Posts Tagged With: United States Coast Guard

“Mayor For Life”, Marion Barry Was First American To Take A Bullet In War on Terror Against Muslim Extremists

“Mayor For Life”, Marion Barry was a freedom fighter. He is the first elected official in America to get shot fighting Muslim Extremists. In 1977 when Hanafi Muslims took over the District Building , Barry was shot during the incident. His survival seemed to boost his “unstoppable” image. A sometimes controversial but always tireless advocate for Washington, D.C., Marion Barry created jobs for generations of Black families, became the ultimate District of Columbia politician. Barry first made a name for himself in the Deep racially segregated South as a leader in the Civil Rights Movement; then he brought that fierce advocacy to D.C. to support the fight for “Home Rule” where local residents would be freed from the rule of Congress to manage their own city affairs, something referred to today as “taxation without representation”. He has left a strong legacy for so many young people to build upon.

Marion Barry was the first American to take a bullet in the War on Terror against Muslim Extremists. He was first and foremost a lover of America and the American Dream. This is his true legacy; this is the real story of the Life of Marion Barry. The Media focuses on a few incidents of misuse of controlled substances, but they choose to ignore the greater story. That is the rise from the dirt poor humble beginnings of a sharecropper’s family on a cotton plantation in Mississippi to become the Mayor for Life of the Nation’s Capitol, Washington, D.C.. That is a modern day Horatio Alger Story. That is the essence of the American Dream. Marion Barry signifies the best in the American Dream. His story is what Dr Martin Luther King was talking about in his I Have A Dream Speech.

‘Some Things You Never Forget’

Hostages who were held by gunmen at the B'nai B'rith International Center board a bus after their release. The March 1977 siege by a group of Hanafi Muslims lasted 39 hours and ended with one person dead and dozens hurt.

Hostages who were held by gunmen at the B’nai B’rith International Center board a bus after their release. The March 1977 siege by a group of Hanafi Muslims lasted 39 hours and ended with one person dead and dozens hurt. (1977 Associated Press Photo)

The small scar above Marion Barry’s heart has had three decades to fade, but it’s still noticeable — evidence that some things don’t disappear with time.

For 39 hours in March 1977 — before the word “terrorism” entered our daily vocabulary — 12 gunmen paralyzed the District in a three-point siege. The group of Hanafi Muslims held about 150 people hostage in three buildings, and before they surrendered, a young reporter was killed and dozens were injured, including D.C. Council member Barry. A shotgun pellet pierced his chest, right above his heart, nearly killing him.

“It’s been a long time, but some things you never forget. And that’s one of them,” Barry said in an interview.

This morning, many who remember those three days and others who simply recognize their significance will gather in the Wilson Building’s fifth-floor press room. They will unveil two plaques and dedicate the room to Maurice Williams, the WHUR-FM radio reporter who was shot as he stepped off an elevator in the District Building, the name of the city government’s headquarters at the time.

The building was one of the three places targeted in the siege, along with the B’nai B’rith International Center, at the time on Rhode Island Avenue NW, and the Islamic Center, on Massachusetts Avenue NW.

“I believe this incident was one of the more traumatic incidents in the history of this city, and the fact that he was the only African American journalist ever killed in the line of duty . . . makes it a very special occasion,” Paul Brock, who was WHUR’s news director when Williams was a student intern, said yesterday.

Brock will be among those gathered. “It’s an incident that everyone should know about,” he said. “It was a hint of things to come.”

The siege started March 9, 1977, at a time when security was still relaxed in government buildings and hostage videos weren’t a few clicks away on the Internet. It was before people searched mail for white powder or suicide bombings claimed regular headlines. It was a time when Judge London Steverson did not even have to show his identification card to gain entrance to his office in the International Division of Coast Guard Headquarters across town in the Volpe Transportation Building at 700 D Street, SW.

“This was an early wake-up call about violence and terrorism and the extent to which groups will go to engage in violence either for the sake of violence or to make a point,” Daniel S. Mariaschin, executive vice president of B’nai B’rith International, said yesterday. “Little did we know 30 years ago that this kind of issue would be a daily concern for all of us, not only here in Washington but abroad as well.” He will speak at today’s event.

