Rand Paul, Ted Cruz join Kirsten Gillibrand push on military sexual assault

[jct74]

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz join Kirsten Gillibrand push on military sexual assault

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 7/16/13 12:00 AM EDT

Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have joined an upstart effort to remove the chain of command from military sexual assault cases, POLITICO has learned.

The tea party favorites give the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, critical conservative cover as she battles the Pentagon and hawks in both parties on her proposal to create a new prosecution system for major military crimes.

Paul is scheduled to attend a press conference Tuesday in the Capitol with Gillibrand and other bill backers, including Sens. Chuck Grassley and Barbara Boxer, to discuss his new position, which inches the New York Democrat closer to the 51 votes she hopes is all she’ll need when her proposal comes up for debate as early as next week.

The issue of military sexual assault came under intense scrutiny this spring on Capitol Hill when top military commanders from each branch of the service sat before the Armed Services Committee and swore they’d stamp out sexual assault in the ranks – but stopped far short of supporting Gillibrand’s idea.

It seemed Gillibrand’s proposal was picking up momentum amid a series of high-profile incidents involving military officials and sexual misconduct grabbed headlines, but it failed in a committee vote in June that didn’t break along traditional party lines.

...

read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ten-gillibrand-sexual-assault-push-94244.html

 

[TaftFan]

Winning issue.

 

[ObiRandKenobi]

Some of the greatest armies in history raped and pillaged. I would like to see proof that a docile, asexual, well-trained army performs as well as a well-trained army.

I'm against rape and I'm anti-war.

I just don't see any proof to justify the claim that any of this is making for a more efficient army.

 

[jtstellar]

why not, shows he cares about women and at the time same exposes how unworkable it is to promote gender equality in the military and have them work together in combat, and expect men not to take it out on opposite sex during high stress situations

lmao.. two birds one stone

 

[goRPaul]

I can't speak for all branches, but in the Marine Corps, they make it nearly impossible to hook up with a member of the opposite sex. I honestly don't know how anyone does it at all. One marine told me he hooked up with a female in a dumpster so they wouldn't get caught. It just goes to show, once again, that putting rules in place to prevent the problem in fact exacerbates it. If they were serious about lowering the rates of sexual assault, they would stop bottling up the sexual frustration of some of the most fit of the species in their sexual primes.

Another part of the story is that since the military has come under fire about sexual assault, they have put in place a massive program called Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. Every three months, all hands are subjected to a four hour death-by-powerpoint brief about sexual assault. We are encouraged to report any form of sexual assault, including jokes that may be offensive, to Uniformed Victim Advocates who help victims deal with their issues. Since this program has been put in place, a lot of trivial cases are reported, making the number of cases reported (not actual sexual assaults) go up every year, so Congress can condemn the immoral military of their barbarism from a high horse.

Also, think about this- gay people can serve openly, and there's only rules about having members of the opposite sex in your barracks, none for the same sex. So gays, theoretically, can have gay sex every night and day without the stress that heteros have of not getting caught. Equality, anyone?

 

[goRPaul]

I've realized I didn't really address the issue discussed in the article lol. I guess I had to get that stuff off my chest since so few marines will talk politics.

Unless there's something that I'm missing, the chain of command is not involved with sexual assault cases. Victims report to a Uniformed Victim Advocate, a staff NCO that is not in that marine's chain of command. The victim has the option of a restricted report that is entirely confidential and does not prosecute the aggressor, or an unrestricted report that notifies the chain of command of the incident and also the appropriate law enforcement channels.

Many Marines feel threatened by the idea that their personal lives will suddenly be accountable to civilians who have never served and "just don't understand". I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I've read the stories of senior officials shielding each other from being prosecuted in their respective sexual assault cases, and that is deplorable. But switching to an all-civilian approach seems extreme.

But I'd support it if it meant that I didn't have to sit through quarterly death-by-powerpoint SAPR training.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Well depending on which news story you read, it looks like either one in three women, or one in four women, are raped while on active duty in the US military. If that's true then that's a staggering number of rapes. So this is a pretty important problem to try to solve. If rapists aren't being held accountable now, then doing so will make that number plummet, I would assume. Because if a rapist knows he can get away with it, they're much more likely to do it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=statistics+women+raped+in+military

Even if those numbers are way off for whatever reason (and I have no reason to even think they are), even if let's say it was one in ten women get raped in the service, that's still way way too many. Anything they do that might decrease that sounds like a good idea to me.

