ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on September 27th, 2012 at 7:20 am

Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair Charged With Various Sex Crimes

Via a flood of reader tips comes this story of the 82nd Airborne Division’s Assistant Division Commander getting charged with various crimes:

An Army general who was sent home early from Afghanistan in May has been charged with forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct and other crimes in an alleged sex scandal involving female subordinates.

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, who was deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan, also was charged with illegally possessing alcohol and pornography while deployed, mistreating subordinates and abusing a government travel charge card.

The Army announced the charges late Wednesday at Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82nd Airborne. Sinclair, a 27-year veteran with two master’s degrees, faces a preliminary hearing, known as an Article 32, to determine whether the charges should proceed to a court-martial. No date was set for the hearing.

Fort Bragg officials declined to provide details of the charges, which also include filing fraudulent claims. Sinclair was informed of the charges two days ago but was not immediately arrested.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but what if this guy did is true his crimes far surpass what Colonel Johnson did as commander of the 173rd Airborne Brigade.  The only incident I can even think of that is comparable to this was when Canadian General Daniel Menard the commander of Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan was sacked after letting a key bridge get bombed, an accidental discharge in a helicopter with a senior Canadian General aboard, and then finally having an extra-marital affair with a corporal in Afghanistan.  Some interesting parallels with this story is that General Menard and Sinclair were both based out of Kandahar Airfield.  Also according to a Stars & Stripes commenter Colonel Johnson and BG Sinclair both served together in the 75th Ranger Regiment in the mid-90′s.  If convicted of his crimes Sinclair should of once again be serving with Johnson in Leavenworth, but it will be interesting to see if like Johnson, Sinclair gets off light with just a fine.

Tags: , , ,
  • The Sanity Inspector
    8:25 am on September 27th, 2012 1

    Let justice be swift and public.

  • Retired GI
    9:19 am on September 27th, 2012 2

    He will be fined and that will be the end of it. Damn females and their Officers.

    Now if he had been having butt sex with a handsome young Male, he wouldn’t be getting FINED now.

    Question: What is the difference between a man’s bung hole and a woman’s bung hole?

    See…he should have been with a man. Those females are nothing but trouble!

    As an Officer, he should have been intelligent enough to have picked a man to have butt sex with!

  • 2 ID Doc
    4:51 pm on September 27th, 2012 3

    He’s flag rank, the rest of the stars will step and cover his , ahem well cover him. He will pay a fine and retire.

  • Leon LaPorte
    9:52 pm on September 27th, 2012 4

    I would remind my fellow ROKheads that rank has its privileges. Please refrain from denigrating this fine officer. List his merits and be thankful for his service.

  • jim
    4:01 am on September 28th, 2012 5

    #4, rhip during periods of good service. he may have had merits in the past, but such egregious misconduct in the present from an officer – a general, no less – ought to be handled as strictly as possible. such is the standard to which we hold commissioned officers.

  • Leon LaPorte
    8:37 am on September 28th, 2012 6

    5. Got to take the good with the bad, old chap; for richer or poorer, in sickness as in health.

    /don’t take any plug nickles

  • Glans
    10:30 am on September 28th, 2012 7

    Show respect for a general orificer.

  • Leon LaPorte
    4:49 pm on September 28th, 2012 8

    It’s a good thing he wasn’t a Rear Admiral!

  • azretired
    9:57 pm on September 29th, 2012 9

    Retired GI: a BJ is sodomy. He is a Ranger, probably not a Rump Ranger. Slick Willy told us that a BJ is not sex. Maybe he will be called as a witness…

  • Teadrinker
    3:40 am on September 30th, 2012 10


    Forcible and consensual are not the same thing.

  • Retired GI
    6:59 am on September 30th, 2012 11

    Azretired : WOW, I had no idea that “a BJ is sodomy”. Are you sure?

    Teadrinker : I gota give you a “WOW” also for your #10. That was a revelation.

    Back to Azretired. So you’r telling me that Rangers are known to like a little tube steak but have an aversion to Rump humping?

    (I feel so much better about the high standards of the Rangers now)

    Amyway, since it seems I must explain my #2 comment, I was pointing out the error of having any kind of sex with a female in todays Army, and that it would have been A-OK if he picked a Male for a playmate. Also that as an Officer, he should have known better than to play with ANYONE unless they were of higher rank. (Females are smart like that)

    As for “Forcible and consensual” Teadrinker, I have noticed that it often starts out consensual and is later reported as forcible. Reasons vary from; being caught, seeking revenge, power play to simply trying to get him to leave his wife.