The 12 gunmen had several demands. They wanted the government to hand over a group of men who had been convicted of killing seven relatives — mostly children — of takeover leader Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. They also demanded that the movie “Mohammad, Messenger of God” be destroyed because they considered it sacrilegious.

Most of the hostages, more than 100, were captured at the B’nai B’rith headquarters.

Rae Ehrlich, a secretary on the fourth floor of the Jewish organization’s building at the time, was among those held captive.

“A girl came in screaming, ‘There are men with guns!’ ” Ehrlich, 83, recalled. She and others locked themselves in her boss’s office, she said. “The next thing we heard were men coming in and saying, ‘Unlock the door or we’re going to kill you all.’

They shattered a glass panel in the door and then took everyone downstairs, she said. “When I entered the second floor, there were bodies on top of bodies. I thought everyone was dead,” she said.

In the room where she was held, men were placed on one side, their hands tied behind them, and women on the other. She remembered wearing a dress that day and slowly unhemming the bottom, hoping the length would help her avoid attention. The men had it worse, she said. Some were not allowed to use the bathroom and had to relieve themselves where they stood.

One of the captors told them that “if anyone does anything wrong, he’ll cut their head and throw it out of the window,” she recalled.

Ambassadors from Iran, Pakistan and Egypt worked with police to persuade the men to give up. When they were finally released, Ehrlich and others went to a hotel, where counselors were waiting. “They said, ‘You cry it out, you write it out. Whatever you need to get it out of your system,’ ” Ehrlich said. She cried only once, when she saw the headlines the next day. “Then I cried,” she said. “I got it out of my system.”

Mayor For Life, Marion Barry said one lesson from that day has remained with him. “That God’s in charge,” he said. “Life is not promised. You could be gone in a flash.

He walked into the hallway of the District Building after hearing a commotion and was hit by a ricocheted shotgun pellet. He recalled stumbling back into the council chambers, dazed and “scared to death.”

Down the hall, a security guard lay wounded and would die a few days later from a heart attack. Williams, also nearby, was dead. Barry, who was elected mayor the following year, said he knew Williams as a “young, aggressive, budding reporter who took his job seriously.”

Williams was 24. Two years ago, the National Association of Black Journalists voted to create a scholarship in his honor, something Brock had pushed for. Williams’s mother, Bertha, who lives in Maryland, will attend today’s ceremony.

“He was very serious journalist. He wanted to tell stories that needed to be told,” Brock said. “I believe if his life had not been cut short . . . that he would have evolved into a renowned national journalist.”

(By Theresa Vargas,3/ 12/ 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer) 

John W. King wrote about the Hanafi siege in his book, The Breeding of Contempt. The book chronicles the siege and his family’s becoming the first African American family in the Federal Witness Protection Program after the massacre of the Khaalis family.

The siege is mentioned in Joni Mitchell‘s song “Otis And Marlena” from her 1977 album Don Juan’s Reckless Daughter. In the song, the title characters travel “for sun and fun / While Muslims stick up Washington”.

The Jonathan Leaf play The Caterers, which was produced Off Broadway in 2005, portrayed a modern-day version of the siege.

Categories: American History | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Balboni Case Was A Precursor Of Today’s Military Toxic Environment

United States Coast Guard Seal, in correct PMS...

United States Coast Guard Seal, in correct PMS colors. This emblem shall only be used in accordance with the Coast Guard Heraldry Manual, and is not to be reproduced commercially without prior approval of the U.S. Coast Guard. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(LTJG Christine D. Balboni and her attorney, LCDR London Steverson at her hearing on sexual harassment allegations at Coast Guard Base Alameda California in 1984)

 

Today Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, (Dem,N.Y.) said  “Commanders can’t always be objective, nor can all of them distinguish between a “slap on the ass” and more serious cases such as rape.

 

Lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives led by Senator Gillibrand, who serves on the Armed Services panel, have introduced legislation that would remove sexual-assault cases from the military chain of command.

 

“After speaking to victims, they have told us that the reason they do not report these crimes is because they fear retaliation,” Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, told the military leaders at the hearing. “You have lost the trust of the men and women who rely on you that you would actually bring justice” in their cases.

