Kirsten Gillibrand, Rand Paul shed bipartisan tears over Marine wife’s rape

[Feeding the Abscess]

There may be honorable people in there, (In fact, I'm certain they are) but that doesn't change the fact that the military is an evil institution.


Yep. I don't know why I didn't immediately think of this, but I should have.


lol, yeah. Although there would still be rape, theft, and murder. We aren't utopians here.


I agree, but I haven't been in the military (And NEVER will) so there's that.

Right. I was saying there'd be no more state-sanctioned rape, theft, and murder. ie, no more military rape, theft to pay their salaries, and murder of people around the world.

 

[tod evans]

At least by shuffling it around a bit, the victim has the chance of inter-agency fighting to work in their favor. I'm really not understanding your stance on this one.

This is a pipe dream.

Expecting self policing to work out differently in the military than it does in civilian life is foolish.

As a group soldiers are much more closely knit than cops.

This whole fiasco is for grabbing headlines, there will be no more justice than the "Just-Us" system dispenses.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is a pipe dream.

Expecting self policing to work out differently in the military than it does in civilian life is foolish.

As a group soldiers are much more closely knit than cops.

This whole fiasco is for grabbing headlines, there will be no more justice than the "Just-Us" system dispenses.

Of course it'll be corrupt, but at least in this new version, another agency of the government might want to stick it to the other agency. As it stands now, the CO, who may have been the one who committed the crime, is responsible for the disciplinary procedure. That's beyond corrupt.

 

[69360]

there will be no more justice than the "Just-Us" system dispenses.

Yes, there will be. If the bill passes, a rape victim can go outside the chain of command to seek justice. A CO can't cover a rape up.

 

[tod evans]

Of course it'll be corrupt, but at least in this new version, another agency of the government might want to stick it to the other agency. As it stands now, the CO, who may have been the one who committed the crime, is responsible for the disciplinary procedure. That's beyond corrupt.

Has anyone posted the bill yet?

Your use of the term "another agency of the government" leads me back to my original assumption that the UCMJ was going to be circumvented...

Realistically 1000's of times more citizens are denied justice in the civilian system that citizens are born into...In the service you must sign a contract placing yourself under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

 

[tod evans]

Yes, there will be. If the bill passes, a rape victim can go outside the chain of command to seek justice. A CO can't cover a rape up.

To whom?

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

-

So, self-policing is bad, therefore the military should be as self-policed as possible. Makes sense.

You should start a SuperPAC, "Anarachists for Military Rape." I bet Bill Kristol would kick you some cash.

 

[tod evans]

So, self-policing is bad, therefore the military should be as self-policed as possible. Makes sense.

You should start a SuperPAC, "Anarachists for Military Rape." I bet Bill Kristol would kick you some cash.

You're having some comprehension problems there bucko.

That and thinking you're able to attribute beliefs and attitudes not expressed to me, in that vain feel free to suck whatever prosecutorial dick you choose, it won't change the status-quo.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Why do they gotta assign even our tears over to the two parties? That's mean.

 

[69360]

To whom?

A neutral 3rd party out of the victim and accuser's chain of command, appointed by the head of their service branch. That's how I understand it will work. Why is this so bad?

 

[Origanalist]

A neutral 3rd party out of the victim and accuser's chain of command, appointed by the head of their service branch. That's how I understand it will work. Why is this so bad?

It wouldn't be bad, if it was what it said it was. But it never is.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Military Stifling Support for Sexual Assault Reforms, High-Ranking Officer Says
http://www.thenation.com/blog/17717...ual-assault-reforms-high-ranking-officer-says

"As Congress debates an overhaul of the military justice system to stem an epidemic of sexual assault, the armed forces are struggling to conceal their own internal divisions over the scope of reform. According to a senior officer who spoke with The Nation, the military is actively encouraging service members to lobby against legislation that would curb commanders’ authority over the prosecution of sexual assault cases, while suppressing pro-reform voices within the ranks.

"Asked what would happen if he advocated publicly for limiting the power of commanders, the officer, a high-level Air Force lawyer (known as a Judge Advocate General, or JAG) with decades of experience with sexual assault and other criminal cases said, “It would kill my chances of ever having a good job again… I would be ostracized.” He concluded, “It would be the end of my career.”

"At issue is a proposed change to the military justice system to give military lawyers, rather than commanding officers, the power to determine whether accusations of a serious crime warrant a trial."

MORE...

 

[tod evans]

A neutral 3rd party out of the victim and accuser's chain of command, appointed by the head of their service branch. That's how I understand it will work. Why is this so bad?

Who said it would be "bad"?

I've questioned both the actual implementation and effectiveness of some type of feel good legislation.

You use the term "3rd party out of the victim and accuser's chain of command", is this going to be a civilian court/prosecutor?

Regardless of who they choose to investigate/prosecute, how exactly do you see this new and improved military judicial system cracking a code of omerta stronger than the cops have?

 

[69360]

It wouldn't be bad, if it was what it said it was. But it never is.

Then what do you think it will be?

Who said it would be "bad"?

I've questioned both the actual implementation and effectiveness of some type of feel good legislation.

You use the term "3rd party out of the victim and accuser's chain of command", is this going to be a civilian court/prosecutor?

Regardless of who they choose to investigate/prosecute, how exactly do you see this new and improved military judicial system cracking a code of omerta stronger than the cops have?

It would likely be somebody appointed by the leader of each service, probably a military member.

How does it help? It gives the victim somebody to go to that can't unilaterally decide not to prosecute or overturn a jury. Right now commanders can do both.

 

[tod evans]

Nothing will change for the accusers.

Taxpayers however will be saddled with an even larger burden.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Poll: 6 in 10 support changing how military handles sex assault cases http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nging-how-military-handles-sex-assault-cases/

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Nothing will change for the accusers.

Taxpayers however will be saddled with an even larger burden.

How do you come to these conclusions? Be specific. Back up your arguments.

 

[tod evans]

How do you come to these conclusions?

Simply from living life.

Just watch and see.

Be specific. Back up your arguments.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Ok, thanks for conceding that you have no logic backing up your blathering.

Nothing will change for the accusers.

This is objectively false. We know for a fact that under this change, a victim who is raped by his or her commanding officer can ask someone other than the rapist that the rapist be prosecuted. You should consider retracting this objectively false statement, unless you want to be known as an unrepentant liar.

Taxpayers however will be saddled with an even larger burden.

I thought you might have actually had an argument on this one, and was interested to see what you might produce here. However, we can now see you were simply talking out of your ass. Whereas I would contend that this measure will get more convictions of psychotic government-employed rapists, which should lead to more dishonorable discharges and fewer pensions for government rapists. I think we should save taxpayer dollars by not giving money to government rapists. Why are you for giving free money to government rapists?

 

[dannno]

The OP title is really dumb though. "Bipartisan tears"? Who wouldn't be saddened by someone being raped?

You know what, I just realized that I had my "mundane" hat on when I posted my original comment. I'm sure a lot of politicians wouldn't care if someone was raped. Lindsey Graham probably wouldn't care.

Correct.