Beyond that, this is a great way for Rand to combat the smears from certain people who think just because he has a big "R" after his name that means he doesn't care about the rights of women. Clearly he does, as much as anyone else's rights. I think it's a great thing to do and the right thing to do, supporting this.

 

[wetroof]

i read about a marine that hooked up with a girl in a closet/room (while suppose to be on duty) but he felt too guilty realizing she was a virgin so he did not "do it". they were not caught. and it was taking big risk. she called him 2 years later to tell him she lost her virginity with a random guy. then maybe he regretted. he was happy she called him tho out of the blue...

 

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

I would definitely suggest Rand Paul read this article before jumping on the rape hysteria bandwagon and possibly jeopardizing the reputations and livelihoods of innocent young men.

Insofar as there is evidence, however, it suggests that the military is now more aggressive in prosecuting sexual assaults than civilian jurisdictions. For example, when a rape involving military personnel occurs off-post, civilian and military authorities both have jurisdiction. On those occasions in fiscal year 2011 on which the civilian jurisdiction took the lead, prosecution rates were 11 percent. In contrast, the military's prosecution rate was
55 percent. Even greater gaps were documented for prosecutions of aggravated sexual assault.

Indeed, some charge that in the military's zeal to placate its critics, it is now going too far. "[T]here’s this myth that the military doesn't take sexual assault seriously," said former Army judge advocate Michael Waddington. "But the reality is they’re charging more and more people with bogus cases to show that they do take it seriously.” Similarly Bridget Wilson, a defense attorney specializing in military law, told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "There is an increasing perception that the deck is stacked against someone accused of a sexual assault."

This is especially so in cases in which two service members have been drinking and engage in seemingly consensual sex. These days, in the military's view, he’s guilty and she's an incapacitated victim. Civilian authorities usually shun such cases.

Indeed, it is cases like that that caused a female prosecutor who wished to be anonymous to comment to McClatchy Newspapers in 2011, "There is a pressure to prosecute, prosecute, prosecute. When you get one that’s actually real, there’s a lot of skepticism. You hear it routinely: 'Is this a rape case or is this a Navy rape case?'"

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the military brass - the generals and war chiefs - at the top of the imperial power pyramid are getting off easy compared to the "underling" victims of false accusations who seem to be guilty until proven innocent. And last time I checked, instances of male-on-male rape are the most pervasive and infectious problem in the military right now.. not male-on-female rape. That's not to downplay or trivialize the genuine psychological anguish experienced by the latter group, but statistically speaking, we can't sweep male victims under the rug the way we are now. They deserve our support, too.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yawn.

 

[dinosaur]

why not, shows he cares about women and at the time same exposes how unworkable it is to promote gender equality in the military and have them work together in combat, and expect men not to take it out on opposite sex during high stress situations

lmao

Seriously? Take it out on them? It is a horrible crime. Women in the military is a bad idea, but yes I would expect our men to not commit violence against women. How can everyone in this thread be so callous?

 

[JCDenton0451]

Seriously? Take it out on them? It is a horrible crime. Women in the military is a bad idea, but yes I would expect our men to not commit violence against women. How can everyone in this thread be so callous?

You don't seem to understand how the military works. The military culture is rooted in violence. This is not just another job. We can't really judge the soldiers' behavior by applying our civilian standards to them. They live and operate in a completely different environment.

Civilian trials for the crimes committed within the military is a really dumb PC idea.

 

[dinosaur]

You don't seem to understand how the military works. The military culture is rooted in violence. This is not just another job. We can't really judge the soldiers' behavior by applying our civilian standards to them. They live and operate in a completely different environment.

Civilian trials for the crimes committed within the military is a really dumb PC idea.

No, I don't understand how being a soldier means becoming an immoral person (assuming just war). If vets are all rapists, I'd better steer clear of all of them. I've heard stories from vets about the kinship they have with their fellow soldiers and how the fight becomes about protecting their buddies. Why does the opposite apply if their buddy is a female?

