The New York Times reports on a rape victim sorta, kinda, almost recanting her story here.  Surprise, it's one of those "hysterical Hispanic women" in another country that are a disposable part of the US economy.  Yeah, it's the Subic rape case:

"A Filipino woman who won the conviction of a Marine for raping her in 2005 in a contentious yearlong case that strained Philippine-American relations now says she has “doubts,” and might have been “too friendly” and made him think she was willing to have sex."

Reports of the rape at the time say:

"Nicole had accused Smith of sexually assaulting her while she was drunk on Nov. 1, 2005, while Silkwood, Duplantis and Carpentier cheered him on inside a rented van.  Nicole had testified that the incident happened inside a moving van at the former US Naval base at Subic Bay after a night of drinking with Smith....

In a 63-page decision, Pozon said Smith took advantage of the victim after the latter got drunk inside a bar on the night of the attack.  Judge Pozon said the severe penalty was aimed "to protect women against the unbridled bestiality of persons who cannot control their libidinous proclivity." 

The verdict said Nicole was so intoxicated that she could not have consented to sex, pointing to testimony that Smith carried her, "like a pig," to a van where the incident occurred.  The court ruled that Smith was fully aware of the physical condition of the victim and that she was drunk because he even carried her out of the Neptune Club on his back."

Someone who's too drunk to walk is not capable of consent.  It doesn't matter how friendly she was.

So how was this recantation obtained?  GMANews.TV says an employee of the law firm that represented the rapist took her statement:

“My conscience continues to bother me realizing that I may have in fact been so friendly and intimate with Daniel Smith at the Neptune Club that he was led to believe that I was amenable to having sec or that we simply just got carried away," a portion of Nicole’s sworn statement read.

The statement was signed March 12, 2009 and was notarized by Abraham Rey Acosta from a Makati City notary public.

In the radio interview, Ursua disclosed that Acosta is from the same law firm whose services Smith hired.

“Nakita ko kagabi ang notary public, abogado rin ni Smith, kasi member siya ng law firm… Ang abogado ni Smith ang Sycip Salazar [I learned last night the notary public is a lawyer of Smith. He is a member of the law firm Sycip Salazar that represents Smith]. It raises more questions," Ursua said in an interview on dzXL radio.

Interesting.

Why does she waffle on this now?  She says her conscience is bothering her.  That could be true, though it's hard to know if it really should bother her or if she's bought into the "you deserved it" rape apologist mentality.  She's just moved to the US and is marrying an American man.  Maybe she's tired of being that horrible woman who ruined that nice young man's life.

She may be sick of the whole thing, too, because she got a lot of grief and little compensation for the whole mess.  According to the NYTimes article, she received $2,062.  From the GMANews.tv story, the rape victim's mother said

“Pagod na pagod na kami. Tama na. Wala kaming nakikitang tulong sa gobyerno. Ang gumagawa naman ng lahat ay si Attorney Ursua [We are so tired and we have given up hope. We have yet to see government’s assistance. The only one who is working is Attorney Ursua]," she said, referring to their former lawyer, Evalyn Ursua.

Hmm, so the Philippine government doesn't support her.  You'd think they'd care about their citizens.  Wonder why they didn't step up here?  Well, turns out there's a framework to this besides the main one of patriarchy, a big reason for her to decide that it was all just a mistake:

After the corporal’s conviction, the wrangle over which country should have custody of him strained American-Philippine military relations, leading to the delay of an annual bi-national military exercise in 2006. The case became a rallying point for nationalists who wanted Manila to abrogate an agreement that allowed American troops in the Philippines and that the United States said allowed it to keep responsibility for Corporal Smith.

Ahh.  If she says it wasn't rape, then relations between the US military and the Philippines will smooth out. 

Stinks to me.

Now, you may be thinking, what if her recantation is right.  That is possible.  Maybe the accusation was forced by Philippine citizens who are anti-US-military.  Maybe she wasn't really raped, but she didn't feel safe saying this until she was no longer in the Philippines.  That's just as heinous as forcing her to say she wasn't raped even if she was, because it's still using the bodies of women and rape for political purposes.

Oh, and here's a little bonus bit for those who may be thinking of explaining that false accusations of rape are common:   if it's so darn common, how come it makes it into the newspaper when it happens?