Airman sentenced to 19 years for sodomy

Airman sentenced to 19 years for sodomy


by Master Sgt. Jon Hanson
435th Air Base Wing Public Affairs


http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010170

4/1/2005 - RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFPN) -- An Airman here was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 19 years confinement, reduction to Airman Basic and forfeiture of all pay and allowances by a general court-martial March 29.

Master Sgt. Bart Lipscomb, from the 86th Maintenance Squadron, was convicted of one charge of sodomy with a female younger than 12 between January 2000 and March 2004, and one charge of sodomy with a female between 12 and 16 from March to July 2004.

An Air Force judge also convicted him of committing indecent acts with a minor younger than 16 between January 2000 and July 2004, and committing indecent acts with a female minor younger than 16 between January and March 2004.

Officials said Sergeant Lipscomb also wrongfully and knowingly possessed visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.


On Edit: my my defenders of the family in the WAR ON TERRA.

:puke:
They'll have fun with him where he's going. Bastard. Eleven years is a long time to be someone's bitch. Serves him right.

When I first read the header, but hadn't read the article yet, my main question was was it rape or consentual homosexual sex they're stringing somebody up for, then I read this. Ewwwww is right. I think he oughta get some of his own medicine the whole time he's there. They'll take care of it from what I have heard about prisoners. Justice will be served in some way. Poor kids will need years of therapy probably to be ok, IF they get ok after that.

In the Military Code, "sodomy" covers...well, damn near any sexual act. This is how wide-open it is:



That's it.

It's a deliberately-vague catch-all for nailing not only rapists, but people who piss off their superiors but can't be burned any other way.

For example, hetero-doin'-it with the Captain's twenty-year-old daughter could be considered "unnatural;" any oral sex--even foreplay--with ANYONE guarantees conviction. All that's required is the charge and one witness. (One could, however, f*** a pie or a cucumber, because it only covers people and animals. Mmmmmm pie.)

scientists, I could burn a major gaping hole in the "unnatural" part of that particular rule involving consentual homosexual acts. It happens in nature. I used to groom dogs and saw all sorts of gaydom in both male and female pairs of dogs. I also watch wildlife very closely. I have seen female squirrels doing things... I've personally seen a poodle hump a deer's leg too (long funny story), so I know about these things. Those were animals. What else is the definition of "natural" but of nature? :shrug:

The Term, "Unnatural Act" is like the term "Act of God", terms of long usage in the law and as such understood by lawyers as to what is meant by the term. Thus while on its face the Statute appears "vague" and you could bring in experts saying a certain act is "natural" the problem is the Judge will than rule that the term has had a long history in the English Common Law and as such the meaning is clear AND IT IS THIS COMMON LAW TRADITION THAT DEFINES WHAT IS AND IS NOT AN "Unnatural Act" NOT what occurs in Natural.

An another example of this is when Pennsylvania re-wrote its Criminal Code in 1972. In the Codification the Pennsylvania Legislature defined manslaughter, First Degree Murder (i.e. an INTENTIONAL killing), Second Degree Murder (What most states call Felony-Murder), and than defined Third Degree Murder (What most states call Second Degrees Murder) Murder as "All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree". Notice no real definition just like "Unnatural Acts". The Code's definition of Third Degree Murder has been upheld as a mere codification of the Common law definition of Murder and thus any killing that would be "Murder" under the Common law would be Third Degree Murder under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code of 1972.

The same reasoning is behind the term "Unnatural Act", this is a term of Art used in the Common Law and whose meanings are clear under the Common Law and the previous Articles of War (Which was replaced by today's Uniform Code of Military Justice in the 1950s). If you come under the term as the term has been used for at least 200 years you will be convicted, sentenced and the conviction upheld on appeal (if the appeal is based on the argument the act was "Natural" or that the act is unconstitutionally vague).

I will NOT address whether the Appellant court will uphold a conviction for a Homosexual act under this Stature for while the Supreme Court has struck down a STATE law forbidding such homosexual activity, the Court has been more willing to let the Military alone in more areas than it has the states when the Military uses its need to maintain "Discipline". In such a case if the Military concentrate on the difference in rank between the homosexuals (and there is always a difference in rank even if the difference is time in grade) I can see the Supreme Court upholding this section as to two people in the Military (and striking it down if one of them are not). The rationale for upholding the action being that the act hurt "discipline" within the unit and as such harmful to the Military as a whole. The Court has ALWAYS deferred to the Military as to how the military wants to Discipline itself.

Please note I only mention homosexual conduct because someone will jump in on my argument the appeal will be denied and cite the recent Supreme Court Decision striking down State laws regarding Homosexual conduct. My statement that the appeal will be denied is on the issue of vagueness NOT whether it is constitutional to comment Homosexual acts while in the Military. Those are two different issues and in this thread I am only addressing Homosexual conduct to differentiate constitutional challenges based on Homosexual Conduct from constitutional challenges based on Vagueness.

