• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    29
Who rules the roost? The commander, or the observer? How do you keep activists from becoming observers?

I would think the commander would be in charge. The observer would be there to offer advice in the investigation and handling of the situation, trying to ensure consistent good practices.

The biggest question: who has to deal with a breakdown in discipline and morale should their be a rash of wrongful convictions.

That is an interesting non sequitur. The goal is to make things more consistent and properly handled.
 
I did not say a word about the Army. In the Marine Corps if you stick your hands in your pockets you are out of uniform. If you are out of uniform you can get NJP and thrown in CC or the Brig for a certain period of days (3 I think). A certain PFC Joe S. I knew real well got thrown in the brig on Friday night and they kept him until Monday AM when someone from our command had to go get him. He had both hands in his pockets.

The UCMJ covers all branches. Uniform violations aren't a court martial offense.
 
Why do you keep saying Courts-Martial. The example I cited was a PFC in my unit had his hands in his pockets. It was Friday and the held him in the Brig until Monday AM. And in the Marine Corps in 1980's it was a violation of a written order and you most certainly could stand Courts Martial for that.
The UCMJ covers all branches. Uniform violations aren't a court martial offense.
 
I would think the commander would be in charge. The observer would be there to offer advice in the investigation and handling of the situation, trying to ensure consistent good practices.



That is an interesting non sequitur. The goal is to make things more consistent and properly handled.

In the first, if the commander is in charge then it appears someone is just getting to be a spectator and therefore a waste of money.

In the second, I understand the goal, but we both know how things can workout in real life.
 
Why do you keep saying Courts-Martial. The example I cited was a PFC in my unit had his hands in his pockets. It was Friday and the held him in the Brig until Monday AM. And in the Marine Corps in 1980's it was a violation of a written order and you most certainly could stand Courts Martial for that.

Your unit commander should have been court martialed for illegal imprisonment, along with anyone else who participated.
 
A civilian doesn't know enough about military customs, traditions or circumstances to give a serviceman a fair trial. That's why the framers left military justice to the military.

Most civilians don't know anything about the UCMJ. You would have to send to school to learn it, before the trial started and if you do that, then it makes more sense to let servicemembers make up the jury.
Juries don't know anything. It isn't their job to know anything, it's their job to assess the evidence presented alone to reach a verdict. If knowledge of military customs or traditions is relevant to a case (as it could be in a civilian case now), it would be presented in evidence, just as any other specialist knowledge would be presented, say in cases of medical negligence, computer crimes or complex fraud.

Similarly, juries don't know the civilian legal system (nobody knows any legal system - that's why they have so many reference books). Judges inform juries of the relevant laws and legal technicalities and instruct them on the specific judgements they need to make.

I suspect the framers left military justice to the federal government because they didn't want states able to interfere with the federal military via their courts. It was a different world and an entirely different military back then though. The same principles simply don't apply any more.
 
In the first, if the commander is in charge then it appears someone is just getting to be a spectator and therefore a waste of money.

No. A trained expert advising and observing is not a waste of money. Unless you think the commands will reject expert help, in which case there clearly is a problem.

In the second, I understand the goal, but we both know how things can workout in real life.

Unintended consequences do happen, but there has to be a causal link. In this case, there is not from what I suggested to what you claimed as the result.
 
Without question the military chain of command should be removed from these cases .. immediately.

They have consistently demonstrated themselves to be nothing more than the old boy's club rather than an honest and fair form of judgement and review.

More American soldiers kill themselves than die in combat, and its time this government took the lives of soldiers more seriously than they do.

The thread is about sexual assault, not suicide.
 
Are you kidding me? Were you really in the service? Of couse Marines could be NJP and Courts-Martialed for not following orders.
Your unit commander should have been court martialed for illegal imprisonment, along with anyone else who participated.
 
Are you kidding me? Were you really in the service? Of couse Marines could be NJP and Courts-Martialed for not following orders.

Sure they can. However, not for putting their hands in tjeir pockets. Sounds like you had a soup sammich for a commander.
 
It's a soldier's right to be judged by a jury of his peers. There's no way a civilian jury can meet that requirement.

The American people are their peers.

It's untrue that more soldiers commit suicide than die on the battlefield.