    Azretired, did you notice this: “forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct and other crimes in an alleged sex scandal involving female subordinates”.

    I believe the key words here are “forcible” and “sodomy”. So he has, in fact been charged with being a “Rump Ranger”.

    Your statement of, “He is a Ranger, probably not a Rump Ranger” incorrect. Question: What is the difference between a male and female “Rump”?
    Answer: An assshole is an assshole

    No matter what type of hole you like, I would have thought an Officer of ANY RANK would know better. It seems that no matter how well educated you are, it doesn’t prevent you from being a total Idiot in dailey life.

    Amen? Amen!

  • tom langley
    7:24 pm on September 30th, 2012 12

    There are numerous incidents of NCO’s totally losing their careers over similar types of crap including a former SMA. I hope he has a PCS to the military prison at Ft Leavenworth, KS. I’m sure in his career that he has overseen the courts martial of numerous NCO’s for similar crimes. Two masters degrees & like Retired GI says he still is an idiot.

  • Leon LaPorte
    7:26 pm on September 30th, 2012 13

    Bringing back the WAC’s would go a long way in rectifying this situation for all involved.

  • Retired GI
    4:47 am on October 1st, 2012 14

    Leon in #13 is so very CORRECT.

    I love that women want to serve in the Military!

    But as any drama on tv will show, men and women will find eachother and often without good intentions.

    I suspect that the General’s interaction with said lower ranking female started off with both in AGREEMENT on bending over the Generals desk.

    Women been using that to get their way since the sun first shined. An Officer should have known better. Even an NCO should know better, but most of them don’t have one Degree, much less two. Someone has to make sure the work gets done afterall.

  • Leon LaPorte
    5:30 am on October 1st, 2012 15

    14. I’ve been meeting many NCO’s with degrees. In a way, it makes them doubly suspect. After all, if they have the qualifications to go officer…

    I mean how many E-’s with Masters degrees do we need?

  • Teadrinker
    5:33 am on October 1st, 2012 16

    “As for “Forcible and consensual” Teadrinker, I have noticed that it often starts out consensual and is later reported as forcible. Reasons vary from; being caught, seeking revenge, power play to simply trying to get him to leave his wife.”

    I thought you might be clueless after I read “Now if he had been having butt sex with a handsome young Male, he wouldn’t be getting FINED now”, but now I know you are.

  • Glans
    8:45 am on October 1st, 2012 17

    Retired GI, the sun shone billions of years before there were any women or men.

  • Chris In Dallas
    9:51 am on October 1st, 2012 18

    11: Gotta agree. I don’t know all that much about homosexuals (abnormal psych didn’t fit in my undergrad schedule) but the idea of a dude turning in another dude for the rough stuff seems off. Then of course the Army doing something about such an incident seems in doubt even if the General’s boyfriend did take it higher up. After all, these are gays we’d be talking about; a special inerest group which has already been formally allowed to flaunt 2 centuries of tradition by being allowed to wear their uniforms to an event which (at the least) had the aura of a political rally. I could see a decent chance of such a matter being swept under the rug.

  • setnaffa
    10:01 am on October 1st, 2012 19

    #17, “the sun shone billions of years before there were any women or men”… please show your work…

    That “science” isn’t “settled” either… has a few PhD types with evidence that a person open to actual science might enjoy…

  • Scientist
    1:04 pm on October 1st, 2012 20

    Setnaffa has a grand sense of humor.

    The linked website leaves one dizzy with circular “logic” in support of faith-based creationism while condemning evidence-based evolution. The writing was heavier on emotion than facts and was written in simple English designed to target a scientifically-ignorant audience.

    What creationists fail to understand/admit is that all discoveries which have shown some part of the Theory of Evolution to be “wrong” actually have strengthened the overall case for evolution as they have further clarified and refined aspects of the current theory while in no way contradicting the premise.

    Two thousand years of creationism have accomplished nothing more tangible in its believers than overwhelming guilt and fear of the truly unknown.

    A hundred and fifty years of evolution have logically assembled parts of a complex puzzle that fit seamlessly between established principles of biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics and geology; and have bought mankind a continuously increasing level of true understanding of a greater truth.

    Like the earth revolving around the sun, eventually Christianity will come to accept evolution with whatever rationalization is necessary to fit it in with Christian creationist dogma.

    Until that time, rational thinkers must patiently endure organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research.

