Should we remove military chain of command from military sexual assault cases?

Not only yes, but HELL YES!!!

Is all of this liberal social engineering of the military really worth all the troubles it has caused ?

You talking about letting women in the Service?

APACHERAT said:

Is all of this liberal social engineering of the military really worth all the troubles it has caused ?

Click to expand...

mak2 said:

You talking about letting women in the Service?

Click to expand...

They are already serving.

They have been serving continuously since WW ll. But when they started opening up MOS's and ratings to women that were always traditionally been held by men, it's been nothing but one trouble after another.

The social engineering activist NEVER take the time to think what will be the consequences of their experiments ? How many soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen will bleed, die, get raped, etc. in the name of political correctness ?

You can't have the civilian courts getting involved with the military's judicial system. It will become a slippery slope.

So, you want to use a civilian court to cover a criminal case that does not have any jurisdiction in the area where the crime was committed...

Any crime that is committed "in town" is already being prosecuted by the local authorities, for the most part.
When it happens on post (federal property) on ship (federal property) or overseas (federal jurisdiction through SOFA) then it is tried through the UCMJ.

Yes and no.

On the one hand, as I view it, a military court martial exists both for the purpose of justice AND (and this is a big and) protecting the military from harm.

This can be both a good and a bad thing, depending on the situation.

For example, it could be a good thing if an officer was accused of a sexual assault against a junior, yet not enough evidence existed to convict the officer - the courts martial could decide to kick the officer out of the military anyway, because said officer would on the one hand, never really be trusted again, and on the other, reflect badly on the organization.

It could be bad if they decided to cover it up somehow, again for the purpose of protecting the organization. Or for political reasons, in either case.

jamesrage said:

Should we remove military chain of command from military sexual assault cases?

Yes
No
I do not know/other




I say yes.There should be an unbiased 3rd party that could care less about the alleged victim's and alleged assailant's rank that investigates these cases. I would also like to see it apply to other crimes too. I do not know if these numbers of alleged unreported sexual assault cases are true or if its just some attempt to smear the miltiary.I do not care. I do know that when I was in the Army a person integrity or credibility was based on rank.Basically the soldier with higher rank was believed more than the lower ranking soldier.

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. As it stands now a commander can just ignore things if he's buddy-buddy with the accused, or hates the victim. I've never understood why the military does that.

And nothing has changed since you were in. An E-7 is always right against an E-3, who is always a dirtbag.

apdst said:

A tank gunner lights up another vehicle on the gunnery range. Who's in trouble and why? Or is no one in trouble and why?

Click to expand...

A commercial plane landing at an airport crashes in to another plane taxi-ing across the runway - who's' in trouble and why? A swab is left in a patient after surgery and they die - who's in trouble and why? A trader digs themselves in to a hole, making huge losses for their companies (but huge profits for others) - who's in trouble and why?

There is no fundamental difference.

HonestJoe said:

A commercial plane landing at an airport crashes in to another plane taxi-ing across the runway - who's' in trouble and why? A swab is left in a patient after surgery and they die - who's in trouble and why? A trader digs themselves in to a hole, making huge losses for their companies (but huge profits for others) - who's in trouble and why?

There is no fundamental difference.

Click to expand...

Plenty of difference. In the service, the gunner wouldn't be the one in trouble. His tank commander would be, considering the position of the destroyed vehicle. Do you know what a "range fan" is?

apdst said:

Plenty of difference. In the service, the gunner wouldn't be the one in trouble. His tank commander would be, considering the position of the destroyed vehicle. Do you know what a "range fan" is?

Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. I know little about military procedures but I know equally no more about air traffic control procedures or surgical procedures. If it's still legitimate for me to sit on a jury to rule on the latter, why wouldn't it be equally legitimate for me to sit on a jury to rule on the latter?

I disagree with adpast in that a person would have to know the details of a certian MOS to judge guilt and innocence. If that were the case it would have to be a jury of fellow tankers, or administrators etc. Obviously absurd. but I agree with him in that a civilian would not understand exactly what "duty" and "military bearing" and other such uniquely military concepts really entail.