They are separate systems, iirc.

The military court system is far different and separate. A person subject to the UCMJ could face both civilian court and court martial depending on the circumstances.

It's pretty typical that if a military person is picked up for DUI, they will face the charges in the civil court, and then be subjected to punishment under the UCMJ. Usually for being AWOL during the time they sit in jail.

There is no double jeopardy either.

It just goes through the US Military appeal system (Court of Military Appeals) as opposed to through the Federal District Court, Circuit Court of Appeals etc.

Remember the Supreme Court (with a few exceptions) does not have to take on any case, the cases the Supreme Court take is decided by the Supreme Court. Your only appeal of right under the UCMJ is to the Court of Military Appeals, but that is the equivalent if someone was convicted in Federal Court, his or her only appeal as of right is to the local Circuit Court of Appeals. Under BOTH systems there is NO RIGHT to appeal to the Supreme Court (You have the right to ask the court to hear your case but the court does not HAVE to hear your appeal).

Furthermore given the Supreme Court historic tendency to defer to the Military it is rare for the Court to even take a case from the military court system but it has in the past and can do so today.

The court's jurisdiction is worldwide but encompasses only questions of law arising from trials by court-martial in the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard in cases where a death sentence is imposed, where a case is certified for review by the Judge Advocate General of the accused's service, or where the accused, who faces a severe sentence, petitions and shows good cause for further review. Such cases are subject to further review by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court may also review cases in which the court grants extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the military appellate courts in which the United States has taken an appeal from rulings by military judges during trials by court-martial. In the year ended September 30, 1992, 1,541 cases were filed in the U.S. Court of Military Appeals and 1,380 cases were terminated.

<snip>

Link: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m156.htm

Thanks for clearing that up for me. You are absolutely right when it comes to the law. Maybe in the "court of public opinion", I could do something, but our laws ARE in fact based on the ancients, I call them, or should I say, how they viewed issues.

You could pick their nose and get nailed for that. That is a very vague code.

By this regulation, if it aint missionary, it's unnatural. It's basically a catch all for when other rules don't apply.

:shrug:

Oh oh.

"mercy kill", a military commander gets...nothing.

He'll soon be working as a SECURITY CONTRACTOR for BilgeWater Industries or Halliburton.

LOL

.
.
.

to his death . .

Priorities south of my border sure are fecked up ..

Think I'll stay on MY side of the border to the new USS of A

Forever!

If it gets much worse here we will be flocking over the boarder.

I have a feeling the title of this article uses sodomy to defame gays...

Reading the headline, and even the first paragraph of the story, I was lead to believe that the sentence was not just.

The headline should have been "Airman sentenced to 19 years for raping two little girls."

Under 12 - that's illegal by any reasoning.

Could have got a cover-up.


BTW the 12 year old was sentenced to life.

America is the most fucked up country on earth!

apparently repeatedly.

19 years sounds almost enough.

Two girls raped and murdered, their bodies found just outside a USAF base.

Someone posted these comments on my blog yesterday:

A good friend of mine told me a while back that the recent convictions in the UK of accused child murdurers was a clear set up.

I never even considered this, until I read the replies on this site which touched upon the airforce links to various paedophile activities.

More interestingly, and this is again from my friend, the Policeman whose investigations led to the conviction of the accused had subsequently announced that he had "new developements " on the case.

Strangely enough,at the almost the self same time of the "new developments", he himself became the subject of an internal investigation into the possession of child pornography photographs on his own PC

A link to the story might be found here. the whole episode worries the shit out of me.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1244

As a final comment- as an Englishman who watched this case on tv, one thing that was never made obvious to me or anyone else watching on the mainstream media was the proximity of a USAF base to the site of the discovery of the bodies.

...

For anyone in England or elsewhere, brave enough to look more closely at the major discrepancies in the prosecution case in the Huntley trial, you might begin with the link I gave previously

Or you might ask yourself why Huntley was transferred to a mental institution prior to his trial rather than a prison ?

The deeper you dig, the spookier it gets, I can promise you.

Oh my fuckin god... this case received a lot of attention all over Europe, I remember it very well. I remember the investigator who announced he had new developments then that shit was found on his PC. But I've never heard the freakin USAF base mentioned before! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I guess this fits the very disturbing pattern that you're uncovering with your blog... :puke:

You may want to check out Chalmers Johnson, he writes about the same, uh, phenomenon occurring at US military bases in Okinawa. Not as utterly and inexplicably evil as the "Huntley" case, usually, but rapes and such, apparently at a rate of about twice a month...

And of course, defense contractor DynCorp is known not only to be fond of such activities, but to actually be involved in "flesh trade", including with minors... :puke: Cynthia McKinney, bless her, confronted Rummy with it in Congress not long ago, I believe the video is available at From The Wilderness and at Alex Jones' sites.

CMK: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?

That's my first question.

...