  • setnaffa
    1:53 pm on October 1st, 2012 21

    The scientific method involves using repeatable processes, measurements, observations.

    Evolution allegedly takes millions of years, yet there are no transitional fossils. The Scientist should explain how “the big bang” and “punctuated equilibrium” can be demonstrated in a lab.

    The ICR folks actually have impressive array of nerdy professors and advanced degrees from well-respected universities. But “poisoning the well” suits their detractors’ purposes better. No Adam and Eve means no Original Sin and no need for Christ. And that is precisely the point of Evolution. It’s a religion, not a science. And I’d be happy if those of you who support it would just admit no one was there taking measurement, so it’s all educated guesses–instead of trying to force your religion on little kids in public schools.

    Meanwhile, look at what Mount Saint Helens did in 9 days. No, really, make the trip and do some actual science instead of being a couch potato… Tell me again how 220 layers of sedimentary rock require millions of years as you look at the 220 new layers laid by one eruption… And apparently standard methods of radiometric dating indicates they’ve been there millions of years, not just since May 1980…

    As to circular reasoning, ask a geologist and a paleontologist how old a rock with a fossil is and have fun… The geologist will tell you a date based on the what the paleontologist guesses about the fossil and the paleontologist will base the age of the fossil on the number of layers of rock and the geologist’s guesses… :mrgreen:

  • setnaffa
    1:56 pm on October 1st, 2012 22

    Tell us about how the glaciers in the Himalayas are all melting, too…

  • JoeC
    3:27 pm on October 1st, 2012 23


    Lord, help us. :roll:

  • Retired GI
    3:48 pm on October 1st, 2012 24

    “I thought you might be clueless after I read…” At least I made a point. I don’t see one in this quote from you. Care to explain? After all, I don’t have a clue…HELP ;-)

  • Leon LaPorte
    4:17 pm on October 1st, 2012 25

    Setnaffa, Christianity itself has evolved over time.

    You require absolute concrete proof for evolution yet require no proof to support your beliefs and assertions; interesting, and hypocritical.

    You should shun all science, which makes use of many theories, for instance:
    1. The Atomic Theory
    2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy
    3. The Cell Theory
    4. The Germ Theory
    5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics
    6. The Theory of Evolution
    7. The Big Bang Theory
    8. Chaos Theory
    9. The “Gaia” Theory of a Sustainable Earth which is illustrated with the idea of Spaceship Earth
    10. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
    11. The Theory of Special Relativity which subsumes The Theory of General Relativity which subsumes Newtonian theories of motion
    12. The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
    13. The Theory of Electromagnetism as begun by Maxwell and continued with the work of others
    14. The Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory
    15. The Theory of Molecular Bonds
    16. The Theory of States of Matter—or is this part of the Atomic Theory and the Molecular Bond Theory?
    17. The Theory of Thermodynamics—hey, I guess this theory takes care of the States of Matter and the Molecular Bond theories.
    18. The Theory of Homeostasis within Living Organisms
    19. The Constructivist Theory of Learning
    20. The theories of self and development of mental processes in the brain.
    21. Theory of Gravity

    Many of these theories are in use daily in technology and how we generally interact with the universe, on the macro and micro levels.

    Number 21, the theory of gravity… Go ahead jump off a building. Stop using the internet and GPS. Stop using modern medicine, they are the tools of Satan and a religion. Your faith will protect you.

    Scientists, we need more like you.

  • setnaffa
    5:03 pm on October 1st, 2012 26

    Some folks might want to note the Bible hasn’t changed, and not to project so much… Romans 1:22…

    BTW, #7 is currently shunned by atheists who think it resembles “Let there be light”…

  • Leon LaPorte
    5:14 pm on October 1st, 2012 27

    26. No, the bible hasn’t changed, folks just ignore the parts they don’t like, or would land them in jail or make them social outcasts. I stand by the assertion that a 2nd century Christian would not recognize a modern one.

  • Leon LaPorte
    5:20 pm on October 1st, 2012 28

    26. The Bible was divided into chapters in the thirteenth century by Stephen Langton and into verses in the sixteenth century by French printer Robert Estienne.

    Groups within Christianity include differing books as part of one or both of these “Testaments” of their sacred writings—most prominent among which are the biblical apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.

    Significant versions of the English Christian Bible include the Douay-Rheims, the RSV, the KJV, the ESV, the NKJV, and the NIV. For a complete list, see List of English Bible translations.