 

Victims’ advocacy groups say service members who are attacked often are reluctant to step forward in a system in which commanding officers decide whether to bring charges, choose the military jury and can reduce or overturn a sentence.

 

The Sexual Harassment case of LTJG Christine D. Balboni was a harginger of today’s military environment.  In that case the military was treated to a preview of the toxic environment that the Senators are hearing about today. The Coast Guard did not take the warning that the Balboni Case presented them with. The military did not accept it as an omen.

 

The uniformed leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, in a Senate hearing room with dozens of other military officers, admitted to lawmakers that the Defense Department had failed to effectively prevent or respond to sexual assaults despite years of trying.

 

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., grew heated in questioning military leaders during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., grew heated in questioning military leaders during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearingtoday, June 4, 2013.

 

The Pentagon doesn’t know how many members are raped or sexually assaulted because surveys don’t distinguish between “predatory” behavior and an “unhealthy” working environment, she said at the hearing.

 

The military has “sexual predators who are not committing crimes of lust,” she said. “This isn’t about sex.” Rather it’s about “domination” and violence, she said.

 

When asked by Levin, only the chiefs of the Coast Guard and Army said that leaders have been relieved of command as a result of a climate of sexual assault and harassment. (Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Papp relieved a Captain of command in 2010 because of inappropriate relationships. It is too bad he was only a junior officer and was not in a position of senior leadership in 1980 when LTJG Balboni filed her case against three senior Coast Guard officer aboard the USCGC Rush WHEC in Alameda, California.)

 

 

BALBONI v. DOT; USCG; L. Telfer, P. Keyes, A. Cascardi.

 

United States Coast Guard Civil Rights Hearing, DOT Case No. 82-177.

 

Case was heard February 6, 1984 and following at U.S. Coast Guard Base Alameda, Ca. before The Honorable Paul E. Weil, Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Transportation.

 

APPEARING for the United States Coast Guard;

LCDR Gary Heil, 12th Coast Guard District, Government Island, Alameda, Ca. 94501

 

APPEARING for Captain Larry Telfer; an Alleged Discriminating Official (ADO)

LCDR Tom Barrett, Commandant (G-L)

 

APPEARING for Commander Phil Keyes; an Alleged Discriminating Official (ADO)

Lcdr. Robert Allard, Commandant (G-L)

 

APPEARING for LT Andrew Cascardi; an Alleged Discriminating Official (ADO)

Lcdr. Michael Kudalis Commandant (G-L)

 

APPEARING for the COMPLAINANTS LT(jg) Christine D. Balboni and CWO Charles VanMeter,

Lcdr. London Steverson, Chief, Investigating Officer, MIO, New York, NY.

 

WITNESSES:

LTJG Christine D. Balboni, USCG

LTJG Ann Flamang, aka Gang-bang Flamang, USCG,

LTJG Jodie Turner, aka Diesel Dyke Turner, USCG,

LTJG Margaret Carlson, USCG Communications Officer onboard USCGc RUSH (WHEC)

Mr. Jeremiah Healy, formerly a Coast Guard enlisted man, ST2 Jerry Healy.

MST1 Smith.

CDR Phil Keyes, USCG, Executive Officer onboard USCGC RUSH (WHEC)

LT Andrew Cascardi, USCG Operations Officer onboard USCGC RUSH (WHEC)

CAPT Larry Telfer, USCG, Commanding Officer, USCGC RUSH (WHEC)

CWO Charles Van Meter, USCG.

 

(Regulatory Authority: Pursuant to Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 1000.8A, and the U. S. Coast Guard Civil Rights Manual Commandant USCG Instruction M5350.11B)

 

COMPLAINT: The Complainant, LTjg Christine D. Balboni, alleges and contends that the three Alleged Discriminating Officials (ADO) discrininated against her on the basis of her sex; that they sexually harassed her; that they verbally abused and slandered her; that they created a hostile and intimidating work environment for her onboard the USCGC RUSH (WHEC) that made it impossible for her to do her job; that they circulated rumors and malicious gossip concerning her among the other officers and the enlisted men on the ship; that they memorialized this same gossip and rumors when they reduced it to writing in the form of regular and special officer fitness for duty reports that they swore to and forwarded up the chain of command; and that they did it recklessly and with knowledge of its probable affects upon her Coast Guard career. The Complainant further alleges and contends that this conduct on the part of the ADOs was unbecoming of an officer and a gentlemen, and that it was to the predjudice of good order and discipline.

