« Good Morning | Main | "Smart Power" at Work »

June 19, 2013

James Taranto is Right (and Wrong) on Military Rape

A recent column by James Taranto has generated a lot of outraged commentary. Mr. Taranto begins by asserting:

Lt. Gen. Susan Helms is a pioneering woman who finds her career stalled because of a war on mena political campaign against sexual assault in the military that shows signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality.

Before exploring all the things that are wrong with his rather polemical intro, let's explore all the things Taranto is right about (at least in this author's opinion).

WHERE TARANTO IS RIGHT

1. It's not unreasonable to describe the hold placed on General Helms' nomination as politically motivated grandstanding. General Helms exercised her entirely legal authority to set aside a criminal conviction under the UCMJ. Simple disagreement with her decision does not magically render Helms unfit for confirmation, and smacks of politically motivated punishment for doing something Congress itself gave her authority to do. Having actually read both the memorandum justifying her decision and the very lengthy (over 450 pages) transcript of the proceedings, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser did not consent.

This is not a trivial point for two reasons. Firstly, our entire justice system rests on the presumption of innocence for the accused and the resulting requirement that to secure a guilty verdict, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that all elements of the crime are satisfied. And secondly, the UCMJ standard for lack of consent requires actual evidence that the defendant knew the Lieutenant did not consent. The only evidence brought by the prosecution was the uncorroborated (and in several cases, disputed) testimony of the "victim".

After reading the aforelinked (yikes - a neologism!) documents, I do not see how General Helms could have reached any other decision than the one she eventually rendered. The prosecution's burden of proof simply was not met.

2. Sen. Claire McCaskill's rhetoric has been consistently over the top. Describing the alleged victim as a "sexual assault survivor" is tantamount to declaring that Capt. Herrera is guilty of sexual assault. This is something that has not been established. Moreover, the deliberate conflation of the intentionally fuzzy term "sexual assault" with rape is inflammatory. Let's remember that we have no actual evidence of sexual assault, let alone rape, other than the word of the accuser. Publicly asserting Capt. Herrera's guilt (or innocence, for that matter) is unfair, irresponsible, and potentially slanderous.

Herrera was proven neither guilty nor innocent, and any statements to the contrary are factually inaccurate.

3. Taranto fairly describes the evidence as "he said/she said", and further notes that the alleged victim's testimony conflicts with the testimony of the accused, the driver of the car (a woman), and copious evidence from the accused's cell phone. When the only evidence of an alleged crime is the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim, establishing her credibility (or impeaching the credibility of the accused) is paramount.

That didn't happen.

4. This statement, by McCaskill, is both obscene and outrageous:

Ms. McCaskill said earlier this month that the clemency decision "sent a damaging message to survivors of sexual assault who are seeking justice in the military justice system."

The purpose of a criminal trial is not to "send a message to survivors of sexual assault" regardless of the evidence. Adopting McCaskill's reasoning makes a mockery of our criminal justice system. It is the mother of all end-justifies-the-means arguments, and ought to be offensive to anyone who professes to believe in the rule of law.

5. Taranto's argument here is dead on:

The presumption that [sexually] reckless men are criminals while reckless women are victims makes a mockery of any notion that the sexes are equal.


WHERE TARANTO IS WRONG

1. To describe efforts to revoke a commander's authority to set aside convictions under the UCMJ as "a war on men" is every bit as inflammatory and outrageous as McCaskill's assertions that she knows what actually happened that night, or that Herrera is guilty of sexual assault. Simply say a thing does not make it so. Herrera pled guilty to a lesser offense (indecent acts), not sexual assault.

The efficacy of adopting the frankly silly "war on women" rhetoric of our progressive brethren in Christ is at best unclear. Is the tactic inherently wrong? If so, then why are we doing it? Is it justifiable under certain circumstances? Then we're going to have to make a better case than simple disagreement on a complex public policy issue. Rhetorical bomb throwing doth not an argument make.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is a good idea to allow commanders to set aside jury verdicts, or whether it's a good idea to trust military commands to police their own ranks. Conservatives were rightly appalled at Eric Holder's brazen argument that the DoJ should investigate the DoJ. If we see a 'fox guarding the henhouse' problem there, why apply a different standard to the DoD?

