ROK Air Force Chief of Staff Resigns Due to Sexual Harassment Scandal
The scandal of a ROK Air Force NCO that committed suicide after being sexually harassed/assaulted has led to the ROK Air Force Chief of Staff to step down:
![General Lee Seong-yong, chief of staff of the Air Force [YONHAP]](https://i0.wp.com/koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2021/06/04/87dca838-d338-43b3-9e78-c70ed37ff5bd.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
The top leader of the Air Force said Friday that he will step down from his post over the recent suicide of a female officer who reportedly took her own life due to unresolved sexual harassment by a fellow service member.
Joong Ang Ilbo
General Lee Seong-yong, chief of staff of the Air Force, sent a text message to reporters in the afternoon, saying that he “accepts grave responsibility of the recent situation and has decided to step down as of Friday.”
President Moon Jae-in said Friday that he agrees that Lee will have to step down. The resignation will not be processed immediately in order for Lee to be probed as a member of the military.
You can read more at the link.
That’s a good start. The Squadron, Wing, and Base commanders need to follow suit. Along with all those who pushed the girl to recant. No pensions if they hesitate.
And there need to be prosecutions and convictions for those closest to the situation. Need a fresh start to clean the stench out.
Or they can, through their inaction, just tacitly admit that Korean men think women join the military so they can be comfort women.
If this guy treated this matter seriously when it reached his desk, a life may have been saved and he would be still wearing the uniform until he retired.
Air Force has a culture of letting Sexual Assault go unpunished.
My spouse traveled with General Franklin recently.
After being forcibly retired (and losing a star) for making a decision as Convening Authority which woke scolds empowered only with monumental ignorance decided was wrong, he could not find employment for years.
He knew this would happen of course.
But he did the right thing anyway. He did not know the accused but he did stand by presumption of innocence even when it cost him everything.
I have no opinion on the ROK military, I’m not educated enough on it to comment.
For those interested in educating themselves on the case I mentioned, with all FOIA information available it can be read here (if the link works):
https://a.co/idSg7qO
Thanks Liz. Good to know that not every Flag Officer gave up his spine.
He is a really good person, setnaffa.
Very devout Christian.
After this happened, someone told him (he was on the path to a fourth star), “You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time”. And he said, “No, I think I was in the right place at the right time”. He is the real deal.
Obviously this is a person Deborah James, excuse me, Satan, would try to destroy.
The same ole schtick, keep telling the BIG Lie and discount all opposite opinions. What a shame what we have become.
If you’re familiar with the case you are free to provide opposing evidence OT. I’m sure you’re very knowledgable about it form the sound of things.
Just sift through the FOIA material I linked to above.
Obviously this is pretty personal for me and you like to bring it up a lot.
So shame on me, eh?
By now you should be aware of the person defining the narrative they want put out. The Victors write the history books. Who had what to lose? Who had what to win? Think about it.
Okay, OT, the victors here were:
The worse than worthless secretary of the USAF at the time, politicianl woke scolds, and the media that wrote highly inaccurate information but at least they could fill their pages and screens with bullcrap.
General Franklin was excoriated, lost a star, and was subsequently unemployable. Anyone with respect for due process was also a loser here.
Politicians, and the worse than worthless secretary of the AF at the time, insisted he convict without evidence, and they did not review any of the facts of the case.
The accuser also won in that she was able to renew her contract, which she was worried about losing after her conduct (which she confided to a friend who offered testimony on behalf of the accused). She had a history of making assault claims and has since made another (in the civilian world).
Liz, forgive Old Tanker.
Not a terrible guy but sometimes it seems he took a few too many direct bazooka rounds to the cab of his halftrack.
If you ever see a old bulldozer operator waving an Antifa flag and wearing a pink pūssy hat, say hi.
I just figured he just got the wrong vaccine…
/jk
The old gang, circling the wagons. You guys own ROKKDROP. Sexual assault is wrong. No matter your rank or tenure. LTC and wifey pooh made out with their $$$.
Now I’m sure of it.
Old Tanker, we are probably in agreement on sexual assault.
Where do you stand on false allegations?
