Removing commanders’ authority in military sexual-assault crimes would neither boost sexual-assault reporting nor strengthen a belief that the military justice system is fair, according to a subcommittee report released Thursday.
“A strong majority of subcommittee members agrees the evidence does not support a conclusion that removing authority to convene courts-martial from senior commanders will reduce the incidence of sexual assault or increase reporting of sexual assaults in the Armed Forces,” according to the Role of the Commander subcommittee report.
The subcommittee, which has nine members, was created as part of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, established by the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
That finding sets most of the members squarely against a proposal by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. The New York Democrat has been lobbying her colleagues for months, trying to garner the likely necessary 60 votes to pass legislation that would remove the chain of command’s power to decide whether sexual-assault cases are prosecuted.
It’s a move Pentagon officials and Sen. Claire McCaskill — who has a dueling proposal — have been pushing hard against. Sen. Harry Reid said Monday the Senate would debate sexual-assault legislation by mid-February, but he didn’t specify if the Senate would take up one or both of the proposals. He came out in support of Gillibrand’s bill last November, but other high-profile Democrats including Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin have spoken against it.
McCaskill, responding to the report, said the findings “must inform any future debate about alternative proposals.”
Only one of the subcommittee members, Elizabeth Hillman, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, disagreed with the subcommittee’s report. Hillman, in a separate statement, said commanders “are neither essential nor well-suited for their current role in the legal process of criminal prosecution.”
But most of the subcommittee members believe there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that “removing such authority will increase confidence among victims of sexual assault about the fairness of the military justice system or reduce their concerns about possible reprisal for making reports of sexual assault,” according to the report.
Members of Congress have tweaked how the military deals with sexual-assault cases in the past few National Defense Authorization Acts, including requiring new or prospective commanders to undergo sexual-assault prevention and response training, removing a commander’s ability to overturn jury convictions, and requiring a civilian review if a commander decides against prosecuting. And the report suggests that more time is needed to see if such changes can create “meaningful improvements” before making a “systemic” change.
What We're Following See More »
The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."
"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."
"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "
"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.