Pentagon Addresses Sexual Assault, but Some in Congress Are Skeptical

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., speaks on the subject of Iran, during a keynote address at the James E. Smith Conference on World Affairs, at the University of Nebraska,Kearney, in Kearney, Neb., Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007. 
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Michael Catalin
Aug. 15, 2013, 2:43 p.m.

The Pentagon on Thursday in­tro­duced a set of pro­vi­sions de­signed to crack down on sexu­al as­saults in the mil­it­ary, but some law­makers said the ef­forts came up short.

The sev­en meas­ures — dis­cussed with some law­makers ahead of time, ac­cord­ing to aides — came in a state­ment from De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel on Thursday and in­clude cre­at­ing a pro­gram that will aid sexu­al-as­sault vic­tims dur­ing the ju­di­cial pro­cess and will dir­ect the Pentagon’s in­spect­or gen­er­al to re­view closed cases.

“All of these meas­ures will provide vic­tims ad­di­tion­al rights, pro­tec­tions, and leg­al sup­port, and help en­sure that sexu­al-as­sault-re­lated in­vest­ig­a­tions and ju­di­cial pro­ceed­ings are con­duc­ted thor­oughly and pro­fes­sion­ally,” Hagel said.

But some law­makers panned the an­nounce­ment, ar­guing that the Pentagon’s “new” meas­ures were ac­tu­ally already on the books.

“The most mem­or­able state­ment from the Pentagon today was from Ma­jor Gen­er­al Jes­sica Wright [re­tired], who said that these new policies are best prac­tices from policies already in ex­ist­ence across much of the armed ser­vices,” said Rep. Jack­ie Spei­er, D-Cal­if., ac­cord­ing to a state­ment. “These aren’t new policies.”

Sexu­al as­saults in the mil­it­ary have in­creas­ingly be­come a high-pro­file is­sue as the Pentagon winds down wars in Afgh­anistan and Ir­aq. In 2012, ac­cord­ing to a Pentagon re­port, an es­tim­ated 26,000 ser­vice mem­bers ex­per­i­enced un­wanted sexu­al con­tact, 7,000 more than in 2010. Pentagon of­fi­cials have pub­licly, and re­peatedly, com­mit­ted to erad­ic­at­ing the prob­lem.

The is­sue has grown in polit­ic­al sig­ni­fic­ance as well. A bi­par­tis­an group of law­makers in the Sen­ate, led by Sen. Kirsten Gil­librand, D-N.Y., in­clud­ing Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., have backed a meas­ure that would re­move the de­cision to pur­sue charges against as­sail­ants from the mil­it­ary chain of com­mand, in­stead pla­cing it in the hands of mil­it­ary pro­sec­utors.

The Pentagon’s an­nounce­ment, though, has done little to sat­is­fy those law­makers.

“As we have heard over and over again from the vic­tims, and the top mil­it­ary lead­er­ship them­selves, there is a lack of trust in the sys­tem that has a chilling ef­fect on re­port­ing,” Gil­librand said in a state­ment.

Gil­librand, whose mil­it­ary ju­di­cial re­view bill lost a vote dur­ing a Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act markup, plans to of­fer an amend­ment to the meas­ure when it hits the Sen­ate floor, aides say. But she faces op­pos­i­tion from mem­bers of her own party, in­clud­ing Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in, D-Mich.

In May, com­ments by Pres­id­ent Obama meant to con­demn sexu­al as­sault seem­ingly back­fired when the pres­id­ent called for per­pet­rat­ors to be “pro­sec­uted, stripped of their po­s­i­tions, court-mar­tialed, fired, dis­hon­or­ably dis­charged.” Some ar­gued that, as com­mand­er in chief, the com­ments amoun­ted to “un­law­ful com­mand in­flu­ence,” ac­cord­ing to The New York Times. Law­yers for those charged with as­saults began to ar­gue their cli­ents could not get a fair tri­al.

Thursday’s an­nounce­ment un­der­lines the Pentagon’s hard line against sexu­al as­saults and rep­res­ents an ef­fort to change the cul­ture in the mil­it­ary, which is a sig­ni­fic­ant bar­ri­er to halt­ing the as­saults, vet­er­ans or­gan­iz­a­tions and vic­tim ad­voc­ates say.

“We’re all work­ing to­ward the same mis­sion,” said Kate O’Gor­man, polit­ic­al dir­ect­or for Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan Vet­er­ans of Amer­ic­an. “[The Pentagon] def­in­itely has an open ear to­ward solu­tions, and some­times you have to be that watch dog that pushes the agency to do bet­ter.”

But the an­nounce­ment does little to sat­is­fy law­makers ad­voc­at­ing for fur­ther changes to help vic­tims who re­por­ted at­tacks, only to be dia­gnosed with a per­son­al­ity dis­order and re­moved from the mil­it­ary. A San Ant­o­nio Ex­press-News series high­lighted the phe­nomen­on in May, rais­ing ques­tions about what the pa­per sug­ges­ted was a double be­tray­al: Vic­tims are first as­saul­ted or raped and are then labeled with a men­tal ill­ness, dis­charged, and stripped of be­ne­fits.

“The de­part­ment’s new ini­ti­at­ive does noth­ing to cor­rect the re­cord and bring justice to sexu­al-as­sault vic­tims that were im­prop­erly dis­charged with per­son­al­ity dis­order after they re­por­ted be­ing raped,” said Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn. “It is im­port­ant for Con­gress and the sec­ret­ary to en­sure these vet­er­ans re­ceive the fair due pro­cess they have earned and de­serve.”

Fig­ures don’t ex­ist to show how many mil­it­ary vic­tims of sexu­al as­sault have been sub­ject to such treat­ment, but the mil­it­ary dis­charged 31,000 ser­vice mem­bers be­cause of a per­son­al­ity dis­order from 2001 to 2010, ac­cord­ing to a Vi­et­nam Vet­er­ans As­so­ci­ation of Amer­ica study.

Walz offered an amend­ment to the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act that would have au­thor­ized a board to re­view these cases, but the meas­ure did not be­come part of the House bill. Walz is hop­ing, an aide said, that a sim­il­ar bill in the Sen­ate sponsored by Sen. Jon Test­er, D-Mont., would be offered as an amend­ment, and a spokes­man for Test­er said the sen­at­or is plan­ning to of­fer his bill.

“The truth of the mat­ter is that the mil­it­ary are go­ing to be the ones who lead the charge,” O’Gor­man said. “It is go­ing to take con­sist­ent vi­gil­ance.”

COR­REC­TION: An earli­er ver­sion of this story in­cor­rectly char­ac­ter­ized Sen. Jon Test­er’s plan to of­fer an amend­ment to the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act. Test­er does plan to of­fer his bill as an amend­ment.


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.