Subcommittee Report Sides Against Gillibrand on Military Sexual Assault

A majority said removing senior commanders wouldn’t increase the number of sexual assaults reported in the Armed Forces or bolster victim confidence.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) questions military leaders while they testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on pending legislation regarding sexual assaults in the military June 4, 2013.
National Journal
Jordain Carney
Add to Briefcase
Jordain Carney
Jan. 31, 2014, 7:42 a.m.

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 »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
1 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
1 days ago
THE LATEST

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..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"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."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"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. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"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.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login