@Liz, I think people forget that it was the Airman Wright case that ultimately got Lt. Gen. Franklin fired. He got fired for being right! The airman was easily acquitted when it went to court martial and the judge reprimanded the Air Force’s top JAG officer for unlawful command influence in the case:
https://www.rokdrop.net/2015/11/100689/
Thanks for the link, GI, I had forgotten about that case. Franklin oversaw five sexual assault cases as convening authority and acquitted two, convicted three.
LTC and wifey pooh made out with their $$$.
They sure did. After serving over 20 years he was allowed to keep his retirement instead of being dishonorably discharged with a felony conviction, sans evidence, by an accuser with conflicting testimony disputed even by her own friends (one of whom was talking to her on the cell a good portion of that night, to include midnight when the wife was serving her tea and trying to get her to shut the hell up because kids were sleeping in the house and her loud ranting was waking everyone).
On the scale of things false accusations are worse than an actual assault. If you assaulted at least you could fight back….falsely accused you have no chance what so ever.
Agreed Flyingsword.
That’s why woke scolds love false the empowerment of false accusations of all kinds.
Presumption of innocence isn’t a thing for them.
Better to ruin someone’s life and give them no future, until they take their own.
Showing favor is a Biblical Principle. After he met Bathsheba and had her husband killed , David was punished, he did repent and lost a son.
Gen Franklin was full within his right to forgive the LTC and pardon him.
But to go the extra mile to declare it a false accusation is a bit much for me.
Gen Franklin was taking into account the years of dedicated service and potential harm to the family.
I’ve seen enlisted guys get busted for the same offence, the BN Co treated married guys different, well within his right. Single guy got maxed out, married guy just got the 45 days of extra duty, I don’t recall the married guy running around saying he was innocent.
This guy wishes Trump were President. Pardon me. Like the Navy SEAL.
https://www.stripes.com/Branches/Army/2021-06-08/Retired-Army-major-general-demoted-for-sex-crime-conviction-1656591.html
But to go the extra mile to declare it a false accusation is a bit much for me.
If you are talking about General Franklin, he did not declare it a false accusation. He said the accuser gave very conflicting testimony with no evidence to back her claims and could not identify very basic details that would have lended credibility to her claim. The stuff needed to convict a person beyond reasonable doubt.
Limited details also undermine her credibility (the history of false claims, not admitted as evidence at the hearing). Also the next day she did not get a medical exam for assault, but she did obtain a blood test to see if she was drugged (negative). It very much fits the pattern of a person who was blackout drunk and unable to remember anything while her imagination invented details.
OT, you’re needing to brush up on your Bible references.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness” was a thing. And those who did were sentenced to what they tried to put on their victim. Often death.
David’s adultery cost the life of a loyal soldier, the child, and 70,000 Israelites from a 3-day plague. Read about it…
Liars who refuse to confess their sin go to hell. And yet, you want to try to use the Bible to empower them. How is that legitimate?
Blaming people falsely accused after learning the accusation was false is just as bad as making the initial lie. You should repent and be saved. None of us want what we earned. See Romans 6:23. Choose life.
She could not say if he had a mustache, though she claimed his face was six inches form hers. She could not identify the room she supposedly slept in. She has no recollection of talking on the phone while drinking tea with the wife at midnight, though her friend too confirmed the conversation happened.
Don’t preach to me setnaffa, I am well founded in the Bible. I just gave you one example. Liz and the deep state AF wives club will never let this go. The woman assaulted was there supporting your “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” lifestyle overseas. I walked around a Base once when I was waiting for a MAC flight. Who is bearing false witness in this case??? The folks with the most to lose, or that little tramp your going to steamroll for messing with you?
Sorry, I don’t speak troll.
Oh, just for you OT, I got out my troll translator dictionary.
I can sort of make out some of this…
-Good to hear you’ve walked through a military base in your life.
Aviano has no base housing. Not sure how this is relevant.
-Good to hear you’ve taken a MAC flight.
