Another Gross Miscarriage of Justice In The US Military?

I'm not buying into the 'this must be a sexist baseless decision' thing too much, because although there is certainly the possibility that it could be, and although it would be much better for some actual reason to be given, chances are that there is some legitimate basis that puts the conviction into doubt.
Given how much controversy it has generated, I think the odds of there being a "legitimate basis" are somewhere between slim and none. The mere fact that the Air Force has already stated that Wilkerson will likely not be promoted helps confirm this notion.

Perhaps the bigger point is, all male jury? Seriously?
There simply aren't that many high ranking female officers in the military. It would have been a far greater oddity if any of the five had been a female.
 
Given how much controversy it has generated, I think the odds of there being a "legitimate basis" are somewhere between slim and none. The mere fact that the Air Force has already stated that Wilkerson will likely not be promoted helps confirm this notion.

I'm not sure how the controversy would be related to the chances of there being a legitimate basis for a jury verdict being overturned, unless those saying it's a controversy know on what basis the decision was made and, for some reason, are refusing to tell us what it is. The controversy seems to stem from no-one saying what the basis for the decision was, which isn't really related to its legitimacy. That we can't just for ourselves, not knowing the whole story, in no way means there wasn't a legitimate decision made.

There simply aren't that many high ranking female officers in the military. It would have been a far greater oddity if any of the five had been a female.

Unfortunately not, and the fact that such a jury would be constituted in such a case seems a miscarriage of justice in itself.
 
I'm not sure how the controversy would be related to the chances of there being a legitimate basis for a jury verdict being overturned, unless those saying it's a controversy know on what basis the decision was made and, for some reason, are refusing to tell us what it is. The controversy seems to stem from no-one saying what the basis for the decision was, which isn't really related to its legitimacy. That we can't just for ourselves, not knowing the whole story, in no way means there wasn't a legitimate decision made.
The abominable record of the US military to properly police these matters speaks for itself. They have even coined an acronym for it: Military Sexual Trauma (MST). Again, why would the Air Force possibly state that Wilkerson would likely not be promoted?

Reinstated Air Force pilot unlikely to get promoted any time soon

The fighter pilot freed from jail and reinstated into the Air Force last month after a lieutenant general set aside his sexual-assault conviction was taken off a promotion list, the Air Force said, making it unlikely he will move up in rank any time soon.

Lt. Col James Wilkerson, whose case has sparked calls from Congressional lawmakers and sexual assault victims’ advocates for changes to the military justice system, had been selected for promotion to colonel before he was accused of groping a sleeping houseguest. He was convicted in November at a jury trial of aggravated sexual assault.

In January, the Secretary of the Air Force removed the F-16 pilot’s name from the promotion list. Wilkerson’s removal was “based on evidence considered in his court-martial proceedings,” according to a statement from the Air Force Personnel Center.

Despite Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin’s action to set aside the jury verdict on Feb. 26 and reinstate Wilkerson to full-duty status, the Air Force secretary’s decision would stand unless Wilkerson persuaded an Air Force board that his name should not have been removed, the statement said.

“If Lt Col Wilkerson believes an error caused his removal or that his removal constitutes an injustice, he may submit an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR),”the statement said.

“The AFBCMR is the highest level of administrative review in the Air Force and will thoroughly review his application to determine if an error or injustice exists and if so, direct corrective actions required to provide full and effective relief.”

Wilkerson, 44, was the 31st Fighter Wing inspector general at Aviano Air Base, Italy, an “Air Force superstar,” according to a February 2012 performance evaluation. The next month he was accused by a civilian physician’s assistant of groping her breasts and vagina as she lay sleeping in a guestroom after an impromptu party at the Wilkerson home.

At the end of a weeklong court-martial, a jury in November convicted Wilkerson of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced him to a year in jail, total pay forfeiture and dismissal.

Franklin, commander of the Third Air Force and the authority who convened Wilkerson’s court-martial, set aside the verdict and sentence after a post-trial review that included scores of letters from Wilkerson supporters.

Although the jury of four colonels and a lieutenant colonel had found Wilkerson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Franklin was not convinced that the standard had been met, according to a Third Air Force statement.

