CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO ELAINE DONNELLY’S TESTIMONY & VIC SCHNEIDER ATTACKING HER
It’s been a very busy week for me so I’m finally getting around to giving you some analysis from last weeks hearing on the so called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military.
The purpose of this series of posts will be to dissect exactly what happened when Elaine Donnelly testified. Here is a PDF of Elaine’s testimony.
The reason I’m going to take the time to blog about this issue is because there has been a virtual black out in the media about how rudely Elaine Donnelly was treated.
I want to start with the unkind and untrue commentary of Vic Schneider in his commentary to Elaine Donnelly about her remarks concerning AIDS in the military.
This is what Elaine said about AIDS in the military. This is directly from a transcript of her opening remarks.
Inadequate Reports and Risks of Physical Abuse
If the 1993 law is repealed, it is highly unlikely that evidence of problems will be
reported for objective evaluation by Congress or the general public. In Britain, held out as a
model for the United States on social change, the Ministry of Defence barred interviews with
military personnel by the New York Times, on or off the record, on the subject of gays in the
military. The resulting article nevertheless was headlined as if the British experience is an
unqualified success.A Navy Times editorial commenting on the disturbing case of Navy Lt. Cmdr. John
Thomas Lee, described below, noted that unlike the civilian judicial system, military courts do
not offer a publicly accessible docket of pending court martial cases. As a result, “military
commanders release that information at will, giving them unmatched control over information
that should be out in the open.”The Navy Times further reported that incidents of male sexual assault often are
underreported and may be more prevalent in the military than in other parts of society. Studies26
Stephen Adams, Telegraph.co.uk, “Army Anti-Sex Harassment Head Suspended for Alleged Harassment,” June
18, 2008.27
Eglin AFB, Air Force Times, “Officer Accused of Rape Says He Rejected Alleged Victim,” Mar. 5, 2007. See
also Duke Law Journal, p. 926. See more about the Devery Taylor case elsewhere in this testimony.28
Sarah Lyall, the New York Times, “Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does
Not Occur,” May 21, 2007, p. 8.29
Editorial, Navy Times, “Corps Puts Spin Control Ahead of Victims’ Health,” Dec. 17, 2007, p. 44.12
suggest that sexual assault among military men is most prevalent among junior enlisted ranks.
Authorizing policies that would increase the number of sexual harassment cases among men
would achieve a type of “equality,” but this is not the kind of equality that we need in the
volunteer force.We also know that current discharges of persons who engage in homosexual conduct
frequently are not reported as such. If an offender is court-martialed and punished for a more
serious offense involving same-sex assault, or for disobedience of orders forbidding sexual
activity for HIV-positive individuals, discharge records are more likely to show the more
serious offense, but not homosexual conduct. Two cases summarized below demonstrate the
high risk of sexual abuse that could occur with little or no public notice if the 1993 law if
repealed:• Navy Lt. Commander John Thomas Lee
The court martial of Navy Lt. Commander John Thomas Lee is a recent case of egregious
sexual abuse resulting from the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Lt. Cmdr. Lee, a 42 year-old
Catholic priest, is a Navy chaplain who tested positive for HIV in 2005. Between 2003 and
2007, Chaplain Lee, who was assigned to counsel midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy and
Marines at Quantico, VA, engaged in gross misconduct that Navy officials should have punished
severely.The Washington Post reported on December 7, 2007, that Lt. Cmdr. Lee pleaded guilty to
several serious charges: consensual and forcible sodomy with several men, including a Naval
Academy midshipman, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, and a Marine corporal. Lee’s
misconduct involved indecent acts, aggravated assault for not informing at least one victim of his
contagious HIV status, and conduct unbecoming an officer that was all the more reprehensible
because of the betrayal of trust associated with Lee’s status as a priest and chaplain. 31According to court testimony and factual stipulations signed by Lee and Navy
prosecutors, Lee plied the male midshipman with dinner and drinks, followed by gay sex acts
and unwanted touching. Lee also misused government computers to solicit sex partners, saving
and sending more than 375 pornographic images of himself and other men. Some of the photos
were taken by Lee’s victims, in his office or other locations. For all of these offenses, worsened
by the element of violated trust, Lt. Cmdr. Lee got off with a twelve-year prison sentence
reduced to two, with only 18 months to be served. The plea bargain, currently under appellate30
Andrew Tilghman, Navy Times, “Military Among Settings in Which Assault ‘Most Likely’,” Dec. 17, 2007, p. 9.
