Posted on 06/17/2015 5:35:14 AM PDT by GIdget2004
The Senate on Tuesday blocked a years-long push to reform how the military prosecutes sexual assault cases.
Senators voted 50-49 on the proposal, spearheaded by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, which would remove military sexual assault cases from the chain of command.
The New York Democrat needed 60 votes to add her legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), currently before the Senate. Gillibrand criticized President Obama, suggesting that he hasn't done enough to tackle the issue as commander in chief.
"He promised he would address this issue," Gillibrand said. "I expect more, and I expect more leadership." It’s the second time in two years the measure hasn’t moved forward in the Senate.
The Senate voted 55-45 last year against advancing the measure when the Democratic Party held the Senate majority.
In both instances, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) helped lead opposition to Gillibrand’s measure.
The Senate passed legislation from McCaskill last year that increased protections for victims of military sexual assault.
McCaskill argued on Tuesday that past reforms are making a positive change.
“These victims are coming forward because they have renewed confidence that they will have support, that they will get good information and that the system is not stacked against them,” she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
So does Gillebrand want cases to come before NOW instead of the military mechanism?
Most of military life is by design meant to be for men - healthy, well conditioned, focused, men. Introduce the female gender into that culture then hormones become a dominant force - both men and women. There is a natural consequence and that is there will be sexual relations, some will be with consent, some without. Of course, we don’t condone anyone being forced into a sexual act, but the circumstances almost guarantee it because of the female placed into a military designed for men and designed because of the mission given to them.
“So does Gillebrand want cases to come before NOW instead of the military mechanism?”
No - just an independent military prosecutor.
For those keeping track - Graham voted against the measure, Rubio didn’t vote, and Paul and Cruz voted with Gillibrand. Cruz appeared with Gillibrand to talk about his support for the amendment.
See this article:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/cruz-supported-military-sexual-assault-reform-fails-in-senate.html/
Obviously if you want to reduce the number of sexual assaults against women in the military all you need to do is to increase the number of homosexual men.
The military is doing all it can right now to fix that problem.
This is one instance where BO did do enough, he left it with the chain of command where it belongs. He didn’t upend the whole system to cover a few odd cases in exchange for something worse. Go to hell, Gillabrand.
Of course the number of reported man on man sexual assaults in the military is rising.
In the past those were usually dealt with at the platoon level.
I can’t believe Cruz is supporting changing a position as old as our nation that the command structure of our military units should have no say in how or if crimes in their units should be handled.
It is a terrible precedent.
If crimes were taken out of military hands and placed in civil courts hands, then we’d be having activist lawyers charging troops in the middle of battle.
Besides, a commander hears from the troops little tidbits of information that inform him/her what actually has taken place. If it’s a ‘they crawled into bed naked together, but then one cried rape’ the commander will hear it. THAT makes the commander a great arbiter of justice, whether some things EVER get to court.
Remember who outed Beau Bergdahl: It wasn’t the lawyers, it sure as hell wasn’t the president who had his hands all over everything but Mrs Bergdahl’s ass, and it wasn’t the media.
It was the MEMBERS OF BERGDAHL’S UNIT!
You listen to the troops on the ground. That’s the first rule of military justice.
"Change is coming. It's coming through Congress, and a great many of our colleagues say privately they're very, very close to supporting this," Cruz, who is running for president, said. "Change is coming in January 2017 when a new commander in chief will be sworn into office."
The article says some Senators want to take it out of the hands off the "Pentagon". What that means is "take it out of the hands of the local commander."
Then again, Cruz has never served a day of his life in the military. Can't expect him to really have a feel for this. In my mind, though, a commander-in-chief, like any commander, should walk among his troops and listen to THEIR arguments.
“I can’t believe Cruz is supporting changing a position as old as our nation that the command structure of our military units should have no say in how or if crimes in their units should be handled.”
He’s been a strong sponsor of this legislation since 2013, and voted in favor of it in 2013, 2014, and yesterday.
Members of the military have clear rights when charged with a crime. To remove a particular category of crimes from the control of the chain of command and put them under the control of a politicized court would be an exceptionally grave disservice to the members of our uniformed services. If a commanding officer is incapable of judging any charge impartially, then that commanding officer should be removed from the position. Otherwise, the existing system gets the job done as well as is possible, in the face of ambiguous he-said she-said charges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.