U.S. military chiefs balk at taking sex-assault cases out of commanders’ hands

[unhappycamper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-chiefs-balk-at-taking-sex-assault-cases-out-of-commanders-hands/2013/06/03/0af4f976-cc85-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html



Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks during a Pentagon news conference about sexual assaults in the military, among other topics May 17, 2013.

U.S. military chiefs balk at taking sex-assault cases out of commanders’ hands
By Craig Whitlock, Published: June 3

The nation’s military chiefs have told Congress in writing that they oppose or have strong reservations about a controversial bill that would reshape military law by taking sexual-assault cases out of the hands of commanders, setting up a likely clash with lawmakers who are pushing the idea.

In a rare joint appearance, the uniformed leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are scheduled to testify Tuesday before a Senate panel about what the Pentagon has described as an “epidemic” of sex crimes in the ranks. Lawmakers are floating a variety of bills to attack the problem but have not settled on a single approach.

The service chiefs, however, made clear in recent letters to the Senate panel’s leadership that they do not favor a leading proposal that would give uniformed prosecutors, instead of commanders, the authority to open criminal investigations into ­sexual-assault cases and bring them to trial. Such a change, they argued, would undermine the foundation of military culture by sending a message that commanders cannot be trusted to make good decisions.

“A commander is responsible and accountable for everything that happens in his or her unit,” Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said in a May 17 letter to Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and James H. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate Armed Services Committee’s chairman and ranking Republican. “Victims need to know that their commander holds offenders accountable, not some unknown third-party prosecutor.”



unhappycamper comment: Yes General, “Victims need to know that their commander holds offenders accountable". Which is precisely the reason for this legislation.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. In principle, I agree with them

But in reality, they've proven unable to fix a highly-visible and out-of-control problem, so they've forfeited the point.

[LiberalLoner]

4. +1

[Nay]

5. Yup. nt

[iemitsu]

2. "Victims need to know that their commander holds offenders accountable, not some unknown

third-party prosecutor.” Well, this is the problem, it is obvious that the commanders are not protecting the victims of sexual assault.
They sound a bit like the officials in the Catholic church, who insist they ought to be policing themselves when it comes to abuse perpetrated by their members. Or maybe its bankers, who claim to be the best watchdogs over their own industry, or big business, or the Federal government who the Joint Chiefs want to emulate?
Perhaps if the chiefs had been doing their job this would not be an issue they faced.

[atreides1]

3. They just don't get it

Got news for the chiefs, it's already been shown in two cases that commanders cannot be trusted to make good decisions...if there was something wrong with how the military court system worked then the convicted had the right to appeal the convictions.

It's pretty evident that commanders do not hold offenders accountable, if they did why were there 26,000 reported cases of sexual assaults?

They seem more concerned about the "foundation of military culture", like the French High Command in the Dreyfuss case...maybe these chiefs should read the history of that case!