 

EXCERPTS from the Official Transcript of the Formal Hearing on the record.

 

OPENING STATEMENT: (LCDR L. Steverson, Counsel for the Complainants.)

May it please the Court, Your Honor, the United States Coast Guard is the last bastion of white male supremacy among the Armed Forces of the United States. Discrimination, bias, prejudice, abuse of power, hatred, and harassment have all been employed to keep it that way. These are evils that withstand the winds of logic by the depth and toughness of their roots in the past.

It was inevitable that this case maybe even others would have to be brought to see which way the Coast Guard would go and to see wherein does justice lie.

It is only be happenstance that the Complainant in this case is LTjg Christine D. Balboni, or that the Alleged Discriminating Officials are Captain Larry Telfer, Commander Phil Keyes, and Lieutenant Andy Cascardi. They are all victims of the twin forces of history and destiny.

We believe that the evidence in this case will show that the Complainant, Ms. Balboni, has been greatly wronged. The evidence will show that the workplace onboard the U. S. Coast Guard Cutter RUSH was pervaded with sexual slurs, insults and innuendo; that Ms. Balboni was personally the object of verbal sexual harassment; that this harassment took the form of vulgar and offensive, sexually-related epithets addressed to and employed about her by the ADO’s.

We will show that she was forced to work in a hostile and intimidating environment where the walls were papered with the pictures of nude women; where pornographic movies were were regularly shown on the ship’s videotape T.V. monitors; where a prophylactic was unrolled and taped to her state room door; where male crew members bursted into her room uninvited around midnight; where she could not even close her state room door in privacy whenever a friend or a crew member of the opposite sex was in the room; where she was prohibited, ordered not to associate with the only friend that she had on the ship; where she was accused of compromising acts that had actually been done by other female members of the crew, and other acts that, in one instance, had not even occured; where she was penalized with adverse officer performance ratings, or fitness reports, as you will, because of these incidents where she was falsely accused and where no investigation or verification of the facts had been done; where her pleas to higher authority for help fell on deaf ears, or she was further demeaned by being told that she did not have the right plumbing, an obvious reference to her sex and that she was not a man, all in an atmosphere of motion pictures depicting fellatio, cunnilingus, “menage-a-tois” in the officer’s ward room during the evening meal and Sunday morning breakfast.

The Complainant, Ms. Balboni, was accused of being immoral, unethical, and unprofessional simply because she whispered and giggled with and had a close platonic friendship with a fellow officer who happened to be married.

The evidence will show that LTjg Balboni was never seen holding hands or kissing or anything else with Chief Warrant Officer Van Meter; that she was never seen by Commander Phil Keyes sitting in Chief Warrant Officer Van Meter’s lap with her arms around his neck; that she was never seen by a crew member in a male officers state room naked or with no bra on while a male officer was present. Yet she has been accused of these very acts. She has been reprimanded for these very acts.

The evidence will show that the incidents of harassment in this case were so pervasive that all of the Alleged Discriminating Officials and maybe even their supervisors were aware of them, that they had actual and constructive knowledge of the existence of a sexually hostile working environment and that they took no prompt action or in some cases no action at all to remedy the situation.

Thank you, Your Honor.

 

 

Categories: Coast Guard Cases | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Black Man’s Burden; White Man’s Benefit.

Healy and Renda approach Nome

Healy and Renda approach Nome (Photo credit: U.S. Coast Guard)

The Black Man’s Burden. The White Man’s Benefit.