DR: I would have to go and find the facts, but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts, and there are times that corporations do things they should not do, in which case they tend to be suspended for some period; there are times then that the - under the laws and the rules and regulations for the - passed by the Congress and implemented by the Executive branch - that corporations can get off of - out of the penalty box if you will, and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government. They're generally not barred in perpetuity -

CMK: This contract - this company - was never in the penalty box. If you could proceed to my second question, please.

DR: The second question - I've forgotten what the second question was.

http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml

He wasn't expecting that question...

The Catholic Church was burned on the issue but more because it is a large institution with lots of Resources that can not claim Sovereign Immunity than any real difference between its priest doing such acts AND such actions in the General Population. People tend to forget the present lawsuits against the Church started as lawsuits against PUBLIC SCHOOLS in the late 1970s for the same acts, but lawyers soon quit taking such actions for the Public Schools claimed Sovereign Immunity (and won). By Claiming Sovereign Immunity such public Schools did NOT have to pay for the Pedophile Activities of their teachers. The victims did win multi-million dollar Judgments but against the teachers alone NOT the School (and as such noncollectable, try to attach someone's wages while he is in Prison, or sell his house which is in both is and his wife's name).

The next step was the day care centers in the early 1980s, but these quickly were found to have no money (Most ended up as Criminal Cases and than found to be based on false reports). Than the Catholic Church was sued and lost several cases and unlike the Public Schools could NOT claim Sovereign Immunity and unlike the Day care Centers has assets. Thus lawyers have gone after the Catholic Church (Lawyer like doing what is right, but you also have to live and that requires income, thus lawyers are forced to go after people who can PAY as opposed to people who can not).

Please note the Catholic Church has NOT been found liable for any one act of Pedophilia but for NOT taking actions when it became clear that one of its Priests was committing acts of Pedophilia. It is the later the Church is paying for.

Now most Pedophilia occurs within families (Estimates go as high as 90% of such crimes occur within families). The ones done outside the family tend to be done by people who know to (or more accurately knows and have access to) the victim.

When I did Children and Youth Work I NEVER had a case involving a Religious leader (it did occur but rare) most were within families. As to religious people I could not say they had a greater tendency to such activities than other people BUT the Media from the early 1980s onward found it newsworthy to report when a religious person was accused as opposed to a non-religious person (When I use the term Religious person I mean a priest, preacher or other religious leader etc NOT just someone who believes). The huge size of the judgments against the Catholic Church feed into this media activity.

Now personally I believe people's perception of the level of such Pedophilia within the Catholic Church is higher than what the level is, but that is the fault of the Bishops for not cracking down on their own priests (I should also point out the hardest thing to do is crack down on one's friends, so I understand why the Bishops did what they did, but because I understand does not mean the Bishops should not be "punished" for their failure be be the shepherds they are suppose to be, what ever was the damaged done by such priests the Church should and must pay for, unlike the Public Schools where this started who did not and will not pay for their failure to supervise).

My point here is to point out that the problem of Pedophilia is larger than just within the Catholic Church and a good investigation would do a lot to end it. The problem has been most investigations have been driven by private (i.e. NON-Governmental) lawyers who have to look at how to earn a living in addition to investigating such Pedophilia. Thus the cases tend to avoid Governmental agencies (I.e. the Pentagon, state and local Government remember Sovereign Immunity) and avoid Corporate America (Who have way more money than the Catholic Church to fight such cases and more willing to fire someone and thus put the blame on that person as opposed to their failure to supervise).

Children and Youth are overloaded with cases of neglect let alone abuse WITHIN FAMILIES to go after non-family abusers. Thus such cases tend to ignored unless the private bar can come up with a way to make money out of the problem (as it did with the Catholic Church).

In my opinion unless you have a national investigation on such activities it will continue because no one really cares about the problem (With the possible exception of the Catholic Church based on all the money it has paid out).

Sodomy: Bad, you should get prison
Prison abuse: Good, you should get off free

That just confirms my theory of conservatives and Republicans -- they are deathly afraid of any sexual act, but war is porn! War is good! Mostly because it's an outward extension of them trying to kill whatever it is that they hate inwardly about themselves.

But in my opinion as a 15 year veteran, I think both should be equally punished.

Neither act falls within the realm of honorable.


I won't defend either action under any circumstance.

>they are deathly afraid of any sexual act

Um... it was a 12 year-old girl. Did you RTFA?

... for illicit/illegal sex.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1362114&mesg_id=1362147

This reflects the older "Articles of War" and its long tradition since adopted during the American Revolution (and Derived from the Older British Articles of War of 1774 which was a modernization version of Oliver's Cromwell's Article of War of 1649.

Thus the Military have defined Sodomy as including rape, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ) which replaced the Articles of War in the 1950s punishment is up to the Court Martial on a case by case basis. Thus the two people can be convicted under this section of the UCMJ and depending on the actual facts of the case gets 19 years (as the person in this case) or just a slap on the wrist if the act was between two unmarried adults.

Can lead to problems but I doubt anyone will say this soldier received an excess sentence.