Secret video of mids alleged

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/07/navy_academydoctor_camera_070703w/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/07/navy_academydoctor_camera_070703w/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
A Navy doctor has been ordered tried by a general court-martial for allegedly secretly recording several Naval Academy students engaged in sexual activities and intimate conversations at his Annapolis, Md., home.</p>

<p>Cmdr. Kevin Ronan, who worked as a brigade medical officer and team doctor at the Academy before he was reassigned to the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery earlier this year, could face up to 11 years in prison, forfeiture of pay and allowances, dismissal from the Navy and loss of his medical license if he is convicted on all counts....

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/07_20-47/NAV%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/07_20-47/NAV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
A former Naval Academy physician charged with secretly videotaping midshipmen engaged in sexual activity at his Annapolis home was arraigned yesterday at the Navy Yard in Washington.</p>

<p>Cmdr. Kevin J. Ronan is charged with seven counts of conduct unbecoming an officer, one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of illegally videotaping or recording....

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan21jul21,0,6530883.story%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan21jul21,0,6530883.story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The Navy has set a date in the fall for the court-martial of a former Naval Academy doctor accused of videotaping midshipmen having sex in his Annapolis-area home.</p>

<p>Cmdr. Kevin Ronan, who worked at the academy until May 2006 as a brigade medical officer and physician for several varsity sports teams, will face the most serious form of military trial Oct. 29, a Navy spokesman said yesterday....

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_gayporn_071002/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_gayporn_071002/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
In a decision that could jeopardize a Navy physician’s career, a military judge ruled Monday that gay pornography found on the doctor’s computer can be used as evidence in his trial on charges that he videotaped U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen having sex.</p>

<p>Cmdr. Kevin J. Ronan is charged with seven counts of conduct unbecoming an officer, three counts of illegal wiretapping and one count of obstruction of justice. Prosecutors said the pornography establishes a motive for the alleged secret taping of the midshipmen....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>^^^^this just gets better and better. :(</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/10_02-36/NAV%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/10_02-36/NAV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Prosecutors will be allowed to show jurors some of the homoerotic images found on a former Naval Academy physician's computer during his trial on charges he secretly taped midshipmen having sex while guests at his Annapolis house, a military judge ruled yesterday.</p>

<p>The judge, Marine Col. Steven F. Day, said the collection of more than 2,200 pictures shows the doctor, Cmdr. Kevin J. Ronan, is predisposed to looking at sexually explicit materials....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Time to stop the quotes from the news sources and let each of us go out and read what we need to read. Don't mind the link but the text above really did not need to be here. IMO</p>

<p>Well, I appreciate the little excerpts. This whole thing is so bizarre.</p>

<p>I am curious about the proposed censorship . . . </p>

<p>Was the offensive word: "sex" or "homoerotic"?
Or was there something else by which we should have been offended?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cmdr. Ronan claims this mid is seeking to extort money from him, and the same day that he, Cmdr. Ronan, was arrested, he received a notice from his credit union showing that someone had stolen a credit card and charged $29.95 for a porn movie, and withdrawn $25,000 from various of his accounts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is the whole thing really is a set-up? Aren't we to presume innocence? It would be a pretty elaborate & heinous scheme, but not outside the realm of possibility, I guess...</p>

<p>this is one for the 'abnormal psychology' chapter--yuk!</p>

<p>Thank heavens I live in a blue state where:</p>

<ol>
<li>We acknowledge the fact that homosexuality exists (unlike Iran and other theocratic states)</li>
<li>We have s-e-x (and aren't offended by the mere thought)</li>
<li>We don't grab for the smelling salts and the fainting couch when someone quotes from a published newspaper article - on a blog that is designed for college-aged students and their parents. </li>
</ol>

<p>Just my $0.02. IMO.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am curious about the proposed censorship . . . </p>

<p>Was the offensive word: "sex" or "homoerotic"?
Or was there something else by which we should have been offended?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My point was only that with that type of press, the real issue gets muddied, now instead of being a situation where he violated (in taping the mids) the mids, it becomes an issue of his own sexuality. Even of this thread it was assumed that I was offended by the words - hardly the case. </p>