Many of the Coast Guard’s Founding Fathers were Black. They were African Americans whether you subscribe to the one-drop rule or not.
Captain Michael A. Healy, the only African American to have a command or commission in any of the Coast Guard’s predecessor services, commanded the cutter Bear from 1887 to 1895. Healy retired as the third highest-ranking officer from the Revenue Cutter Service.
One of ten children born in Macon, Georgia, to an Irish immigrant and a slave of mixed blood, Healy habitually ran away from school. At the urging of his brother, who felt sea life would discipline the youngster, the 15-year-old Healy was hired as a cabin boy abroad the clipper Jumna in 1855. He applied to and was accepted by the Revenue Cutter Service in March of 1865, was promoted to Second Lieutenant in June 1886, and to First Lieutenant in July 1870.
As First Lieutenant, Healy was ordered aboard the cutter Rush, to patrol Alaskan waters for the first time. He became known as a brilliant seaman and was considered by many the best sailor in the North. A feature article in the January 28, 1884 New York Sun stated: “Captain Mike Healy is a good deal more distinguished person in the waters of the far Northwest than any president of the United States or my potentate in Europe has yet become.”
Healy distinguished himself when he took command of the cutter Bear, considered by many the greatest polar ship of its time, in 1886. The ship was charged with “seizing any vessel found sealing in the Bering Sea.” By 1892, the Bear, Rush and Corwin had made so many seizures that tension developed between the United States and British merchants. Healy was also tasked with bringing medical and other aid to the Alaska Natives, making weather and ice reports, preparing navigation charts, rescuing distressed vessels, transporting special passengers and supplies, and fighting violators of federal laws. He served as deputy U.S. Marshal and represented federal law in Alaska for many years.
On one of Bear’s annual visits to King Island, Healy found a native population reduced to 100 people and begging for food. After ordering food and clothing, Healy worked with Dr. Sheldon Jackson of the Bureau of Education to import reindeer from the Siberian Chukchi, another Eskimo population. During the next ten years, Revenue cutters brought some 1,100 reindeer to Alaska. The Bureau of Education took charge of landing and distributing the deer, and missionary schools taught the natives to raise and care for the animals. By 1940, Alaska’s domesticated reindeer herds had risen to 500,000.
The Coast Guard named an icebreaker for Michael Healy, in acknowledgment of his inspiring commitment to the Service, including his invaluable assistance to Alaska Natives.
The first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed the Federal government accept public responsibility for safety at sea. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington approved the enabling Ninth Act of Congress. To counter the smuggling and other illegal activities rampant at this time, Hamilton proposed a seagoing military force to support national economic policy. Mere legal-paper status was not enough to combat criminal activity: on August 4, 1790, the Revenue Cutter Service’s predecessor, the Revenue Marine, was born.
Years after their deaths, the Healy family is being claimed as “Black” because of their achievements, according to A. D. Powell writing in the Interracial Voice.
If they can’t claim you when you’re alive and fighting, the hyenas try to “kidnap” your memory after you’re dead. James and Francis Healy have been betrayed by the Catholic Church they served so faithfully because insecure “black Catholics” want to claim “trophy” clergymen of high rank despite the fact that discrimination and lack of educational opportunities prevented real “blacks” from creating an impressive “resume” in the 19th century. James Healy is now being described as the first “black” American to be ordained a priest and the first “black” bishop. Georgetown University now claims that Francis Patrick Healy was the first “African American” president of a predominately “white” university and the first “black” to obtain a PhD.. Some gratitude the Catholic Church has shown! It has insulted the memory of James and Francis Healy by effectively stating that they were not good enough for their Irish-American heritage but only fit to “improve” the “black race” with their “white blood.” The Healys must be turning over in their graves!
Captain Michael Morris Healy‘s memory was recently tarnished by the United States Coast Guard, which named an Icebreaker, the U.S.C.G.C. HEALY (launched in 1997) after him. Normally, it is a great honor to have a ship named after you. It is an insult, however, when the ship is named after you so the U.S. Coast Guard can honor a “black” hero who was really Irish-American, at least 3/4 white, and identified as both white and Irish. In this case, someone told a group of black schoolkids at Virgil Grissom Junior High School in Queens, New York that they had a “black” hero in Captain Healy. The black kids initiated a letter-writing campaign to get the Coast Guard to name a ship after Michael Healy. Now, these kids may be flattered by the idea that a person of obvious Caucasian phenotype shares their “race,” but it is in fact a racial insult they are incapable of recognizing.
A prime example of the “liberal racism” that condemns the Healys as “black” on the basis of the “one drop” myth while pretending to be anti-racist and sympathetic, is “Racial Identity and the Case of Captain Michael Healy, USRCS,” by James M. O’Toole, director of the archives program at University of Massachusetts, Boston.. (Quarterly of the National Archives & Records Administration, Fall 1997, vol. 29, No. 3)
O’Toole begins with a confrontation between Captain Healy and two sailors he was disciplining. He notes that they called him a “God damned Irishman.” O’Toole is very upset that the sailors didn’t call Captain Healy a “nigger.” This seems to him the only natural thing to call Captain Healy. O’Toole throughout the article, projects his own racism and devotion to the “one drop” myth on 19th century Americans who obviously didn’t share his devotion to white racial “purity.”

