, who ignored their charges and even punished the victims. The generals responded petulantly and paid for it dearly. The more they protested, the more they cemented the central narrative of the story: Academy brass was apathetic about rape. The corollary suggested that women were still second-class cadets. A group of congresswomen issued a statement charging a "culture of rape." The academy is still struggling to reverse that impression.

As the scandal escalated, the Pentagon assumed command of the academy, sacking the leadership, rewriting cadet rules, and installing a new team to get tough on offenders. But until Meester's May hearing, not one of the accused cadets paraded through Time, the New York Times, or 20/20 this spring had been charged. Somebody had to get locked up.

Rape cases are notoriously tough to prosecute—particularly he said/she said situations—but the academy is determined to prove it's trying, and that may be the real motive for the Meester trial. Air Force Secretary James Roche told reporters at a May 28 academy press conference that he had directed commanders here to pursue Article 32 hearings more aggressively.

Gen. Weida is not discussing his Meester decision, but one factor in the commandant's push for prosecution may be the belief that military discipline sometimes requires a scapegoat. In a military unit, it may sometimes be more important to set an example than worry too much about an individual cadet—especially one who has clearly misbehaved. Two leading military law scholars, Duke law professor Scott Silliman and National Institute of Military Justice President Eugene Fidell, said commanders are not expected to render their decisions entirely on the merits of the case. "It is absolutely appropriate for the commander to look at the impact of the decision on the entire unit," Fidell said. "Particularly with regard to the issue of discipline."

In other words, it is reasonable to court-martial an innocent man just to send a message to the troops. Fortunately, the officers Weida will appoint as Meester's jury are not under the same stricture as Weida. They are not supposed to consider the unit or the academy's reputation, only the facts of the case. Those facts are ugly, but not grounds for ending a young man's life.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Dave Cullen is completing a book on the Columbine killers. He also maintains The Columbine Navigator, a Web site about the massacre's numerous myths.
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Eugene R. Fidell and Scott Silliman Repond:

I am writing this on behalf of myself and Professor Scott Silliman. Both of us were quoted or paraphrased in your July 9, 2003 piece, "The Air Force Academy's Show Trial." Prof. Silliman and I understand that it was an opinion piece. Your very next (and last) paragraph, however, conveyed the impression, by using the words "in other words," that we agreed with your view that "it is reasonable to court-martial an innocent man just to send a message to the troops." That sentence materially misstates our views and distorts the comments we made to you in our separate interviews. In fact, any commander who sent to trial a case in which he or she actually believed the accused was innocent would be engaging in reprehensible conduct.

Sincerely,

Eugene R. Fidell

(To reply, click here)

(7/10)

Remarks from the Fray:

The Air Force is doing the right thing. The author recognized it is necessary for military leaders to punish to set an example, notwithstanding the punished one's culpability. These young people are to be leaders, the examples young enlisted personnel will follow in the years to come. A military academy is not a college or university, hence you are appointed not accepted. That appointment brings with it a higher degree of scrutiny and expectation; an expectation of moral excellence, physical excellence, and mental excellence. Secondly, regardless of what the alleged victim believes, it is the bad guy's mental state that is at issue. If the victim thinks the act was consensual is it not still rape when the defendant believes he is getting what he normally would not, i.e. that he's taking not getting some?

--_bk

(To reply, click here)


It is a challenge to every nation to apply justice to its justice apparatus. Investigating possible criminal behaviour for police and for military has been notoriously messy. The reasons for this are obvious. The people who do investigations of crime are in a conflict of interest when they are investigating their own. They don't like investigating themselves or their friends. There is all kind of fraternal pressure. Some nations set up separate offices for "internal investigations". There are military courts as well as civilian courts. These offices are still challenged by the fact that they need to work hand-in-hand with the people they are investigating in many circumstances are also challenged by the "codes of honour" that exist among these investigations. Witnesses that come from the police or military don't like squealing on their comrades. The biggest challenge these separate offices face is that their very existence can be violating the individual suspect's constitutional rights. If a military or police officer is being investigated for a crime, he/she should not have to experience a different kind of investigation than any other citizen; and they have a right to be tried in the same courts with the same rules as any other citizen - or so it has been argued. So prosecution is difficult. Worse - as you have pointed out, there are sometimes external pressures at play that serve to muddy the motivations of the prosecution. The solution: Don't have one. I suspect it requires being addressed by a constitution and that is a headache in itself.

--TheQuietMan

(To reply, click here)


…As a parent of a male cadet currently enrolled at the Academy, the entire male cadet population has been demonized in the media as sexual predators conditioned to harass and rape their female classmates. Regardless of the facts (56 alleged, reported incidents....meaning 56 alleged assailants), the entire male cadet population (past and present) have been made to pay a heavy price! And while the institutional changes in recent days have been sensationalized in the media, as my son will tell you...the "fear factor" (being unjustly accused of harassing a female classmate for just looking at a her the wrong way) has created an atmosphere of mistrust, fear and anxiety among all of the cadet male population! Doug Meester is nothing more than a scapegoat! The Academy and the Air Force somehow believe they need to make a point and this poor kid was at the wrong place at the wrong time. His accuser should be ashamed!!! General Weida should rethink his position!

--StarkNakedTruth

(To reply, click here)


Cullen finds it odd that court martial was recommended even though the cadet probably didn't commit rape. It's called an honor code, Mr. Cullen. One needn't commit rape in order to behave in a manner unfit for an Air Force cadet. Yes, if college students got expelled for the cadet's behavior there would no longer be a glut of college students. But, thankfully, the Air Force is choosing to enforce a considerably more stringent code than the one found on the average college campus. For the sake of our armed forces, it must be that way.

--gta

(To reply, click here)


This author missed the boat with this article. No, getting drunk and having sex isn't a crime—correct on that point. However, there is a big fat unmistakable line between being drunk and having consensual sex and the criminal assault described in this article. The woman is a minor—"falling over like a rag doll," "drifting in and out of consciousness." No consent is possible in that situation. Was it rape? You'd be clear about it if it was your sister. Absolutely this man had sexual intercourse with a woman who did not give consent—flirting, foreplay, teasing, fooling around ETC is not consent to "oral, anal, vaginal" intercourse. "She kissed him back." Oh—so she deserved anal rape? Gosh, who hires this guy for his opinions? Sounds like "rape, forcible sodomy, indecent assault, and providing alcohol to a minor" is about as accurate as you can get with the charges. What is the problem? That she appeared to want sex while conscious? Well, wait till she's conscious again and ask. Two life sentences? To me, doesn't sound like a reasonable sentence…although if it were my minor daughter I might see that differently. The sentencing is a distinct issue and has nothing to do with the primary consideration. Was a woman abused? Raped? Clearly. Is this guy being scapegoated? Possibly. Are all such rapists in the military being prosecuted? That would be a better indication of whether or not the scapegoating assertion has merit. I'm really sorry to see this level of criminal behavior still condoned and rationalized. I'm also really sorry to see "thinking" of this caliber being published.

--Mona_Lisa

(To reply, click here)

(7/9)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
The Great Debate
Marcus | Forget Biden. I'd like to see McCain face off against Palin.
Toles: Another McCain SurpriseStumped: Where's Palin's Baby?