[Vision2020] Cut the Strings to George III [Military Justice]

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

------------------------------
June 4, 2013
Cut the Strings to George III By MAUREEN
DOWD<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html>

WASHINGTON — You see glistening mermaid sightings on Animal Planet more
than you catch glimpses of vintage John McCain on Capitol Hill.

But there he was on Tuesday, succinctly saying what needed to be said about
the scourge of sexual assault cases in the military. Looking grimly at the
ribbon-bedecked white male heads of all the services testifying before the
Armed Services Committee, McCain scolded: “Just last night a woman came to
me and said her daughter wanted to join the military, and could I give my
unqualified support for her doing so. I could not.”

Are women who want to join the military now more afraid of being raped by
their brothers in arms than dying for their country?

The seven women on the committee are driving the mission to curb the plague
of sexual transgressions in the military, with 26,000 service men and women
assaulted in 2012.

“Women are not going to be turned away on this one,” Senator Claire
McCaskill of Missouri told me.

But men on both sides of the aisle were also pressing the top generals and
admirals, even though some, like Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of
Georgia, still seemed to be getting up to speed on the issue. “Several
years ago, when we had the first females go out on an aircraft carrier that
when they returned to port,” Chambliss said he recalled, “a significant
percentage of those females were pregnant.” Was any investigation done, he
asked, to determine whether those pregnancies were the result of
“consensual acts”?

The brass agreed there was a “cancer” in the military, but their rigid,
nonsensical response boiled down to: Trust us. We’ll fix the system, even
though we don’t really believe it’s broken.

They were unanimously resistant to the shift that several of our allies
have made, giving lawyers, rather than commanders, the power to take cases
to court. This even though they were having a hard time coming up with
examples of any commanders who had been removed from their posts for
allowing a toxic climate on sexual assault.

In fact, the military honchos made it clear that, after months of public
dismay, they hadn’t even gotten around to studying the systems our allies
put in place to achieve objective decision making, where commanders can’t
protect buddies or Top Gun criminals. “Talking to people who have managed
this problem longer than we have seems to me the very easiest place to
start,” chided Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, told me the
arguments of the brass “boiled down to an almost mystical notion of the
commanders’ responsibility. Why can’t we cut the strings to the British
system we inherited from George III? The British are baffled by us. They
gave control over major crimes to professional prosecutors years ago. It’s
an institutional structure that has outlived its utility and credibility.”

As Sarah Plummer, a beautiful ex-Marine who served in Iraq and says she was
raped by a fellow Marine who was never prosecuted, explained to NBC News’s
Jim Miklaszewski: “Having someone within your direct chain of command
handling the case” is like “your brother raping you and having your dad
decide the case.”

The military big shots admitted that they had taken their eyes off the
ball, but blamed it on a decade of two wars.

“Commanders having the authority to take a case to trial hasn’t gotten rid
of the large number of sexual assaults and rapes or encouraged more people
to come forward and report crimes,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told me. “In
fact, it has had the opposite effect.” She told the military chiefs that
“not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a
rape.”

There’s no excuse for permitting a system to allow commanders to sweep
things under the rug and allow threats of retaliation. The Naval Academy is
reeling from a case of a female midshipman who reported she was raped by
three Navy football players at an off-campus party last year. The men were
not charged, but the woman was punished for underage drinking.

West Point is roiled by two cases: a sergeant first class in charge of the
welfare of some cadets has been accused of illicitly videotaping female
cadets as they disrobed in the bathroom or shower; and the men’s rugby team
was temporarily disbanded after players exchanged e-mails that were
degrading to women.

On the Hill, the brass argued that they could not retain “cohesion” and
“order” if commanders were not calling all the legal shots. But Nancy
Parrish, the president of a victims’ rights group, told a chilling story
about a young woman in a combat zone who had tried four times to report a
soldier she says raped her. She saw him coming toward her truck as she got
ready for a mission and recalled her feelings: “I shut down inside. I was
lead driver in our convoy, and I kept hoping to hit an I.E.D. after that.”

As Parrish sardonically asked, you call that “unit cohesion” and “good
order and discipline”?




-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130605/80ba8270/attachment.html>