I’ve never taken a MAC flight, but I did spend a week waiting for one when I was seven years old. Ah, memories…
-My “Lifestyles of the rich and famous”. Well, the accuser in this case was making a high income as a contracted healthcare provider than the accused. So much for that.
-“Trollop”- Never heard a fifty year old referred to as a trollop before.
My response in advance to any further intentional character assassinations on moi:
Sweet troll, brah!
Just because (OT you can disregard).
A few years back (about six if memory serves), a reserve unit went on a TDY and a similar situation happened. A female contractor became grossly inebriated. One of the pilots went back to his room and escorted her to hers so she wouldn’t pass out in the parking lot. Later, she called 911 after waking up in a puddle of vomit in her hotel room bathroom. Her shirt was off. Over the subsequent days (after refusing a drug test), she decided she must have been sexually assaulted. The SAPR person suggested she keep a “dream journal” because perhaps these memories could be recovered.
Well, they became increasing vivid until she pressed charges against the pilot who escorted her.
Fortunately the hotel was able to provide video evidence this was all her imagination. He took her to her room, she went in and he went to his. But that didn’t stop her…
Her husband started threatening to kill the pilot and they had to install safety precautions at work. They started stalking his family. Eventually he left the country for a job in the ME for three years to get away from the threats to his family.
Liz, you are wasting your time.
Some guys just put on their pink pùssy hat and Believe All Women.
…well, paradoxically, all women except the ones who make accusations against guys who promote the Believe All Women nonsense.
But don’t try to find rationality in the irrational.
Druggies and the mentally ill have little to contribute. There is no deeper wisdom in their random thoughts.
And what is now called liberalism is a mental illness… a foggy confusion resulting in trying to process cognitive directives that conflict with reality, and often conflict with each other.
You will have a more rational response talking to a dog… and, at least, you will get a friendly lick at the end rather than hateful speaking and accusations of racism when nothing you say can be countered with facts.
ROKKDROP Mafia in full mode now, defending each other in the usual way. Liz should recuse herself as having a personal interest in AF officers defense. Everyone else just ingratiating liz. Jury? what Jury? Let’s just discredit all AF officer’s honor. Well just not pilots and their wives.
I saw a Baseball game, a runner was called “OUT” when sliding into home. The runner’s team fans yelled wildly “SAFE, SAFE, YOU BUM”. The opposite team was joyous, “HE’s OUT, OUT!” Simple is better sometimes. RIGHT CH! Get it???????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_A._Franklin
Depends on if there was evidence the runner was out.
What is the point of that link, OT?
Thanks CH, yes i know I’m wasting my time.
Here is a briefer in the event that anyone else is as ignorant of the court martial process as OT (which seems to be just about every journalist who ever wrote an article on the subject, and every left wing politician, though the information is freely available).
Court martial boards “convict” by 2/3rds majority. Not unanimously, as a civilian trial would (with the exception, I think, of death penalty offenses). The appeals process is very limited in comparison to a civilian trial as well. This is why the USSC ruled long ago that the Constitution requires Convening Authority oversight of court martial boards. The Convening Authority is the ultimate arbiter.
In wiki: the “discovery of further sexual misconduct”…was not assault. If he had a history of assault that would have lended credibility to the inebriant’s complaint.
He had a child out of wedlock 12 years previous. It was adultery in that his other child was the same age (he had to pick one).
I do not know Wilkerson (I know Osto, who was fired at the time in connection with the case), I do know Franklin, and Rand (the general who demoted Wilkerson). Both Rand and Franklin are smart and honorable people, and I think they did the right thing. The politicians and journalists involved in this this should have all been fired.
And my last post on the court martial process.
There was another very similar case that blocked Lt. Gen. Susan Helms’ promotion around the same timeframe as the other case. Same politicians involved.
For exercising her judgement as Convening authority.
Her reputation was also attacked (though far less than Franklin’s)
In that case, Senator McCaskill publicly claimed that General Helms went against the advice of her legal council.
This was a fabricated lie, and her legal council wrote a response, published in the Wall Street Journal,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323393804578559583374805870
denying that claim.