The action to throw out the conviction, although highly unusual, was within the general’s authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, according to legal experts, represented the final disposition in the case.

Franklin’s decision outraged advocates for military sexual assault victims, who said it was “the poster child” for a system that discounts and punishes victims and excuses offenders. The advocates and some legislators have sought to remove commanders’ discretion from sexual assault cases and have them handled more similarly to the civilian system with military and civilian experts in charge.

Three U.S. senators this week demanded investigations into the case, by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A.Welsh III and Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, suggested in her letter that superiors should relieve Franklin of command because his decision had shown “ignorance, at best, and malfeasance, at worst.”

Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Franklin’s boss, said that he sympathized with the “burden” that the UCMJ placed on Franklin as a court-martial convening authority. “I’ve been there. I have been in his shoes,” Breedlove said in an interview on Wednesday.

But he said he believed that the system had “served our military well through the years,” that commanders rarely tossed out jury convictions and if they did, it was only after “great forethought.”

“In this case, that was the decision that was taken,” Breedlove said. “It actually, I think, speaks to that the system does work — that there is a time when a commander may see something that doesn’t meet the requirements of the UCMJ as he sees it, and then he should take action. If we had 100 percent acceptance of every result, is there truly a review at that point?

“So very, very, very few are overturned like this and I think it is only done with great forethought. So I have the faith in that. And I have faith in this commander that he put a lot of work into that decision,” Breedlove said.

Breedlove and Franklin, like Wilkerson, are among 1,286 active duty F-16 pilots in the Air Force. Both generals had previously served as commander of the 31st Fighter Wing.
With any luck, this matter will be the impetus which finally changes this clearly broken system. Commanding officers should have no discretion whatsoever in criminal matters.

Unfortunately not, and the fact that such a jury would be constituted in such a case seems a miscarriage of justice in itself.
What an odd position to take. Why should it even matter?
 
Why should it matter that there is an all male jury in a sexual assault case? Is this thread not about sexism and the boys club making it hard for sexual assault victims in the military? Who are you and what have you done with Formaldehyde?

RE: removing him from promotion - there's a lot of ground between the balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence to not be enough to meet one threshold, but to be sufficient for the other, and if, on the balance of probabilities, this guy is either guilty of the act in question or has displayed behaviour such that advancement within the military would be inappropriate, barring promotion doesn't seem out of line. Incarceration is a completely different story.

I appreciate that scepticism is healthy, particularly when it comes to an institution with such a bad reputation, but this controversy strikes me as being more about not knowing the reason behind the decision, than about the decision being completely nefarious. At the very least, being open to the possibility that there is a perfectly legitimate reason for the decision is probably a good idea.
 
Why should it matter that there is an all male jury in a sexual assault case? Is this thread not about sexism and the boys club making it hard for sexual assault victims in the military? Who are you and what have you done with Formaldehyde?
Why should it matter that jury selection is simply not done on the basis of sex, race, or any other sort of arbitrary criteria like that in any modern country?

Why should it matter that an all-male jury found him guilty instead of not guilty?

But what isn't a surprise at all is that you apparently have no idea what my opinions actually are. That I would even agree with such a ludicrous perception of criminal justice.

RE: removing him from promotion - there's a lot of ground between the balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence to not be enough to meet one threshold, but to be sufficient for the other, and if, on the balance of probabilities, this guy is either guilty of the act in question or has displayed behaviour such that advancement within the military would be inappropriate, barring promotion doesn't seem out of line. Incarceration is a completely different story.
I think this is even more absurd. If he is truly not guilty of these criminal acts, he certainly shouldn't be denied promotion and effectively forced to retire, likely with even reduced benefits.

But I think it is clear that overturning a criminal conviction of any sort should depend upon a court of appeals, or other similar judicial body, instead of the arbitrary decision of a commanding officer.

I appreciate that scepticism is healthy, particularly when it comes to an institution with such a bad reputation, but this controversy strikes me as being more about not knowing the reason behind the decision, than about the decision being completely nefarious. At the very least, being open to the possibility that there is a perfectly legitimate reason for the decision is probably a good idea.
I would love to hear any sort of rationalization for this act, as would a number of US senators. But Lt. General Craig Franklin has decided not to offer any such explanation for this peremptory action.

