Military sexual assault issue...

[rock on sooner]

Currently serving or former service members...do you think the issue
should stay with the chain of command, where commanders can over-
turn convictions? Should prosecutors handle them start to finish?
Should the issues be turned over to civilian authorities?

Clearly, this isn't about "just getting some". This is about power, abuse,
control. Fear of retaliation or humiliation or career ending reporting is
rampant in the current scheme of things. Contrary to Sen. Sessions'
beliefs, it aint hormones. From my viewpoint, this threatens the very
fabric of our military, its protocols, unit cohesion...all the way to being
battle ready. Any other thoughts?

[olevetonahill]

Currently serving or former service members...do you think the issue
should stay with the chain of command, where commanders can over-
turn convictions? Should prosecutors handle them start to finish?
Should the issues be turned over to civilian authorities?

Clearly, this isn't about "just getting some". This is about power, abuse,
control. Fear of retaliation or humiliation or career ending reporting is
rampant in the current scheme of things. Contrary to Sen. Sessions'
beliefs, it aint hormones. From my viewpoint, this threatens the very
fabric of our military, its protocols, unit cohesion...all the way to being
battle ready. Any other thoughts?

Our Military is ****ed either way. Hell Lets let in the Pink elephants with the women and Gheys.
Dont get me wrong I have no Prob with women or Gays serving. I do however have a Prob with MOST of them serving in High Stress Combat situations tho.

There should be explicit rules to govern these types of Problems, Never Should a Civilian Judicial system have any power over a Military issue JMHO

[KantoSooner]

Vet, I had some minimal contact with Military courts early in my career and they compare very favorably to civilian ones in most aspects. So, that is not the issue to me. The mind blower is to give a superior officer, most without even a hint of legal training, power to vacate a judgement or charge. That's just nuts. Let the JAG investigate and either charge or not and conduct the trial if the issue gets there.
The prime consideration in most judicial systems is that the finders of fact and judges be uninvolved in the question considered. In this case, the superior officer is most definitely an interested party. And thus, illegit.

[olevetonahill]

Vet, I had some minimal contact with Military courts early in my career and they compare very favorably to civilian ones in most aspects. So, that is not the issue to me. The mind blower is to give a superior officer, most without even a hint of legal training, power to vacate a judgement or charge. That's just nuts. Let the JAG investigate and either charge or not and conduct the trial if the issue gets there.
The prime consideration in most judicial systems is that the finders of fact and judges be uninvolved in the question considered. In this case, the superior officer is most definitely an interested party. And thus, illegit.

I'll go with that But My point was NO civilian court that Opens the door to turnin Our Troops over to Just about any Civilian court in whatever land they be in. THAT i have a prob with.

[rock on sooner]

I don't advocate civilian jurisdiction, either, unless it is military
assaulting civilian. I think that the military prosecutor should
take it start to finish, with the commanders not having the authority
to overturn the court martial decision. As I understand it, for
this to happen will take civilian legislation intervening. (If this is
not correct, someone let me know.) The UCMJ has been changed/
updated twice since I got out.

For our military's sake, this needs to be handled now!

Vet, not sure how much of the activity occurs in combat theaters,
but you're onto something with the combat stress...seems as though
more and more is surfacing in units that have been in combat and are
now back in the real world.

[KantoSooner]

Vet, our troops are in foreign locales under one of two circumstances:
Firsst, they might have invaded the place; in which case, the local courts are pretty powerless.
Second, they are in friendly countries under 'Status of Forces Agreements' and I'm unaware of any of those that give primary jurisdiction to local courts/police.
This holds true even in places/circumstances like Japan where our Marines in Okinawa have established a tedious habit of raping 10-13 year old girls every 18 months or so. After abducting and raping the children, they then hightail it back to base where the commander generally has them tried by US Military Tribunals. (As you can imagine, this contributes greatly to the popularity of the Marines in Japan).
A special JAG unit dedicated to investigation of and prosecution of sex crimes with its own line of command and authority would resolve this issue neatly. JAG is a respect-worthy organization and is pretty independent all while being part of the military.

[rock on sooner]

Kanto, still doesn't address the superior officer overturning
convictions. IMO, that needs to go away. Would be a great
first step in allowing the victims more mental freedom and
courage to report.

[KantoSooner]

I'd agree. Sorry, thought I'd been explicit about that in the part about 'interested parties'. Not too specific on reread.

[Lott's Bandana]

I am confused how a "sexual assault" conviction, a Felony(?), could be overturned by a "superior officer"?

Felony accusations are investigated by the military judicial system and prosecuted accordingly, right? Only UCMJ violations that are "Captain's Mast" or "Office Hours" or whatever the Army/Air Force calls NJP can be decided by an officer in direct command of the accused.


Where am I wrong here?

(I'm sure there is a case that the OP is referring to, but I didn't see a link and hadn't payed tension to the news.)