Anyone interested in learning about the court martial process to read this in its entirety, it explains the process well:
After James Taranto published his op-ed, “General Helms and the Senator’s ‘Hold,’ ” he reported that a massive twit-storm had washed over him, since he infuriated hundreds of “feminists.” None of the comments, however, pointed to a single fact in the record of trial that Gen. Helms had overlooked. That confirms that Gen. Helms got it right.
Interspersed within the ad hominem attacks, a few persons also raised claims that deserve an answer: that Gen. Helms went against the advice of her lawyer, that she had no business exercising her “discretion” in a case like this one, and that she was not at the trial to see and hear the witnesses for herself. As the lawyer who advised Gen. Helms, I’d like to respond to them. But first I need to clarify a key difference between the military and the civilian justice systems.
Ever since it was adopted in 1775, the court-martial has been a tool for the commander. While the court-martial resembles a judicial proceeding, it is not part of the judicial branch of government. Whereas the jury’s verdict in civilian courts is considered final, the findings of a court-martial are not final until the commander approves them. By law, the commander must personally review the sentence before it can take legal effect. Congress provided for this review to safeguard against the occasional miscarriage of justice. The safeguard is needed, in part, because the military does not use juries.
A jury consists of 12 persons (in the federal system), randomly chosen from different walks of life, who must vote unanimously. The five-person court-martial panel that convicted Capt. Matthew Herrera was none of those things. The panel had features that, when found in a civilian jury, the Supreme Court is quick to condemn as unconstitutional. These features can diminish the quality of the deliberations, which can lead to unjust results. The Supreme Court has made clear that court-martial panels are not juries.
Now, to the advice I gave Gen. Helms. When I initially provided my written advice to her about the case, I had only looked for irregularities at the trial and assurance that the government had introduced some evidence to support the charged offense. My review involved traditional legal work. I did not independently assess the accused’s guilt or innocence. I was concerned solely with what we lawyers call the case’s legal sufficiency.
Gen. Helms’s review was for a very different purpose. She examined the case for its factual sufficiency. It was her statutory duty to do so. The fact that she was performing a statutory duty is important, because she has been unfairly criticized for exercising her “discretion” as if she had injected herself into a situation that was none of her business. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In performing her statutory duty, she carefully read all 1,054 pages of the record of trial. When she saw that the weight of the evidence supported Capt. Herrera and not the government on every material aspect of the case, she met with me repeatedly to express her concerns at what she was finding. After reviewing the entire record of trial, she was not satisfied that the government had met its burden of proving the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Before Gen. Helms made her decision to set aside the conviction, I came to agree with her evaluation of the case. At that point my previous advice to her was irrelevant.
True, neither of us was present at trial. The dynamics of the courtroom, including the witnesses’ demeanors, could not be captured in the record of trial. But the nonverbals should not be given too much weight when they are not observed by a proper jury. It is here that the potential for error is at its greatest. Properly constituted juries can be trusted to make value judgments about witnesses; the same cannot always be said of court-martial panels, which is why Congress provided the safeguards it now threatens to take away. Gen. Helms exercised her independent, professional judgment in reviewing Capt. Herrera’s case. Her integrity–and the law–required she make the right decision as she saw it.
Perhaps some people do not know that the court-martial is a tool of the commander and not a regular court of law, or that the court-martial panel that convicted Capt. Herrera was not a jury. There are also other critical differences between military tribunals and civilian courts. All of these differences may explain why some have not understood General Helms’s actions. But members of Congress familiar with the case should know better.
As you can read, OT has it exactly wrong.
Not only wrong but basically backwards.
Such is the mindset of the mob “empowered” with partial information that is worse than ignorance.
Anyone who believes in presumption of innocence, and thinks our military members should be as entitled to a fair trial as any civilian (the Wilkerson case would never have even made it to court for a civilian trial there just wasn’t enough evidence to even bring it to trial) should be concerned about the phenomenon of politically motivated prosecutions and firings.
I’d like to know if OT considers me part of a “mafia” (here or elsewhere) and if that constitutes racial bigotry based on my ancestry? Frankly, for Italians, that’s the “N-word”.