I would even contend that this is symptomatic of how broken this antiquated system of justice actually is. We would simply not stand for such arbitrary behavior with no explanation from a higher court, and rightly so.
 
Many senators happen to be actual attorneys, including Claire Haskell who is now spearheading the effort to try to repair the damage from this apparent miscarriage of justice. They are obviously far greater "experts" in the law than a clearly biased clerk who hasn't really stated anything that the articles haven't already covered. :crazyeye:

Except this is military law, not civil law. And its been my experience that unless the civilian attorneys have previous military experience, its a rather difficult transition to try and make.

Form, you need to stop being so insulting to someone who is indeed a subject matter expert on this type of thing (especially compared to you).

I'm not just some low level clerk, just as a paralegal is not a legal secretary. At my level, i'm considered a law office manager, running the daily operation of a law office of about 40 people including attorneys and paralegals. To get to this position, I had to prove my knowledge in all aspects of military law to my superiors.

What is actually interesting in this particular case is that Mobboss is basically agreeing that a travesty of justice likely occurred, instead of trying to rationalize and defend the indefensible as usual.

So, this obvious biased clerk is actually not acting biased? :rolleyes: Btw, i'm not agreeing with you about anything on this case because your own bias is still quite active. I'm pointing out it is extremely rare for a CA to set aside such punishment and we may never get to see the most important document of this case: the CA's JAG review of the case itself. Without that there is no way anyone can know if this is truly 'indefensible' or not, as it could contain a perfectly legitimate reason for the CA taking the action he has. Remember, the CA gets to see the entire record of trial while we havent; and he may be privy to something that isnt readily available to the media in regards to this case.

The abominable record of the US military to properly police these matters speaks for itself. They have even coined an acronym for it: Military Sexual Trauma (MST).

Actually, the Air Force has taken much of the lead in the fight against Sexual Harassment in comparison of the military branches. On joint bases, you will find the bulk of victim advocates working for the Air Force as opposed to the Army, for example. They were also the first service to implement the relatively new sexual harassment reporting system and instating the rules for investigating same from beginning to end.

Yes, the military has a problem with sexual harassment and they are also committed to doing something about it.

Again, why would the Air Force possibly state that Wilkerson would likely not be promoted?

Couple of thoughts. Its routine for someone to be removed from the standing promotion list for adverse action purposes (their record is flagged for no favorable personnel action). Such a removal is usually only temporary if the accused is found not guilty or wins on appeal and is usually reinstated to the list. Promotion is harder to pin down because it has a much broader brush and could consider much more information that we have available to us. For example, it could include other behavior prior to the court martial that we are not aware of. Camikaze is right in that there is a lower lower bar of evidence of behavior that would deny one promotion as opposed to a court martial conviction.

would even contend that this is symptomatic of how broken this antiquated system of justice actually is. We would simply not stand for such arbitrary behavior with no explanation from a higher court, and rightly so.

Actually, you're wrong. We allow elected officials the power to mitigate or pardon such crimes all the time. Again, this is merely a mirror of that same capability found in civilian law.

With any luck, this matter will be the impetus which finally changes this clearly broken system. Commanding officers should have no discretion whatsoever in criminal matters.

Would you also be in favor of taking away our elected officials ability to pardon or mitigate same as well?

I wouldnt hold my breath if you think this singular (and extremely rare) situation is going to result in wide sweeping changes in the UCMJ. It isnt.
 
What strikes me as really funny is that people can say it's OK to just step in and fix a problem for one of the boys when the system gets it wrong, That military law is complicated and best left to military people... they are defending a system that LTG Franklin himself said is more than bloody useless when he over turned military judicial procedure, instead of apologizing for him should people not be trying to fix the system he found inadequate and wrong, But no the system works, it can not be wrong...

if Forma's position is that military law sucks, LTG Franklin would appear to be his biggest cheerleader...
 
That is because the rest is just hypocritical nonsense from those who are trying to rationalize and defend the indefensible. In this particular case and many others it has been a "whiny" clerk with no real sense of what criminal law is even about based on his frequent posts in this very forum.