I have no problem with the current system for two reasons. There is ample precedent for executives (governors, presidents) to issue extrajudicial pardons of convicted criminals. Though the idea is hardly novel, it has also been abused on many occasions. And the power is so rarely exercised (by one estimate, only 1.5% of such convictions are overturned) that changing it would do little to combat the so-called 'epidemic of military rape':

It is rare for commanders to grant clemency. The Air Force said it has recorded 327 convictions over the past five years for sexual assault, rape and similar crimes, but only five verdicts have been overturned in clemencies.

To characterize simple disagreement on this issue as "a war on men" undermines fundamentally serious conservative objections to the Obama administration's contemptible "war on women" meme.

2. Characterizing the admittedly politicized campaign to "end military rape" as "an attempt to criminalize male sexuality" is likewise objectionable on its face.

This debate isn't about changing the criminal definition of sexual assault under the UCMJ. It's about whether commanders should be allowed to set aside a guilty verdict with no public justification.

It is worth noting here that Gen. Helms' legal advisors counseled her not to overturn the verdict. They did so because of a little known fact: under the UCMJ, guilty verdicts in criminal cases with heavy penalties are automatically appealed. Moreover, the UCMJ court martial process is arguably more tilted towards acquittal than its civilian counterparts.

So the idea that "but for" General Helms' decision, Capt. Herrera would have had no legal recourse is questionable. It is distinctly possible that a reversal on the basis of erroneous fact finding is not a remedy in criminal appeals under the UCMJ. Generally, appeals are limited to examining legal or procedural errors committed during the trial. Appellate courts do not usually re-try the facts; instead, they examine trial procedures to ensure that the law was fairly and properly administered.

One final note: setting aside jury verdicts also has a civilian judicial precedent. I dimly recall from long ago law classes a legal remedy in which a judge can set aside an unreasonable jury verdict. It's called judgment NOV (non obstante veredicto, or "notwithstanding the jury").

The point here is that this debate, though highly politicized and laced with inflammatory rhetoric on both sides, is hardly a slam dunk. We do our own arguments no service when we stoop to tactics we have right deplored when our opponents use them.

Posted by Cassandra at June 19, 2013 06:50 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4656

Comments

A similar case I read about yesterday that I found interesting is this one. On the one hand, it sounds like the initial investigation was about a calendar modeled on the type once very popular with WWII soldiers, and including the commander's own wife (which suggests, at least to me, that it was no more than racy).

Then the investigation found out that he was perhaps turning a blind eye to a fully consensual sexual relationship involving subordinates, for reasons we don't know. This could be a real problem, or it could be the sort of thing that ought to fall within a commander's judgment. (For example, it could be the pair came and confessed to their past relations, and promised to forgo further ones until they were reassigned outside of each other's chain of command. I could see a commander saying, "What you did was wrong, but you recognize that and came to take responsibility for it, so I'm not going to prosecute you as long as it doesn't happen again.")

However, it doesn't really matter what happened, because a Senator got involved.

Murkowski, a Republican, said the allegations coming from the critical missile base were "deeply upsetting" and were "further evidence we must see a drastic change made to a military culture that has seemingly turned its eyes away from facing critical, systemic problems and addressing them."

That's assuming a great deal not in evidence. And, by the way, the system was working on it before she got there. Now the system is going to have to deal with a challenge to any ruling from the influence of the Senator's statements.

It's even worse when the President does it, which of course he just did.

Posted by: Grim at June 19, 2013 10:14 AM

Here's some more on the calendar, including what I assume was the raciest of the photos (since it's the one the anonymous complaint forwarded). Here's another, much less racy photo from the calendar.

Posted by: Grim at June 19, 2013 10:23 AM

That whole turning a blind eye thing in officers is exactly why some people think commanders should not be able to overturn criminal verdicts.

It's part of that whole 'establishing a command climate' thing - if the people in charge of enforcing the rules openly flout them (or wink at other officers who do), that's a pretty big problem. And despite my repeated criticisms of some of the more idiotic rhetoric of the 'military rape crisis' crowd, I do think there's a wink-wink, nudge-nudge problem with matters sexual in the military.