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Seriously? Take it out on them? It is a horrible crime. Women in the military is a bad idea, but yes I would expect our men to not commit violence against women. How can everyone in this thread be so callous?

Do tell, why do you feel women in the military is a bad idea? Also yes, we can have expectations for how we'd like men to serve, but it doesn't mean they would adhere to them.

 

[dinosaur]

Do tell, why do you feel women in the military is a bad idea? Also yes, we can have expectations for how we'd like men to serve, but it doesn't mean they would adhere to them.

I'm old-fashioned. It doesn't make sense to have those you are trying to protect on the front line. So are you saying we have no control over what happens on the front line? Or there is no way to punish violence against a fellow soldier on an overseas base?

 

[JCDenton0451]

No, I don't understand how being a soldier means becoming an immoral person (assuming just war). If vets are all rapists, I'd better steer clear of all of them. I've heard stories from vets about the kinship they have with their fellow soldiers and how the fight becomes about protecting their buddies. Why does the opposite apply if their buddy is a female?

You don't get it. The military service involves dealing with extreme pressures and stress, the soldiers are expected to kill other human beings, which can make you desensitized to violence. It is easier for a man to slip up in this environment, than in a civilian society, which is why military service should be seen as a mitigating circumstance and violent crimes in the military should be treated differently from the general crimes. They should be judged by people who understand the pressures the soldiers have to cope with.

 

[klamath]

I've realized I didn't really address the issue discussed in the article lol. I guess I had to get that stuff off my chest since so few marines will talk politics.

Unless there's something that I'm missing, the chain of command is not involved with sexual assault cases. Victims report to a Uniformed Victim Advocate, a staff NCO that is not in that marine's chain of command. The victim has the option of a restricted report that is entirely confidential and does not prosecute the aggressor, or an unrestricted report that notifies the chain of command of the incident and also the appropriate law enforcement channels.

Many Marines feel threatened by the idea that their personal lives will suddenly be accountable to civilians who have never served and "just don't understand". I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I've read the stories of senior officials shielding each other from being prosecuted in their respective sexual assault cases, and that is deplorable. But switching to an all-civilian approach seems extreme.

But I'd support it if it meant that I didn't have to sit through quarterly death-by-powerpoint SAPR training.

I remember the death by powerpoint classes well. I do think it is the media thing to make the sexual assault in the military as out of control. That being said I do think the ability of CO's to commute sentences after a court martial is wrong. Yes I have seen a double standard applied between enlisted and officer punishment. In Iraq I knew a young enlisted couple that got caught get Article 15s while a short time later an officer got caught sleeping with a young enlisted girl and it was sweep under the table.
I also whole hardily agree about gays now getting special rights over heterosexuals by being allowed to share the same rooms with the objects of their attraction.
Congress does have the power to determine the rules of punishment so like you I am on the fence on this one.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

I'm old-fashioned. It doesn't make sense to have those you are trying to protect on the front line. So are you saying we have no control over what happens on the front line? Or there is no way to punish violence against a fellow soldier on an overseas base?

That's not what I'm saying nor did I imply it. Thank you. I'm saying what we expect isn't always going to be the reality of the situation. I mean, as far as the election goes, people expected things like the economy to hurt Obama's chances of getting re-elected, but they didn't. I'm saying expectations don't always equal reality since we can't foresee or control every variable.

 

[klamath]

You don't seem to understand how the military works. The military culture is rooted in violence. This is not just another job. We can't really judge the soldiers' behavior by applying our civilian standards to them. They live and operate in a completely different environment.

Civilian trials for the crimes committed within the military is a really dumb PC idea.

I call bull fucking shit. You don't turn on your fellow soldiers under stress and commit violence on them. If you promote that your army would be useless with zero unit cohesion.

 

[dinosaur]

That's not what I'm saying nor did I imply it. Thank you. I'm saying what we expect isn't always going to be the reality of the situation. I mean, as far as the election goes, people expected things like the economy to hurt Obama's chances of getting re-elected, but they didn't. I'm saying expectations don't always equal reality since we can't foresee or control every variable.

Well, if something doesn't go as it should, then why not make an effort to fix it?