Similarly, if he wants to use the Bible as a reference in the future, could he provide links from a site like Biblegateway dot com? The reason being, I will be happy to provide links to pages and pages of analytical responses. We all need to be careful when using the Bible to try to support sinful actions.
Also, what he thinks slander/libel of strangers says about his own character? Strangers, as he was Army and the Courts Martial he brought up were Air Force.
No, really I don’t want any answers. I doubt he’d respond with anything but political talking points.
Liz, OT was in the military and likely has some awareness of all this.
But remember… we have already established that blind “liberalism” is a mental illness.
And you simply cannot have rational interaction with the mentally ill.
The conflict between the reality of courts martial and constitutuonal legal review and sensible judgement and the fantasies of All Men are Rapists and Believe All Women, etc., cannot exist in a rational mental framework.
Once this is understood, it becomes easy to deal with. It requires a great deal of effort to talk someone out of mental illness and generally requires a subject who recognizes the problem and wants to change. The chances of rationalizing with an irrational person is low.
Realizing this offers you the freedom to ignore them, ridicule them, treat them as a sub-functioning human, etc.
While it is not fashionable to abuse the mentally ill, this is a more successful strategy to end their mental illness. They cannot hold a rational conversation defending their irrational belief framework, but they can sometimes be abused into abandoning it… much like they were abused into adopting it by other mentally ill people offering them choices such as accept that All Whites Are Racist or be outcast as a Bigot.
This is the same psychology used to brainwash cult members, institutionalize prisoners, and create the Stockholm Syndrome.
You are truly free here to pity Old Tanker and try to guide him away from his dysfunction with the hope the rational parts of his mind might overrule the irrational.
Or you can ridicule him as a sub-human because he is incapable of fully demonstrating the human characteristic of fact-based reasoning.
I have given up on the mentally ill percentage of the American population… but I believe shock therapy will bring some of them around…
…shock therapy being inflation, disorder, poverty, hopelessness, etc.
I’m loving this! I write a few lines on what I think, and I get paragraphs of ridicule from folks who live in their own delusional dream world. Get a life, get away from the computer.
Lighten up, Gen F. makes guest appearance as Jesus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44gSb454-r0
Liz. Did the LTC or accuser submit to a polygraph? If the results confirm your allegations I will change my stance on this.
Apparently, CH was on target. OT no longer recognizes any (US-based) legal framework.
Meanwhile, he’s gone from quiting the Bible to mocking the Savior. Romans 1:18-32.
Seti, UCMJ is not a legal framework? Tell someone higher up the food chain than me. I never quit the Bible, look at yourself. Just a picture of Jesus descending, I don’t think he takes offense, it’s recognition of his importance in Society. I’m not going to cave to your all’s brutish, bullying behaviour. You all should be ashamed. BEST JOB I EVER HAD!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6VAy9y_iQ
“Did the LTC or accuser submit to a polygraph? If the results confirm your allegations I will change my stance on this.”
…and if you don’t float, I will believe you are not a witch.
Clearing or condemning someone based on a polygraph has about the same legitimacy as rolling chicken bones.
This is why they are generally inadmissible in court.
They are primarily used to bully low-intelligence criminals and influence low-education jurors in the court of public opinion.
Don’t worry, Tanker. We aren’t bullying you like we do with pedophiles. But we are certainly giving you a hard time for expressing opinions you cannot back up to people who have all likely seen more false allegations of sèxual assault than actual sèxual assault… and now showing faith in the black magic of lie detectors.
Sèxual assault allegation are a lot like the constant racist hate crime allegations…
– professional victim mentality
– desire for attention
– possible financial gain
– take attention off personal failures
– no evidence or refusal to present evidence
– story doesn’t add up
…and more often than not, the “victim” is a liar… or even the perpetrator.
No idea about sèxual assault… somewhere over 50% in my observation… and you can know immediately by knowing the values and background of the woman… and pretty much 100% for bacon-covered mosques, burned black churches, and poop swastikas.
OT, if you want your opinion respected, you should probably just tell Liz what evidence makes you believe the alleged victim over the alleged perpetrator. If you cannot do that, reevaluate your opinion. That will gain you respect rather than ridicule.