There is no valid reason to not hold everybody in the military to the same civilian criminal standards as everybody else. They shouldn't be court martialed at all when they break the law in criminal matters. They should appear before civilian judges and tried by a jury of mostly civilian peers just like everybody else is by using exactly the same procedures while having the same rights as we have.

In this particular case, he should have even been tried by an Italian judge and jury since he apparently molested one of their citizens while living in Italy. Even though there is a valid reason to not allow US servicemen to be tried by countries such as Afghanistan, it certainly shouldn't apply to any modern European country.

Hopefully this case and others very much like it, like the rape case in the OP where the perpetrator ended up murdering two cops after he was prematurely let loose by the same perverted system of so-called justice, will eventually end this nonsense once and for all.
 
What strikes me as really funny is that people can say it's OK to just step in and fix a problem for one of the boys when the system gets it wrong, That military law is complicated and best left to military people...

No, thats not what I or anyone else has said. I said for someone unfamiliar with military law they might find it harder to navigate; but I never said it was best left to military people...

they are defending a system that LTG Franklin himself said is more than bloody useless

He didnt say this. Nor is that what should be the assumption given his action, anymore than we should scrap our entire justice system because some elected official pardoned a criminal.

when he over turned military judicial procedure, instead of apologizing for him should people not be trying to fix the system he found inadequate and wrong, But no the system works, it can not be wrong...

You are alleging things no one is arguing or even said. Again, no legal system is error free, and to allege the military justice system is 'broken' based upon a single issue is just ridiculous. How can you make that assumption without regarding how many cases have been successful in convicting those guilty of various crimes like sexual assault/harassment?

if Forma's position is that military law sucks, LTG Franklin would appear to be his biggest cheerleader...

Forma's position would be that anything military sucks regardless; and I simply disagree with you on the LTG Franklin comment without knowing certain aspects of this case which we are simply not privy to.
 
forget what people said and look at what they 'did' LTG Franklin stepped in and overruled the miltary judicial process, he either did this because he was bored that day or he saw something terrible wrong with the outcome, now it dose not really matter what you are privy too, it is either that someone can at a whim step in for the boys and take one for the team by disreguarding the military set up, or he just like stirring up sh/tstorm, I think anyone who got to LTG, most likely found the decision wrong and went about getting the right decission, but by doing this he effectly denounced the system as incompetant...

either way it is funny that the system must be right even tho we don't know the details
 
That is because the rest is just hypocritical nonsense from those who are trying to rationalize and defend the indefensible.

Except none of us here know enough in regards to the case to actually render an informed opinion as to whether this was indefensible or not.

'Course I would never imagine that you of all people would jump to a conclusion about the military being indefensible. :rolleyes:

In this particular case and many others it has been a "whiny" clerk with no real sense of what criminal law is even about based on his frequent posts in this very forum.

Seriously? Is this your response to my posts regarding this issue?

That i'm 'whiny' and have no real sense of my chosen profession?

It would seem in the face of actual expert opinion and insight of this case this is all you can offer in reply. To call names and act all snide about someone else's career.

I could choose to really try and reciprocate here. I could. But there isnt any real need for me to lower myself to the kind of behavior that you've become the posterboy of in this forum.

EDIT: Caught you again before the stealth edit.

There is no valid reason to not hold everybody in the military to the same civilian criminal standards as everybody else. They shouldn't be court martialed at all when they break the law in criminal matters.

Since the foundation for the military to conduct Courts Martial is found in the constitution itself, I think you're more than a tad wrong on that one.

They should appear before civilian judges and tried by a jury of mostly civilian peers just like everybody else is by using exactly the same procedures while having the same rights as we have.

Those legal experts known as the framers of the constitution apparently disagree with your non-professional opinion.

In this particular case, he should have even been tried by an Italian judge and jury since he apparently molested one of their citizens while living in Italy. Even though there is a valid reason to not allow US servicemen to be tried by countries such as Afghanistan, it certainly shouldn't apply to any modern European country.

I dont think its clear the woman was Italian. The story simple says she was a civilian contractor, but those jobs are also filled by americans the world over. I cant find where the story mentions here nationality at all.....can you verify that?

