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 Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."