You sure about that?

More U.S. soldiers on active duty committed suicide than died in combat last year, shocking new figures reveal | Mail Online

Military Suicide Epidemic: More U.S. Soldiers Have Killed Themselves Than Died on Battlefield in 2012 | Democracy Now!
 
No. A trained expert advising and observing is not a waste of money. Unless you think the commands will reject expert help, in which case there clearly is a problem.



Unintended consequences do happen, but there has to be a causal link. In this case, there is not from what I suggested to what you claimed as the result.

First, rejection of the advice is what I'm referring to.

Second, we're talking soldier's life. Ot's very important to consider all possibilities.
 
The thread is about sexual assault, not suicide.

I know exactly what it's about. I also have a daughter in the military.

I would think the obvious connection to the two would be .. obvious.
 
I don't think the Commander or the COC should be removed from the process, nor do I think the process should be handed over entirely to civilians.

I think that the system that exists now should be added to, not removed, and that civilians should be added in to the mix, not replace military authorities.

The CO should remain the initial deciding authority, but I don't think (s)he should have the final word.

As it is currently the buck stops at the CO's desk.

That should be changed a bit.

I believe that all the CO's decisions in relation to sexual assault charges should be reviewed by a Committee of senior officers and Department of Defense civilians. Both the CO and the Committee should be privy to all the same evidence, and both should be making their determinations to charge/prosecute or dismiss based on that evidence.

In cases where the evidence presented clearly supports the CO's determination (either to dismiss or to prosecute) then there won't be an issue.

In cases where the Committee sees something different than the CO does it doesn't necessarily have to be an issue either, it can simply be a matter of erring on the side of caution when the evidence doesn't support a clear-cut conclusion and letting a Court Martial make the final decision (which is the conclusion COs should be reaching now but apparently aren't).

Now, if the CO makes an egregious error in judgement, or demonstrates a history of making small errors in judgement, then that's something that needs to be taken up by that CO's COC.

But on the face of it I don't think we'll see that kind of situation arising all too frequently under my proposed system even if it is happening now.

Military officers, by and large, are nothing if not masters of the art of self-career preservation.

If they know that there is going to be a committee back-stopping their decisions in respect to sexual assault I think the overwhelming majority will err on the side of caution.

As far as the civilians who will be involved, I think they all need to be DOD civilian employees and I'd prefer to see them all having some experience with the UCMJ. I think former JAG officers would be ideal, as would retired senior officers and NCOs.

I agree with APDST that, by-and-large, fresh-off-the-block civilians aren't qualified to, nor do they deserve to, serve in any capacity overlooking the general day-to-day operation of our military. Likewise, we don't need professional civil rights activists getting themselves involved and turning this into a circus.

But at the same time I think bringing in a set of fresh eyes that is more familiar with judicial matters than most COs likely are and that is independent from any kind of military COC could add value.
 
Juries don't know anything. It isn't their job to know anything, it's their job to assess the evidence presented alone to reach a verdict. If knowledge of military customs or traditions is relevant to a case (as it could be in a civilian case now), it would be presented in evidence, just as any other specialist knowledge would be presented, say in cases of medical negligence, computer crimes or complex fraud.

Similarly, juries don't know the civilian legal system (nobody knows any legal system - that's why they have so many reference books). Judges inform juries of the relevant laws and legal technicalities and instruct them on the specific judgements they need to make.

I suspect the framers left military justice to the federal government because they didn't want states able to interfere with the federal military via their courts. It was a different world and an entirely different military back then though. The same principles simply don't apply any more.

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?
 
I know exactly what it's about. I also have a daughter in the military.

I would think the obvious connection to the two would be .. obvious.

Hmmm, well don't trouble yourself to fill in the gap, that would be like work.
 
I don't think the Commander or the COC should be removed from the process, nor do I think the process should be handed over entirely to civilians.

I think that the system that exists now should be added to, not removed, and that civilians should be added in to the mix, not replace military authorities.

The CO should remain the initial deciding authority, but I don't think (s)he should have the final word.

As it is currently the buck stops at the CO's desk.

That should be changed a bit.