This article quotes Mic Hunter, a psychologist and author of Honor Betrayed: Sexual Abuse in America’s Military,
“The military, boarding schools, sports teams and prison – these are the settings where a male is most likely to be
assaulted.” An estimated 3% of junior enlisted men reported incidents of sexual coercion during a 12-month period,
and about 2% reported sexual assaults during the previous year, according to the Armed Forces 2002 Sexual
Harassment Survey conducted by the Defense Department.1
Ernesto Londono, the Washington Post, “Navy Chaplain Pleads Guilty: HIV-Positive Priest is Sentenced in Sex
Case,” Dec. 7, 2007, B-1. In one of the pornographic photos obtained by the Post, Lt. Cmdr. Lee is sitting nude on
a sofa in his office flanked by an image of the Virgin Mary and a framed photo of Marine Gen. Peter Pace, former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Also see13
review, effectively swept the case under the rug with little public awareness that the scandal even
happened.The abuses of a Navy chaplain priest who was engaged in homosexual conduct of the
most dangerous kind, exposing his victims to HIV infection should give rise to questions about
why Lt. Cmdr. Lee was in the Navy at all. Had the 1993 law been properly enforced, these
abuses would not have occurred.An alarming article in Newsweek stated that according to a recent report, up to 60 military
chaplains have been convicted or at least are strongly suspected of committing sexual abuse over
the past four decades, sometimes against the children of military personnel. In many cases, the
priests were involved in abusing children, but their churches did not bring the charges to the
military’s attention. 32The experience of the Roman Catholic Church is a cautionary tale. For many years, the
church did not ask questions about homosexuality among seminarians and priests. With few
exceptions, lay people did not suspect that anything was amiss when they entrusted their young
sons to the care of these priests. A huge and costly nationwide scandal developed over time,
doing enormous damage to the church as an institution. Scandals comparable to this could
undermine public support for the volunteer force at a time when that support is needed most.• Pfc. Johnny Lamar Dalton
In another disturbing case reported last year in the Raleigh News & Observer, Pfc. Johnny
Lamar Dalton, 25, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon — the HIV virus, an indicator
of AIDS. 33 Pfc. Dalton reportedly had unprotected sex while HIV-positive. The civilian mother
of an 18 year-old reported that her son appeared to become ill shortly after his encounter with
Dalton. The soldier reportedly failed to tell the teenager about his HIV-positive status before
they had unprotected, consensual sex. The unnamed young man previously had been HIV-
negative.In addition to misdemeanor charges for assault with the deadly weapon of HIV, Dalton
was charged with “a crime against nature” — illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and a felony in North Carolina. Following a 5-month investigation, Dalton was sent to the county
jail in lieu of $50,000 bail. The AP later reported that Dalton pleaded guilty to assault for
unprotected sex, and he was sentenced to 40 months in prison, reduction in rank, and a
dishonorable discharge. 34 In answer to an inquiry from CMR, an Army spokesman confirmed
that Dalton’s records will only show his criminal violations, not the lesser offense of homosexual32
Dan Ephron, Newsweek, “Questionable Conduct,” Dec. 15, 2007.33
Michael Moore, Raleigh News & Observer, “Soldier at Bragg Charged with HIV Assault,” July 18, 2007.34
AP, the Washington Post, “US: HIV-Positive Paratrooper Pleads Guilty to Assault for Unprotected Sex,” Nov. 1,
2007.conduct. 35 This case demonstrates why figures on discharges that involve homosexual conduct
may not be reported accurately.In the same way, when a servicemember reveals that he is homosexual just prior to the
end of his tour of duty, discharge papers may not show homosexuality as the reason for
separation. A case in point was that of former Navy Petty Officer Jason D. Knight, who revealed
that he was homosexual just before the end of his term of enlistment. His discharge forms were
not properly coded to indicate that he was a homosexual. Due to the bureaucratic error, Knight
later received a computer-generated inquiry, along with many others, asking if he would consider
volunteering for re-mobilization in the war.Knight could have been honest with Navy officials who re-enlisted him, but by his own