The Unit and I have argued about this for a while. I'm not wholly convinced the command set-aside thing is needed, and think it may well create the appearance of impropriety. The very rarity with which this remedy is used could be used to support either the notion that it's not needed or that it's not dangerous.

Unfortunately, as we all know a few sensational abuses get far more attention than the far greater number of stories where the system works as designed.

I'm genuinely unsure what the right answer is here, but I agree that Congressional pontification isn't helpful :)

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 10:29 AM

I don't see anything wrong with the calendar.

I do question the propriety of a battalion commander promoting it. We're not talking a criminal offense here - just bad judgment.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 10:32 AM

A related thought:

1. I have a problem with the idea that the hold on General Helms' nomination makes her a victim. Command isn't an entitlement - it's a privilege. McCaskill is throwing her weight around, and I'm fine with Taranto publicly subjecting her decision to the same scrutiny she wants for military commanders :p In fact, I think that's healthy, which is why I wrote this post.

Commanders are given very wide latitude, but the check on that power is that they can be relieved of command without public justification or formal proceedings. Simply saying, "I've lost confidence in your judgment/leadership" suffices.

I tend to think the right answer here may be to make the commander's written and signed rational for overturning verdicts a formal requirement. Yes, you get to make the big decisions.

And yes, by God, you have to stand by them. The distinct possibility that others may question your judgment if it's made public could be both a positive and a negative thing, but that kind of goes with the territory.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 10:48 AM

Well, it was his wife's cancer charity. I'm not sure what kind of promotion we're talking about, but I think there are some descriptions of "promoting" that fall within the realm of good judgment.

I wouldn't think it would be a problem to give in to your wife's wish that you mention it to friends who might support the charity by buying one; whereas it would be highly problematic to mention it at the O&I with a strong suggestion that everyone ought to think about buying one.

That's just the kind of question of judgment that we resolve within this system. The specifics are really important, and a system for human beings needs leeway to take those specifics into account. The Senator wants a bludgeon (which makes me somewhat sympathetic to Taranto's point -- it's clear that the actual facts don't matter so much as the opportunity to smash someone in an exemplary fashion).

I'm not very impressed with the complaint, anyway. "The anonymous email, sent to McHugh and other top Army officials, was purported to be from 'Concerned Alaskans' and complained that the wife of Lt. Col. Joseph Miley, commander of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion, acted indecently." Oh, really? His wife, you say? On her own time, for a cancer charity? We'll get right on that, Anonymous.

Posted by: Grim at June 19, 2013 10:53 AM

Well, it was his wife's cancer charity. I'm not sure what kind of promotion we're talking about, but I think there are some descriptions of "promoting" that fall within the realm of good judgment.

I wouldn't think it would be a problem to give in to your wife's wish that you mention it to friends who might support the charity by buying one; whereas it would be highly problematic to mention it at the O&I with a strong suggestion that everyone ought to think about buying one.

This last distinction is critical because it recognizes that there's a difference between appeals to peers (no command pressure) and appeals to subordinates (likely appearance of command pressure).

In general, it's not a great idea for a commander to suggest that people under his command spend money on anything tied in even the most tenuous way to him. It's hardly uncommon for charities to misuse funds donated to them.

I have been in this exact situation, by the way. While my husband was serving, he didn't feel direct exhortations to support a charity created by me and another officer's wife were appropriate, and I completely understood his reasoning.

The Senator wants a bludgeon (which makes me somewhat sympathetic to Taranto's point -- it's clear that the actual facts don't matter so much as the opportunity to smash someone in an exemplary fashion).

Agreed :)

"The anonymous email, sent to McHugh and other top Army officials, was purported to be from 'Concerned Alaskans' and complained that the wife of Lt. Col. Joseph Miley, commander of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion, acted indecently." Oh, really? His wife, you say? On her own time, for a cancer charity?

I don't have a problem with commands deciding what does or does not damage the reputation of the command, really. This lies within allowing them the discretion to exercise their judgment. So I agree, insofar as this goes, but would also support a determination that the command/the service really doesn't wish to associate itself or even give the appearance of endorsing pinup calendars.