I believe that all the CO's decisions in relation to sexual assault charges should be reviewed by a Committee of senior officers and Department of Defense civilians. Both the CO and the Committee should be privy to all the same evidence, and both should be making their determinations to charge/prosecute or dismiss based on that evidence.

In cases where the evidence presented clearly supports the CO's determination (either to dismiss or to prosecute) then there won't be an issue.

In cases where the Committee sees something different than the CO does it doesn't necessarily have to be an issue either, it can simply be a matter of erring on the side of caution when the evidence doesn't support a clear-cut conclusion and letting a Court Martial make the final decision (which is the conclusion COs should be reaching now but apparently aren't).

Now, if the CO makes an egregious error in judgement, or demonstrates a history of making small errors in judgement, then that's something that needs to be taken up by that CO's COC.

But on the face of it I don't think we'll see that kind of situation arising all too frequently under my proposed system even if it is happening now.

Military officers, by and large, are nothing if not masters of the art of self-career preservation.

If they know that there is going to be a committee back-stopping their decisions in respect to sexual assault I think the overwhelming majority will err on the side of caution.

As far as the civilians who will be involved, I think they all need to be DOD civilian employees and I'd prefer to see them all having some experience with the UCMJ. I think former JAG officers would be ideal, as would retired senior officers and NCOs.

I agree with APDST that, by-and-large, fresh-off-the-block civilians aren't qualified to, nor do they deserve to, serve in any capacity overlooking the general day-to-day operation of our military. Likewise, we don't need professional civil rights activists getting themselves involved and turning this into a circus.

But at the same time I think bringing in a set of fresh eyes that is more familiar with judicial matters than most COs likely are and that is independent from any kind of military COC could add value.

What do you expect to be accomplished by adding civilians to process? How do you filter out the activists? How do you prevent discrimination against the soldier being tried?
 
Civilians, who have never spent a day in uniform aren't. The potetial for unfair verdicts is sky high.

When it comes to sexual assault, I fail to see the difference of how that is determined, rather by civilian or military authority. Most importantly, start from here .. military authority/chain of command has failed to solve the problem

"The military's sexual assault problem has reached epidemic levels. Some 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2012, according to a report released this summer by the Department of Defense (DOD)—up from 19,000 in 2010. This week, the Senate will begin consideration of legislation to curb the crisis. But a battle has emerged over how to solve the problem."
The Fight Over How to Stop Military Sexual Assault, Explained | Mother Jones

Sexual assault is sexual assault whether in uniform or not.
 
I know exactly what it's about. I also have a daughter in the military.

I would think the obvious connection to the two would be .. obvious.

Do you want your kid being judged by civilians who don't know jack**** about military justice judging your daughter, in a scenario where she finds herself forced to disobey an unlawful order on the battlefield? Or, do you want experienced, educated line officers making that call?
 
First, rejection of the advice is what I'm referring to.

Second, we're talking soldier's life. Ot's very important to consider all possibilities.

Let me try and explain this better. The goal is not more convictions, the goal is ensuring that the right outcome for each case is arrived at. That is the first thing to understand.

When I was in the navy, I worked on electronic systems of F-18s. The vast majority of the time when a problem came up, we could solve it no problem, usually within minutes. However, a few times a year we would have something that was just a royal bitch. Intermittent gripes that only happened when the plane was in the air and we could not duplicate, and that everything we tried to do failed to solve the problem. This would happen maybe a dozen times a year. When it did we called in a civilian contractor. He was a specialist in 18 electronics, and worked with all the squadrons on base, getting called in on all the hard issues. More often than not, he had seen the gripe before and would tell us just what we needed to do. If not, he knew how others had solved similar problems. My suggested observer would be something like this guy. He would work with sexual assault cases and be an expert. He would be a resource for the command. He would know best practices, he would have lots of experience, he would be a tool to help insure the command got it right. And he would gather data on how the issue was handled, whether it was handled appropriately, what the command did wrong and things that further training at the command level was needed.

Sexual assualt in the military is a military issue. Ultimately, each case needs to be decided by the military. That does not mean that no oversite is needed, and it does not mean that expert help is not a positive. Every one wants it a nice, clear cut, the militayr can do it, or the military needs to be removed. I think both go too far, and the military should handle it, with civilian help and oversite.
 
Back
Top Bottom