Liz, what evidence do you have that shows the LTC was innocent, and the accuser was guilty? Solid evidence, no he said she said. I got an open mind, I don’t trust the system when the deep state good ole boy good ole gurl network is in action. Can you prove the jury was influenced? Prove! Like OJ. or just I don’t trust women. LOL, look at who I’m trusting to tell the truth.
I had a friend when I was teenager. When his girl cousin came to visit, late at night he would go “creepin” into her bedroom. that’s what I see the LTC doing.
Come on, Tanker… don’t be goofy-insulting.
What evidence do you have that shows you have never sucked off a dog?
There is a good reason “innocent until proven guilty” is a thing.
A disturbing story about your creepy teenage friend really isn’t convincing evidence.
And, just to be sure here… and I will accept your word as a gentleman without any actual evidence, have you ever sucked off a dog enough?
You don’t seem to understand what presumption of innocence means.
I don’t have to prove she is “guilty”** he is the one who was charged with a crime without evidence.
**(though there is plenty of evidence she was blackout drunk and remembers nothing of that evening, and has changed her story, and did not obtain an exam which is pretty strange for a self described assault survivor who is trained in that field, however…I did provide a link to all the FOIA act information that is perfectly free and easy for you to peruse).
Me and Chickenhead was walking down the street one day. we saw a dog licking it’s dick. Chickenhead says, “I wish I could do that.” I replied “Try petting him first.” They had a goodtime in cheap Hotel. That was when Chickenhead took the name Chickenhead. IDK what that dog did that changed him for like. Dog semen must be bad for the brain. Note: I don’t like personal attacks but you deserve it.
Alternate Universe. Liz hates women who report sexual assault by Air Force Pilots. Setnaffa thinks all sexual assault reports are false. CH uses his extensive vocabulary to shoot down any thing that counters their opinion. Nuts in a nutshell. I’m done.
OT don’t read so good…
But that’s okay, cuz his banjo don’t work well, either…
Seti, I’m glad you weren’t with Jesus when the adulterous woman was brought before him, you would have thrown the 1st stone.
Tanker, the difference between my personal attack and yours is that mine had a point encoded within it… hoping an extreme personal example might kickstart some rational thinking which might be applicable to a less extreme example.
You cannot easily prove your innocence against false accusations that have no evidence. The legal system recognizes this, which leads to a presumption of innocence.
Likewise, many female “victims” of sèxual assault make accusations without evidence… and are frequently uncooperative with those trying to support them by collecting evidence.
This case, where you have chosen to Believe All Women, is a perfect example of this.
Your personal attack, accusing me of taking a dog to a hotel room so I could lock its dìck, seemed to have no point beyond… well… supporting my idea that it is difficult to defend oneself against accusations without evidence.
Thanks for proving my point, Tanker. Good job.
Protip: Using dog dìcks to support opposing viewpoints while exposing the irrationality of your own, and then declaring victory, is not a good debate strategy… nor a good life strategy.
I’m done.
You’re no longer going to gratuitously throw insults every time a sexual assault topic comes up? Thank God for small favors. You started this with one sentence. It’s far from the first time. Willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance.
The clear message: “HAHA! You’ve seen people’s lives ruined? I’m going to rub it in about how great that is and insult you while I’m doing it!” Every. Damn. Time.
For no reason (well, reasons you’ve never shared. Maybe some pilot kicked you in the junk once and you hope they’ll all go to prison for no reason now).
Sometimes you’ll just bring it up when it’s not even the topic.
Thanks, OT. I’ll take your word for it you are “done” now.
OT, I admit to being a sinner who needs the Savior; but I doubt anyone was even able to throw a stone at that particular moment.
In fact, whatever Jesus wrote in the dirt and their consciences was probably as painful to them as if He was throwing stones at them.
Misunderstanding the LORD is something we all do. I worry about my health and finances even though I have ample experience of being carried by God through some very deep water.
The God who created everything and still loved us enough to die for sinners who were doing their best to wreck everything is far beyond our power to understand fully.
Just be careful how you try to use His Word.