    So many choices.

  • setnaffa
    9:01 pm on October 1st, 2012 29

    And so many feeble folks unable to do even basic research… Wiki doesn’t count…

    If you want to know about the Bible, pick one up and read it. Most folks say the New American Standard is an easier read…

    But your red herrings encourage me to point folks to A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix for a scholarly explanation of where we got our Bible and why we believe it is unchanged, despite numerous assaults from Gnostic cults in the 4th Century, Antisemitic Germans in the 19th Century, and Muslims in the 21st… Or Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands A Verdict if you want something more at the level of your online prose…

  • setnaffa
    9:10 pm on October 1st, 2012 30 offers many languages and translations; but if you don’t belief there is a God, that He wants to make Himself known to you, and the Bible has survived for precisely that reason, you probably should read Romans 1:18-32 and see if it resembles anything around you…

    And if General Sinclair had spent more time reading his Bible, he might have avoided this disgrace. We’re all sinners. We all need a Savior. The very best we can be is a messenger, only God is Holy. But He gives us peace inside (Philippians 4:4-9).

  • Scientist
    10:24 pm on October 1st, 2012 31

    Setnaffa, you poor thing. The Church has used your ignorance of science against you to condemn complex concepts beyond your understanding while molding you into a fanatic supporter of obvious and self-serving myth, possibly only to collect your tithe.

    - The scientific method involves using repeatable processes, measurements, observations.

    It also involves creating theories which explain these processes, measurements and observations. It then involves numerous people and organizations creating experiments to test these theories from every angle. When a theory consistently gives the expected results and correctly explains phenomena in many different fields, it begins to be accepted as a closer approximation of the truth.

    So far, the Theory of Evolution explains, and has predicted, many tangible results. Creationism has explained absolutely nothing.

    - Evolution allegedly takes millions of years, yet there are no transitional fossils.

    This is absolutely untrue. Every year new fossils are found. Some of them are transitional. None of them go against the Theory of Evolution. They add depth of understanding. For example, the increasingly clear link between dinosaurs and birds is rapidly filling with transitional fossils. There are also living animals which, due to successfully filling an unchanging niche, represent transitional organisms.

    This is also true with humans, not just in the fossil record but also in verification of real-world observations supporting mathematical genetic models.

    - The Scientist should explain how “the big bang” and “punctuated equilibrium” can be demonstrated in a lab.

    The Big Bang was theorized through the certainty of mathematics. Over the last hundred years, “processes, measurements and observations”, from the accidental discovery of cosmic background radiation to the intentional “mini-Big Bang” in the Large Hadron Collider, have all matched the mathematically-predicted model.

    The conclusion is that you, like many Christians, live in a parallel reality where scientists just make up theories to malign Christianity and nobody checks to see if they fit the entire body of scientific knowledge based on billions of combined “processes, measurements and observations”.

    Claiming something to be untrue simply because you fail to understand how the conclusion was reached does not make it untrue. This is a major flaw in all anti-evolution/anti-science propaganda. It preys on the ignorance of the followers.

    It is odd to deny a theory which fits well with observations across every scientific field to be untrue yet believe fully in a several thousand year-old ghost story that defies every observation ever made by anyone. But religion is no stranger to hypocrisy.

    Evolution is not a religion. It is based on complex facts which are based on less-complex facts which are based on facts you can understand. If you care to conduct your own experiments from the beginning, you will draw the same conclusions.

    Religion is based on faith with absolutely no tangible “processes, measurements and observations”. In fact, when studies are done to assess the power of religion, short of the placebo effect, the results are always nil.

    Good luck preaching the Word, Setnaffa. in 2000 years, it has accomplished absolutely nothing but bring poverty, misery and stagnation.

    In a couple hundred years, “science” has healed more blind, cured more lepers, resurrected more dead and provided far more loaves, fishes and wine, than Jesus ever dreamed.

  • Pax
    5:54 am on October 2nd, 2012 32

    I’ll now quote the greatest Canadian rock band ever: Rush

    We can walk our road together
    If our goals are all the same
    We can run alone and free
    If we pursue a different aim

    Let the truth of love be lighted
    Let the love of truth shine clear
    Armed with sense and liberty
    With the heart and mind united
    In a single perfect sphere

    Religion and Science are both parts of a whole. To deny one and accept only the other as truth is folly. Both are quests for understanding, one of the spiritual and the other of physical reality. But when relgions stop qustioning the nature of the devine, and settle into hardend patterns of belief, you get maniacs with explosive vests killing for their “reward” of eternal paradise. When science ossifies into dogmatic, rigid systems of thought, you get equally maniaical, atom-bomb wielding totalitarians bent on eradicating the untermensch.