<p>Personally, the military should accept gays and lesbians. Acknowledging that "they exist" is lip service. In 2007 it is time to take all the best and brightest, even if their life style does not coincide with yours. No smelling salts needed here. Just hope that the "real" crime here is what is prosecuted, not his lifestyle which does not conform to an outdated military policy. </p>

<p>As for should we be offended by something else -
the fact that he may be gay should not come into this prosecution, </p>

<p>the fact that the military continues to discriminate against a portion of the american population...</p>

<p>"Prosecutors said the pornography establishes a motive for the alleged secret taping of the midshipmen...."--navytimes</p>

<p>^^^makes sense to me, but I guess they have to prove how these images got on his computer in the first place and who paid for the pictures. </p>

<p>NT, I share your position on gays & lesbians in the military. Congress has to change this because it's unlikely our current Supreme Court would consider it unconstitutional.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.</p>

<p>...When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion....</p>

<p>Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.</p>

<p>This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.</p>

<p>I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.</p>

<p>But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.</p>

<p>By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation's most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.</p>

<p>April 30, 2007</p>

<p>It is my long-held belief that every human being deserves dignity and respect. I often heart that phrase during my years at the United States Naval Academy; I carried it out as Commander-in-Chief, and it continues to animate my human rights work around the globe today. The nation's commitment to human rights requires that lawmakers revisit "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the current policy that prevents lesbians, gays, and bisexuals from serving openly in our armed forces.</p>

<p>"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the only law in America today that regulates a group of citizens then prohibits them from identifying themselves and speaking up on their own behalf. Gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are unable to tell their Member of Congress or their commander that the policy is an abject failure and they are living proof because they will face discharge. Those who defend our liberties and freedoms deserve better....</p>

<p>More than twenty-five nations have ended their bans, including the United Kingdom and Israel. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, our troops serve along side our NATO allies who allow gays to serve openly. As far as I can tell, our troops have not weakened or wavered despite the increasing integration of openly gay troops from our allies.</p>

<p>Since the current policy has been implemented, over 11,000 individuals have been removed from their positions in the military as soldiers, translators, and medics. Our military can be most effective if these dedicated individuals are allowed to serve.</p>

<p>The estimated 65,000 gay men and women who currently are serving our country honorably deserve our full respect. America always has been a beacon of hope for those who believe in human rights and individual dignity. The brave and dedicated men and women of our armed services also must benefit from this fundamental ideal.</p>

<p>Sincerely,
Jimmy Carter</p>

<p>^^^I agree with President Carter that the ban on gays openly serving in the US military is basically a human rights issue. On the other hand, I am not in any way defending Cmdr. Ronan's twisted and reprehensible alledged behavior. Don't they screen these people?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Those who defend our liberties and freedoms deserve better....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I too have to agree with President Carter. All the men and women who serve this great country deserve our full respect.</p>

<p>John M. Shalikashvili apprehension for lifting the ban due to the possible "alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track." </p>

<p>If we openly discriminate against a portion of the american population how can we even think that we are "getting this country on the right track?" Basic human rights issues more important than who we alienate.</p>

<p>I too am not defending Cmdr. Ronan's alledged behavior. Just do not want to see this turned into a prosecution for a military offense rather than the "original" alleged crime.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan10oct10,0,3974970.story%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan10oct10,0,3974970.story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
A military judge declined yesterday to allow prosecutors to argue that a Navy doctor accused of secretly taping midshipmen having sex in his Annapolis home deliberately altered his handwriting to keep a key piece of evidence from being linked to him.</p>

<p>Prosecutors had hoped to suggest that Cmdr. Kevin Ronan, who hosted midshipmen on nights and weekends as part of the Naval Academy "sponsor" program, purposefully disguised his handwriting in samples given to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service so that it would not match the writing on a DVD of midshipmen engaged in sex acts....

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_sexhandwriting_071010/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_sexhandwriting_071010/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Prosecutors won’t be able to use a handwriting argument in their case against a Navy doctor accused of secretly taping Naval Academy midshipmen having sex.</p>

<p>Prosecutors in the case against Cmdr. Kevin Ronan asked a military judge Tuesday to allow them to argue that Ronan deliberately altered his handwriting in samples given to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service so that it would not match the writing on a DVD of midshipmen engaged in sex acts.</p>

<p>Lt. Cmdr. Peter Clemow, the lead prosecutor, said it could be seen as “evidence of a guilty conscience.”...

[/quote]
</p>