I'm pretty sure my civilian employer wouldn't publicly endorse pinup calendars, and I see no requirement for the ANG to do so :p

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 11:08 AM

I'm not very impressed with the complaint, anyway. "The anonymous email, sent to McHugh and other top Army officials, was purported to be from 'Concerned Alaskans' and complained that the wife of Lt. Col. Joseph Miley, commander of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion, acted indecently." Oh, really? His wife, you say? On her own time, for a cancer charity? We'll get right on that, Anonymous.

I'm of Grim's mind on this. I know there's a good chance I'm diminishing the importance of the morale issue out of my ignorance of military culture and my trampy nature, but that anonymous complaint has an unpleasant Mrs. Grundy quality.

Posted by: Texan99 at June 19, 2013 11:19 AM

Sure it does!

On the otter heiny, "Hey! Wanna leer at my half naked wife for charity" has more than a bit of an unpleasant Leisure Suit Larry quality to it.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong with a bunch of military wives stripping off and selling photos of themselves for a good cause? It's not as though guys have ever been noted for saying inappropriate things to other men's wives under the best of circumstances (or for such hijinks to result in what used to be politely termed, "fisticuffs") :p

I've probably said this before, but I have no real opposition to this sort of thing. Years ago, I sent topless (and unidentifiable) photos to an online breast cancer fundraiser. They were quite tasteful and I don't think I did anything wrong.

But I didn't email all my friends and co-workers and say, "Hey - go look at my boobs online" either.

Just because a complaint makes us uncomfortable doesn't mean it's totally meritless. I can't honestly see any reason for a service or command to endorse pinup calendars. Neither should they discourage civilians (and that's what these military wives are - they're not military) from producing them.

There's a fine line here between tolerance and open endorsement, and I think it's worth preserving.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 11:45 AM

Hi Cass,
Why so worked up over McCaskill's obvious pandering to her liberal base? She is politically endangered, and loud objections to 'rape' and a chance to run down our military is a favorite Dem meme.

As for Taranto, whose column I frequently enjoy reading, well he does have a rather sharp wit which he employs liberally. He has a well known tendency to stay 'near the top' (of discretion), and not infrequently crosses the line.

BTW, while I won't quibble with the assertion that "the UCMJ court martial process is arguably more tilted towards acquittal than its civilian counterparts."
> having served on a couple Courts Martial as a member, it is also true that members of Courts Martial tend towards maxing out punishment for those found guilty much more than civilian judges.

Separately, please spare no sympathy for any General or Flag officer; they are granted positions of great respect, and the civilian / military interface is an essential part of their job. If she retires as a major general instead of a lieutenant general, she's still waay ahead of the game.

Hi Grim,
That photo is the CO's wife, which is probably why it was selected in complaint. I'm quite disappointed over the teapot tempest over that calendar, which at worst might be considered poor form, in *Utah!* I happen to think this style of pinup is both flattering and in very good taste.

I missed the 'cancer charity' in my 1st read of Taranto's post, which really does make the whole 'anon' complaint completely weasely.

However condoning, much less encouraging adultery does run afoul of the UCMJ.
Given the remote location of that base I can well understand why anyone looking for fun outside their marriage would have few options than another military spouse, and I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt if he was simply trying to 'not notice' philandering.

Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at June 19, 2013 05:33 PM

"...'Concerned Alaskans' and complained that the wife of Lt. Col. Joseph Miley, commander of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion, acted indecently."

So? Nobody's f&cking business what the wife of the commander is doing.

Dear 'Concerned Alaskans', "*Wife* is a social/civil term used in connection with the social contract called marriage. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure, our military are allowed to marry -- even to someone of the opposite sex! -- and even further to your dismay, these civilians are not subject to (or could even give a rat's ass about) your silly-ass complaints about your "understanding" of how the military should act and behave. Now pull your noses out of other people's cracks and MYOFB.

Posted by: DL Sly at June 19, 2013 06:21 PM

Nobody's f&cking business what the wife of the commander is doing.

That's not what's being investigated, though. The first investigation concluded (probably rightly) that nothing wrong had occurred.