O’Toole’s racist devotion to the “one drop” myth blinds him to racial reality in the 19th century. He assumes that the “one drop” myth was law and universally accepted by “whites.” It wasn’t. Any research into racial classification laws in the 19th century would have shown him that various degrees of “negro blood” were accepted into the “white race,” even in the Deep South. Also, the combination of a person’s looks and the reputation he had established were all taken into consideration in determining whether one was “white” or not. It is obvious that Captain Healy and his siblings succeeded in establishing themselves as second-generation Irish Americans. O’Toole cannot bear this and insists that the Healy siblings were really “African Americans.” He also calls their mother, Eliza, an “African American” even though her ancestry was at least half European.
O’Toole also claims that all “whites” believed in “mulatto inferiority” or the doctrine that mixed-race people are biologically inferior to BOTH or ALL “pure” parental groups. He is too ignorant to understand that this doctrine was created as a defense of slavery by pro-slavery intellectuals who wanted to counter the Northern anti-slavery argument that, if slavery is justified on the basis of “race,” then “white” slaves should be automatically free because the negro racial “taint” had been effectively bred out of the line. Lawrence Tenzer explains the origins of this doctrine very well in his book The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue. O’Toole would do well to sit at Tenzer’s feet and learn something. O’Toole follows the usual liberal excuse of claiming that “society” defined the Healy family as “black,” but expresses wonderment at the fact that “whites” who knew about Captain Healy’s mixed ancestry still treated him as “white.” O’Toole is amazed that establishing a “white” identity was so easy for the Healys:

The apparent ease with which they made the transition from black to white is striking. Hell, any white-identified multiracial could have told him that! First, they didn’t start out as “black.” All things would be made clear if he would stop listening to and promoting “black” propaganda. O’Toole is racist because he accepts the myth that the Healys’ real identity was “black” and that they were only “passing” for white and Irish American. Even though, like so many liberals, O’Toole acknowledges that “Group boundaries are more fluid than we often suppose,” he clearly accepts and endorses the “one drop” myth, passing it off as biological and social reality:

Where the Healys are remembered today, it is as African Americans; several of them are now celebrated as the “first black” achievers in their fields. They themselves, however, recoiled from such an identification. Wherever possible, they sought a white identity

This may seem surprising or even disappointing to us…

Why should it be “surprising” or “disappointing” to anyone? The Healys embraced the identity that they believed best defined them. The Irish American identity certainly described the Healys well – far better than any false “black” identity. Does O’Toole really believe that the “white race” is “pure” or totally free from the “taint” of the “race” in whose equality he professes to believe? O’Toole also accepts the “liberal” nonsense that a “white” identity is merely an attempt to escape from “racism” and that the Healys would have cheerfully accepted a “black” identity if there had been no anti-black discrimination. Tell me, in a world free of anti-Semitism, would Jews voluntary call themselves “non-Aryans” or “kikes” or any other term invented to degrade them? Of course not; the question would be considered ridiculous. Why, therefore, do liberal and “black” elites insist that, in a prejudice-free world, people would cheerfully accept a racially degraded identity for themselves. Such idiocy constitutes a total rejection of logic.
Imagine that! O’Toole can’t understand how a boy with a white-identified Irish quadroon father and a “pure” Irish mother could presume to call himself “white” instead of some “black” nonsense. O’Toole appears to be really concerned about those polluting “black drops” contaminating his “whiteness.” He apparently doesn’t want to share his Irish American identity with people contaminated by the blood of the “race” he claims to champion.