Hopefully this case and others very much like it, like the rape case in the OP where the perpetrator ended up murdering two cops after he was prematurely let loose by the same perverted system of so-called justice, will eventually end this nonsense once and for all.

So, you think that if we only implement your professional recommendations that somehow, all error in our justice system will be eliminated!! Solution found!

:rolleyes:

The truth of the matter is such things also occur in the civilian justice system as well (werent you just lamenting another story where a guy was put into solitary for 22 months and simply forgotten? why, yes you were). These are rare occurances. Very rare in some instances. I mean we are talking a handfull of cases out of literally tens of thousands. Does that make a system broken?
 
So nothing wrong with Tom Robinson being tried by an all white jury?
Was there nothing wrong with an innocent fictional black character being convicted of rape by a clearly racist all-white jury in the Deep South back when racism was pervasive?

Is that really your question here?

Do you really think it pertains at all to what occurred here?
 
forget what people said and look at what they 'did' LTG Franklin stepped in and overruled the miltary judicial process......

And as I pointed out, this isnt any different than some elected officials ability to pardon or mitigate a sentence for a civilian criminal action in the exact same manner.

Imagine that...there are provisions for this in both civilian and military law.

Is your argument that our judicial systems should be immune from the ability to pardon or mitigate a sentence?

, he either did this because he was bored that day or he saw something terrible wrong with the outcome, now it dose not really matter what you are privy too, it is either that someone can at a whim step in for the boys and take one for the team by disreguarding the military set up, or he just like stirring up sh/tstorm, I think anyone who got to LTG, most likely found the decision wrong and went about getting the right decission, but by doing this he effectly denounced the system as incompetant...[

This is just ridiculous. Is our civilian/criminal justice system incompetent because we have convicted criminals pardoned by elected officials?

The answer your looking for is 'no'.

either way it is funny that the system must be right even tho we don't know the details

No one has argued the system being 'right' or 'wrong' so i'm not exactly sure what you are arguing against here. Both judicial systems, military and civilian, allow for such pardons to occur. If you think thats a mistake, then fine, argue that.
 
And as I pointed out, this isnt any different than some elected officials ability to pardon or mitigate a sentence for a civilian criminal action in the exact same manner.

Imagine that...there are provisions for this in both civilian and military law.

Is your argument that our judicial systems should be immune from the ability to pardon or mitigate a sentence?

why have a judicial system if on a whim you can overide it, so yes that is my arguement
This is just ridiculous. Is our civilian/criminal justice system incompetent because we have convicted criminals pardoned by elected officials?

The answer your looking for is 'no'.

sorry but the system should do it,or the system is incompetent and can not self regulate, it should not need to rely on the mood of some person, on any particular day

No one has argued the system being 'right' or 'wrong' so i'm not exactly sure what you are arguing against here. Both judicial systems, military and civilian, allow for such pardons to occur. If you think thats a mistake, then fine, argue that.

well The whole point of the OP and 2 female senators objections is that the system is wrong and that the pardons need oversight and perhaps 'procedure'... so i guess that you do honestly not see the arguement has already been made...
All three senators, as well as Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, have either sought to pass legislation to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice regarding commander discretion in sexual assault cases, or said, in light of the Wilkerson case, would consider doing so. They’ve said that the system is rife with bias and conflict of interest, continues to harm victims and embolden offenders.

I mean even blind Freddy should be able to see that the arguement is that the system is wrong, and has been there since post 1 and the OP
 
why have a judicial system if on a whim you can overide it, so yes that is my arguement

Have you thought about the ramifications of not having a pardon ability in your justice system?

sorry but the system should do it,or the system is incompetent and can not self regulate

Having the ability to pardon doesnt make a system 'incompetent'. And having a single objectionable pardon/set aside out of tens of thousands of cases doesnt make it incompetent either.

well The whole point of the OP and 2 female senators objections is that the system is wrong....

Not precisely. Part of their objection was also that the general made the wrong decision to set aside this officers punishment; although they probably dont know why he made his decision yet.

And fwiw, its going to take a lot more than a handful of upset politicians to change this system.

And they could be right. It could cost the General his own career. Just as it could cost a politican their career for pardoning the wrong criminal.
 