This is what's being investigated:

The Army commander of a remote Alaskan base is under investigation for sexual misconduct, after allegedly allowing officers to have affairs and for permitting scantily clad women soldiers to pose for a calendar. Soldiers at the anti-ballistic missile base claimed Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Miley had created a 'toxic environment' by turning a blind eye to cases of sexual misconduct.

It was claimed that women soldiers at Fort Greely were also being allowed to trade sexual favors for favorable treatment from officers.

Click my name for link.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 06:59 PM

Sorry guys, but if those charges don't fit the definition of behavior that's prejudicial to good order and discipline, I'll be damned if I know what does.

Like I said, just because an accusation makes us feel icky doesn't mean it's meritless.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 07:06 PM

The UK link says he 'permitted' female soldiers to do this, but how much authority would he have to stop them? A soldier off duty and out of uniform has free expression rights.

He'll, if he'd told them not to do it Murkowski would want him fired for 'slut shaming.'

Posted by: Grim at June 19, 2013 09:14 PM

Your link includes the following:

"Lieutenant General Richard Formica, of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said the allegation would be investigated, but that he did not believe there had been any 'wrongdoing', according to the Army Times."

Now maybe that means that the environment is so toxic that even a 3-star general can't see how poisonous it is. Or maybe it means that the anonymous complaint is just as baseless as it appears to be.

Posted by: Grim at June 19, 2013 09:35 PM

I never said a thing about a potential charge of sexual misconduct being baseless. My comment was directed solely at those 'Concerned Alaskans' who felt it their duty to crawl up the ass of total strangers because of their personal views and self-righteousness.
The Army times article says the investigation is about the commander's wife and the calendar. There is this: "Formica acknowledged an allegation in the anonymous complaint of fraternization between the calendar's photographer, who is allegedly a soldier, and another soldier."
And while the commander may indeed be help culpable for the atmosphere after an affair within the ranks has occurred, I'm at a loss to understand exactly how he is supposed to prevent them from happening as the UK article would have us believe he was supposed to. And then there is Grim's point of where, exactly, he would presume the authority to tell the female soldiers what they can and cannot do with their bodies during off-duty hours -- to include, quite frankly, having illicit affairs within their ranks.

Posted by: DL Sly at June 19, 2013 10:53 PM

This entire discussion is pointless, and is a good example of why I, for many various reasons, opposed expanding the role of women in the military. My opposition is not grounded in any inherent lack of ability of women to meet standards, assuming those standards are equally applied between the sexes, but upon the huge and endless politicization such an expansion would bring.
Did anyone really expect the same feminists who pushed such an expansion to leave behind their favorite tactics and polemics re the eternal victimization of women at the hands of brutish and evil men? Did you really expect them to fairly judge each situation on a fair and impartial basis? Especially when they could score points with their liberal base and stab at the military at the same time? The leopard doesn't change his spots, as the saying goes.

Posted by: a former european at June 19, 2013 11:41 PM

I think the word "permitted" is susceptible to some interpretation.

Obviously no commander can keep off duty people from breaking rules in the first place, and I'm not aware of any extant law (military or civilian) that criminalizes failure to prevent the acts of a 3rd party committed without your knowledge. Though obviously, I could be wrong as I'm not an attorney. But there's also "permitted to continue without punishment", which was more how I read this. If a commander knows things are going on, and the people in the command know he knows it (because he's been told several times), and he does nothing, that's a different story. Now he has sent a message: "Infractions of this rule will not be punished - I'll just ignore reports of wrongdoing". Normally, one would expect the incidence of unpunished infractions to increase in such a command climate.

My points, which I did not explain all that well, were fairly subtle ones. In his first or second comment, Grim put forth a situation that gave the commander the benefit of the doubt (and that's fine). My response gives the folks who complained (Concerned Alaskans) that same benefit of the doubt:

1. If you were a soldier in a command where the CO repeatedly refused to punish infractions that everyone knew about, would you file a complaint under your own name? I agree that would be the best tactic, but I can also understand why someone might file an anonymous complaint, relying on the higher command to investigate. When you see rules being flagrantly ignored, you lose confidence in the system. So, "Concerned Alaskans" may very well be "Concerned soldiers in this command", and several references in the linked articles strongly suggested that it was in fact troops who complained.