O’Toole acknowledges that Captain Healy experienced prejudice for being Irish and Catholic, but he seems to be so disappointed that the “nigger” insult never pops up to put the uppity quadroon in his place. Indeed, O’Toole’s liberal racist contention that the Healy family’s Irish Catholic identity was mere social climbing to escape discrimination is even more ridiculous when you realize that, in the 19th century, both Irish and Catholics faced massive discrimination. If the Healys wanted to social climb, they could have become white Protestants.

The “racial kidnaping” of the Healy family is an important example of why the “liberal racist” assumption that a publicly-identified European heritage is somehow “too good” for those non-Hispanics “tainted” by “black blood” must be openly and defiantly challenged. We must end this racial “rape.” If the Healy family can be violated in death, it can happen to anyone.

Francis Patrick Healy First Rector/President of Georgetown University.(1873-1881)

Categories: American History | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I Will Fight No More Forever.

I Will Fight No More Forever.

America‘s fighting men have come in many guises, shapes and sizes. They have had to fight all of America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic. Cadet Webster Smith had to fight his own senior officers, friends, and mentors. In the end he was proud. He had fought the good fight. Even TIME magazine carried the quote of the first cadet in Coast Guard history to be tried by a General Court-martial.

http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1209244,00.html

Less than 60 days after the verdict was rendered in the Webster Smith case, I predicted that the case would make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices are not elected. They are appointed with the advice and consent of the Congress. The Nine Justices of the Supreme Court are the least democratic branch of the federal government. They have no constituency. They do not have to conform to the biases of the majority. They are the Court of Last Resort; so, they are infallible. With few exceptions, they have dealt evenhandedly with all of America’s citizens.

They do not have to sit for re-election. They are appointed for life. They are totally isolated from busy bodies on the Right or Left Side of the political spectrum. With one stroke of the pen, they may act to curb injustices, correct unsavory attitudes, and breathe new life into a living Constitution.

Historically we have looked to them to solve our most vexing social problems. They are America’s ultimate arbiters of justice; and, that includes military justice.

Aside from the Webster Smith Case, I cannot think of any case or incident in Coast Guard history that affected more directly the hearts, minds, and daily lives of all members of the United States Coast Guard.

The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals had to review the Webster Smith case. It had no choice. Article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, requires the Coast Guard Criminal Appeals Court to review all cases of trial by court-martial in which the sentence as approved by the Convening Authority extends to dismissal of a cadet from the Coast Guard, and/or a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, unless the accused waives appellate review. Webster Smith did not waive appellate review. He appealed his conviction. Oral argument in the Case of The Appeal of the Court-martial Conviction of Cadet Webster Smith was scheduled for January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.

A legal brief filed by his lawyers claimed the convictions should have been thrown out because the defense team was not allowed to fully cross-examine one of his accusers during Smith’s court martial. They said that meant the jury didn’t hear testimony that the accuser, a female cadet, Shelly Roddenbush, had once had consensual sex with a Coast Guard enlisted man and then called it sexual assault. If she lied once, she very well could have lied again.

The Coast Guard Court of of Criminal Appeals is made up of Coast Guard Officers. It has the power to decide matter of both fact and law. Decisions of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals may be appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF). It is made up of five civilian judges, appointed to 15 year terms. It decides only issues of law. Its decisions may be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Webster Smith Case followed this long and winding path all the way to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of Webster Smith. The justices declined to hear the case without comment.

Webster Smith was proud of his decision to fight the good fight all the way to the end of the road. See TIME magazine June 29, 2006.

http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1209244,00.html

https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com

Categories: Military Justice | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Coast Guard Academy to Receive NAACP Award.

United States Coast Guard Academy seal

Image via Wikipedia

The Coast Guard Academy (CGA) will receive the Community Service Education Award from the Norwich branch of the NAACP at its 48th Annual Freedom Fund Dinner on Friday 7 October 2011.

The theme for this year’s dinner is “Affirming America’s Promise”.

The Academy will be recognized for contributions to the New London, Connecticut  community. According to Judge London Steverson, a 1968 graduate of the Academy and a Silver Life member of the NAACP, the Academy has a Partners in Education Program, known as PIE, which takes computer technology equipment used at the Coast Guard Academy, recycles and rebuilds it, then distributes it to local schools. Cadets also go to the schools and assist children and staff with their new computer equipment.

(www.judgelondonsteverson.com)

Categories: Military Justice | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.