Interesting that a CIVILIAN states she has been assaulted yet it is left to the military to deal with it.
A cynic might say that a Colonel was far too important to find himself in front of a civilian court.
 
Have you thought about the ramifications of not having a pardon ability in your justice system?
well we have a procedure for it, and it is not just done on a whim, in fact being Australian, most of 'our' royalty, has a pardoned convict in our history, so yes I have given it some thought...

Having the ability to pardon doesnt make a system 'incompetent'. And having a single objectionable pardon/set aside out of tens of thousands of cases doesnt make it incompetent either.

well if your procedures are so prone to individual whims, it would be really hard to tell,one way or the other...
Not precisely. Their objection is that the general made the wrong decision to set aside this officers punishment; although they probably dont know why he made his decision yet.

thats the thing with procedures, every word in the decision making process is writen down, and availible for public reading....
And they could be right. It could cost the General his own career. Just as it could cost a politican their career for pardoning the wrong criminal.

most politicians, do it on their way out of public office, a sort of 'up your's' to their politcal opponents and a 'hello' to future employers, all part of the boys club...

here is a novel idea, if on some whim a fellow is not pardoned, due to the lack of procedures, it could cost him his career...
 
What strikes me as really funny is that people can say it's OK to just step in and fix a problem for one of the boys when the system gets it wrong, That military law is complicated and best left to military people... they are defending a system that LTG Franklin himself said is more than bloody useless when he over turned military judicial procedure, instead of apologizing for him should people not be trying to fix the system he found inadequate and wrong, But no the system works, it can not be wrong...

if Forma's position is that military law sucks, LTG Franklin would appear to be his biggest cheerleader...

Trial decision are overturned all the time for myriad reasons and proceeings are ended and charges unilaterally dropped for even more. Often this is done by judges or panels of judges. However prosecutors can choose to charge or not charge based on Pretty much whatever they want. They can let twenty murders off Scott free with immunity to catch a shop lifter if they see fit, or to catch nobody at all which happens not infrequently when things don't develop as they hoped. Attorney Generals who run all this are very often elected and require no training in criminal law, or law period for that matter. Then there are parole boards that an arbitrarily set aside the sentence of a jury convicted inmate for whatever reason tickles your their fancy and they are not required to be experts either. And lastlybwe get to executive pardons.

In fact the rarity of what happened in this case, that of a CA overturning a conviction, speaks to how well the system works where such situations rarely arise that warrant such action. I think this power is no longer needed and a military court of appeals is more than adequate for this function, but the situation is hardly unique from many aspects of the civilian system.

Also, where are you getting this "individual's whim" thing from. In this case it's the CA job to review the findings and make a decision based on what he finds. It's more codified than most executive pardon systems I know of.
 
Also, where are you getting this "individual's whim" thing from. In this case it's the CA job to review the findings and make a decision based on what he finds. It's more codified than most executive pardon systems I know of.

so codiefied that it brings us back to the OP
“This case sends a horrible message to victims of sexual assault in our military that are thinking about coming forward,” Nancy Parrish, president of the Protect Our Defenders support network, tells Danger Room. “Why bother to put the investigators, prosecutors, judge, jury and survivors through this if one person can set justice aside with the swipe of a pen?”
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) is calling on the Air Force to fire Wilkerson and removing Franklin from his leadership position. “This stunning decision demonstrates a total disregard for the survivors of sexual assault and for the findings of the military justice system,” she wrote to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley this week.(.pdf)

Parrish supports McCaskill. “The authority to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate must be taken outside the chain of command,” she says. “And Commanders should not have the authority to set aside a conviction or sentence by a judge or jury.”

or
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Thursday criticized the military’s lackluster approach to sexual violence, saying that some officials “looked the other way” rather than pursuing convictions.

These words came during the funeral of Jeremy Goulet, a former serviceman who was killed last week in a gunfight with police after killing two Santa Cruz, CA officers. Goulet, who had a long history of incidences involving sexual assault and harassment, was released from the Army with a “less than honorable” discharge in 2006 as part of a plea bargain in a rape case.

etc.etc.etc.

I don't know, just where is this individule whim idea coming from...

I honestly believe you do not see it, like others, it makes bringing change to the military boys club, so much harder
 
Top Bottom