admission, reported by Stars & Stripes, he said nothing. 36 Instead of making the case for repeal
of the law, the story of Jason Knight demonstrates that accurate information about homosexual
conduct in the military can be misleading or incomplete. If the 1993 law is repealed, members of
Congress and the general public should not expect to get complete and candid information on the
incidence, age and gender breakdown, and nature of homosexual conduct in the military.6. Risks of HIV-Positive Non-Deployable Personnel
During the 1993 debate that culminated in the law banning homosexuals from the
military, Congress recognized that all soldiers serving in a combat environment are potential
blood donors for each other. As stated in the 1993 law, the armed forces cannot afford the
elevated risk of disruptive homosexual conduct in the ranks. That risk is even more dangerous
when HIV infection enters the picture.Any behavior or propensity to behave in a manner that raises risks to survival for any
servicemember should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible. Persons found to be HIV-
positive are not eligible for induction, but once they are in uniform they must be retained for as
long as they are physically able, with access to appropriate medical care. These personnel,
however, are not deployable. 3735
E-mail communication from Maj. Thomas Earnhardt, MIL USA FORSCOM to Elaine Donnelly, Jan. 28, 2008.
Maj. Earnhardt wrote that Pfc. Dalton was not charged with homosexual conduct because “[I]it’s not in the Army’s
interest to pursue an additional charge that imposes no criminal penalty. Our goal was to punish Dalton for his
blatant disregard for orders and public safety. As far as the criminality of his case was concerned, Dalton was guilty
of serious crimes above and beyond engaging in homosexual activity. Those crimes carry penalties far greater than
simple discharge.”36
Chris Amos, Navy Times, “Coming Out, Then Coming Back?” July 2, 2007, p. 12; Stars & Stripes, “Navy
Disputes Gay Sailor’s Claim of Discharge, Recall”, May 12, 2007. Knight was reported to be a spokesman for the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s campaign to repeal the 1993 law.37
Department of Defense Instruction No. 6485.01, Oct. 17, 2006.15
An examination of military HIV non-deployability cases shows that since the passage of
Section 654, Title 10, the incidence of HIV service-wide has trended downward. 38 Reasons for
the trend are not clear, but it is reasonable to expect that the if the law is repealed and great
numbers of men having sex with men (MSM) are inducted into the military,39 the line indicating
non-deployable personnel who are HIV-positive probably would trend upward.
Given the officially-recognized correlation between homosexual conduct and HIV
infection, it is reasonable to expect that repeal of the law could increase the number of troops
who require medical benefits for many years but cannot be deployed. At a time when multiple
deployments are putting great stress on the volunteer force, Congress should not make a major
change in policy that could increase the number of non-deployable personnel.
Here are the rude comments directed at Elaine by Vic Schneider – summarized.
1. He thinks it was “so inappropriate” to bring up HIV.
2. He says by that reasoning we should only recruit lesbians into the military because they have the lowest incidents of HIV in the country.
3. He said that he has heard a lot of dumb things in his life and that’s one of them.
Isn’t that amazing? He doesn’t even address what Elaine said!!!
If I could talk to Vic Schneider I’d want to ask him a few things…
– What is his resource for claiming that lesbians have the lowest HIV rates in America? Because when I did an internet search on this very issue what I found was that babies have the lowest rate of HIV infection in America. I could not find any specific data about lesbians with HIV, in fact, what I did find was data about the HIV rates of women which INCLUDED lesbians.
– What exactly does he find dumb about a chaplain who sexually assaulted soldiers and who did it knowing he was HIV positive?
– What exactly is dumb about wanting to prevent HIV from spreading throughout the military?
– And does he find it respectful to call Elaine Donnelly’s testimony dumb or one of the dumbest things he has ever heard – HOW is that respectful?
– And when Elaine asked if she could comment he rudely ignored her.
I do not see his behavior as displaying “the utmost respect” toward Elaine Donnelly, and he should be embarrassed by his behavior.
Comments on this entry are closed.