    Balance people – Balance; Peace out

  • Scientist
    8:24 am on October 2nd, 2012 33


    - Religion and Science are both parts of a whole.

    No. They are not. You have confused philosophy and religion. Most, but not all, religions do not encourage a greater understanding of anything but their dogma and one’s submissive place within it.

    Philosophy is indeed important to science as, among other reasons, guidance on what big questions to ask and how to find the answers. But true philosophy does not manufacture arbitrary deities nor claim to have answers that it does not.

    I should add that, while many with evil intent have used science as a tool, it is ludicrous to blame “science”. Science is nothing more than an attempt to understand the universe (and beyond) in a rational and methodical way.

  • Scientist
    4:04 am on October 7th, 2012 34

    Setnaffa, you made some direct statements which seem to be false. Why do you offer no further explanation to justify your passionate beliefs?

    You are not being forced to give up your beliefs. You are simply being asked to explain upon what basis you believe them to be more correct than those of an evolutionist.

    If you cannot defend your belief structure, perhaps it would be wise to consider that it might be misguided.

  • Obama's Speech Coach
    5:09 am on October 7th, 2012 35

    Romans 1:22…

  • Obama's Speech Coach
    5:16 am on October 7th, 2012 36

    This isn’t an Evolution vs. Creation blog.

    You can take up the science with the folks at ICR.

    I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me; and your assertions that there are transitional (as opposed to merely extinct) forms doesn’t make it so. Your suggestion that a mathematical model can substitute for actual experimentation is likewise a bit fluffy.

    But, carry on. You’ll find out the truth eventually.

  • Scientist
    9:42 pm on October 7th, 2012 37

    Oddly enough, a mathematical model placed a probe on Mars within meters of its predicted location. That is a pretty good substitute for it being done “experimentally” with a guy and a joystick.

    Correctly done mathematical models do not exist in vacuum. They are verified experimentally and the results are matched to the entire multidisciplinary body of human knowledge. If they fail to explain or predict, they are rejected.

    Those who disbelieve in the power of mathematical models simply do not understand mathematical models, or science in general.

    Those who proclaim the truth in all-powerful ghosts and ancient zombie stories yet refuse to believe the verifiable results of hundreds of years of human experimentation and observation which fit well within the entire framework of human knowledge and experience don’t need to be taken too seriously in real-world issues.

    While religions have a large financial stake in denying evolution and promoting their own mythologies, evolutionary researchers do not. In fact, they would likely shower in grant money and become more famous than Darwin if they could show evolution to be wrong.

    Tell me, do you have enough faith in your god to stop using any science-created products? Will you give up all pharmaceuticals (increasingly designed and simulated with mathematical models) and let your all-powerful god heal you? Will you stop driving a crumple zone and air-bag equipped car (designed and simulated with mathematical models) and let your all-powerful god protect you from harm? Will you stop looking both ways when you cross the street? Eat pork raw? Pop zits with HIV positive needles? Do you honestly trust your god more than science?

    You are holding Romans 1:22 by the sharp end.

    10:01 pm on October 7th, 2012 38

    As a Christian it is easy to believe that God gave us the powers of understanding math, solving problems in a scientific manner, and creating things that make our lives easier (agriculture, medicine, you name it). As a Christian it is also easy to believe that evolution DID occur and IS occurring because who the hell are we to say what 1 or 7 days is in God’s time? That could be millions of years. Are some Christians so naive that they honestly believe God works in 24 hour periods? “Forever was and forever shall be” means that a being is timeless. 7 days to create the world is what a human wrote.
    God (whatever power you choose to believe in) blessed us with science and math and blessed us with the ability to solve problems in a scientific manner. Maybe fundamentalist Christians should embrace what they have been blessed with instead of taking the easy way out by regurgitating old testament writings.
    ALSO: The only thing more annoying than an ignorant Christian spouting off about creationism is an ignorant Atheist calling people stupid. Just accept each other. You each might learn something in the process (that is a general statement, not specific to people on this thread)

  • Glans
    4:42 am on October 8th, 2012 39

    After some initial hesitation, the Catholic Church gradually came around to accepting evolution. This Wikipedia article gives a pretty good history of it.


RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 58847 access attempts in the last 7 days.