2. People's willingness to stay out of other people's business generally extends only so far as "other people's business" does not affect them. IOW, if you're in a command where you have confidence the rules are enforced, you're probably not going to get upset over a racy charity calendar starring the CO's wife.

If, on the other hand, you are in a command where female soldiers are openly trading sex with officers for special treatment and adultery (also involving officers) is winked at, a racy calendar starring your CO's wife now looks like a symptom of a much larger problem. You're bound to be more upset about it than you would be, otherwise.

3. If, on top of everything else, said racy calendar was shot by one of the people involved in the very fraternization/adultery you're already angry about, that doesn't help matters much.

Can you see my point now? Not saying this is what happened, because I don't have all the facts. I'm just throwing out the counterpart to Grim's original benefit of the doubt scenario.

Over the years as we moved from command to command, I watched my husband conduct various investigations into complaints lodged by people in the command. There were many times when I thought to myself, "Oh, please. That's really kind of dumb/nosy - don't these people have better things to do than stir up trouble?" I tended to give the accused the benefit of the doubt by default. I learned by experience that this was a bit naïve.

Often as the investigation unfolded all kinds of stuff would come out. Sometimes, the final complaint that reaches the command isn't what the real problem is about. But often, there's still a real problem. Like you, I tend to view anonymous complaints with suspicion. I would complain under my own name, but then I'm an officer's wife and an officer's daughter and one of the very first lessons I learned is that a lot of junior enlisted folks don't trust officers (or NCOs) as far as they can throw them.

Sadly, sometimes that mistrust is not always without reason. So I can see why junior personnel might not come forward under their own names.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 20, 2013 06:30 AM

Brace yourself, afe :)

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

...then there is Grim's point of where, exactly, he would presume the authority to tell the female soldiers what they can and cannot do with their bodies during off-duty hours -- to include, quite frankly, having illicit affairs within their ranks.

Well, he has authority to tell anyone in the command not to violate the UCMJ. He can do it impersonally by reminding everyone of the rule and stating that violations (pun fully intended :) will not be tolerated. And frankly, that's probably how I'd address nonspecific accusations that people were fooling around first: by firing a warning shot or two.

People do all sorts of dumb things on remote duty stations. If there's no fun to be had locally, they make their own. I'm not in favor of being a martinet, but by the same token I've seen the devastation that military affairs and adultery wreak on commands. I've told this story before, but several years ago our next door neighbor was caught having an adulterous affair with a female officer. Both were battalion commanders.

The fallout from that spectacular train wreck continued for a very long time, and there was a lot of collateral damage.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 20, 2013 06:38 AM

Well, gosh. Okay then.

Posted by: a former european at June 20, 2013 02:48 PM

Uh oh. He's about to go all Sheik Mohammed on me :p

/running away

Posted by: Cassandra at June 20, 2013 02:57 PM

Gosh Casssandra, you are provoking 'sea stories.'

I was on the commissioning crew of a ballistic missile submarine. A little while before commissioning the crew fully staffs up to the point where the 'BLUE' and 'GOLD' can be separated into two separate crews for patrol operations.

We had a few spectacular affairs involving guys from opposite crews romancing the wives of the other crew that they met while we were 'together.'
- one involved a junior officer 'taking away' the wife of a JO on the other crew (big time risky),
- one involved some local enlisted guy romancing a fellow division officer in my dept and next door neighbor's wife,
- and one was between an enlisted sailor and the wife of a guy in the *same division* on the other crew . . .
> and that guy committed suicide!

Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at June 21, 2013 08:47 PM

I must be boring or something. I was often tempted but could never bring myself to betray my husband that way.

Years ago when I was going back to school as an adult, one of the young Marines in my classes was going through a divorce. His wife had cheated on him - he was just devastated. It was some low life guy who lived down the street waiting for the opportunity (a deployment).

It was kind of surprising b/c this Marine was really very good looking and a bit of a flirt, but he actually took his marriage seriously.

I've never forgotten that.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 21, 2013 09:06 PM