[jk the sooner fan]

as one who used to investigate these very complaints - the commander IS the issue here

big time

although i dont know how you dissect command authority and jurisdiction without completely revamping the UCMJ

there is some value in making an officer higher up in the chain of command responsible for these "prosecute -don't prosecute" decisions

because the ultimate authority to take or not take action - is with the commander

but dont be fooled by these huge numbers being reported....i doubt they've separated out the unfounded complaints or the ones with the victims that report the crimes 2 years after they happen, making virtually impossible to prosecute

i could go on and on about why these incidents happen...

but i wont

[rock on sooner]

An AF Lt Col was convicted of sexual assault..3 counts..sexual
battery and aggravated assault of a civilian contractor in Aviano,
Italy. Lt Gen Franklin overturned the conviction, stating that
after review of the case, he believed the Colonel and his wife
versus everything else. Franklin is CO of 3rd Air Force in Ramstein,
Germany and really high up in the chain of command.

[Lott's Bandana]

An AF Lt Col was convicted of sexual assault..3 counts..sexual
battery and aggravated assault of a civilian contractor in Aviano,
Italy. Lt Gen Franklin overturned the conviction, stating that
after review of the case, he believed the Colonel and his wife
versus everything else. Franklin is CO of 3rd Air Force in Ramstein,
Germany and really high up in the chain of command.



A perfect storm of power-wielding, it seems.

"civilian" meaning Italian, has no redress with US Military justice. Of course, an Airman/Officer victim would have much more weight in the system and would likely keep Gen Franklin from erasing the case.

[Soonerfan88]

Short answer, no. Commanders should not have the power to overturn any conviction.

While in the Army, I worked in several motorpools and was often the only female there. I heard all the crude humor and let most of it slide. On rare occasions, some idiot crossed the line and had to be put in his place but it was often done by other guys. I don't remember any actual assault cases but back then many were not reported or kept very quiet

I'm now a DA civilian and can see that some things have changed but many haven't. The Army at least pays lip service to stopping harassment/assault now and some are trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, others like this idiot in Italy that have to power to make a broader impact are still thinking like cavemen. Attitudes are s-l-o-w-l-y changing within combat arms but until it does, the overall culture will not as your top commanders come from those branches and they set the tone.

[texaspokieokie]

you had to know that if there were females in the military, guys would want to **** them.

[KantoSooner]

Yeah, and if women were in the world, guys would want to **** them. You could make the same argument bayonet drill or live fire exercises. "Some guys will just want to kill somebody."

Rape is rape. Soldiers are trained to be aggressive but to also be disciplined. If they don't have the discipline to keep their dicks to themselves, then they have no place in the military.

[jk the sooner fan]

Yeah, and if women were in the world, guys would want to **** them. You could make the same argument bayonet drill or live fire exercises. "Some guys will just want to kill somebody."

Rape is rape. Soldiers are trained to be aggressive but to also be disciplined. If they don't have the discipline to keep their dicks to themselves, then they have no place in the military.

when the bullets start flying - you really dont care if the guy in the foxhole with you is a gentleman or not - what you care about is whether he can fight back and save your ***

this assertion that "rape is rape" is an over simplification of the problem

the numbers you see on the national news are skewed and paint an incomplete picture

they dont take into account all the false reports, or unfounded reports - or allegations where the victim isnt cooperative

we still have a justice system that requires that an accused be tried before a jury and convicted based on facts beyond a reasonable doubt

[rock on sooner]

you had to know that if there were females in the military, guys would want to **** them.

Having sex is one thing, but almost all rape isn't about sex, it is
about power and control. I'd hate to see this thread move away
from my OP point....removing the superior officer from the equation.
The bill coming out of the House committee does that, for everything
but minor offenses, long over due. In place, you will see assault
report number explode.

[Lott's Bandana]

The average citizen in this country has NO idea what happens every day on the average multi-gendered surface ship. The perception that the Navy and DOD work so hard to protect, is that everything is in harmony and men and women serve with distinction without inappropriate behaviors.

They may serve with distinction, but the biggest distraction BY FAR on any ship-of-the-line in the modern USN is combatting fraternization and unauthorized physical (consenting) interaction while at sea. It is an epidemic so pervasive that many seagoing commands have given up to a degree and simply look the other way now. Frankly, it is like trying to dam a river with sand.

Not something you read about in USA Today or the NYT, but many senior officers and Chiefs retired because of the constant focus away from combat readiness...the frustration was too complete.

I am grateful my time was in the Submarine Force where that issue isn't yet on the table. (notwithstanding the few female officers in Nuclear Power training for Tridents)

[SoonerStormchaser]

I can't speak for everyone, but the subject of the sexual assault being overturned is a repeated topic of discussion...and most of the guys I talk to (and my opinion) think that it's complete and utter bull**** that a jury got overruled.

[KantoSooner]

when the bullets start flying - you really dont care if the guy in the foxhole with you is a gentleman or not - what you care about is whether he can fight back and save your ***

this assertion that "rape is rape" is an over simplification of the problem

the numbers you see on the national news are skewed and paint an incomplete picture

they dont take into account all the false reports, or unfounded reports - or allegations where the victim isnt cooperative

we still have a justice system that requires that an accused be tried before a jury and convicted based on facts beyond a reasonable doubt

I can grant all your points and none of them address anything I said. The numbers are surely lower than what a news org puts on tv. At no point did I suggest that anyone be 'convicted' without due process. And nowhere did I make any comments about combat anything.
My sole point was that such an allegation needs to be dealt with by a group outside the direct chain of command. And I suggested that JAGC was well suited to that role presuming they could not be overruled by interested parties.

[Soonerfan88]

jk, I know there are BS reports made by women who are, like most of society today, too easily offended by an off-color joke or just trying to get revenge or work the system. I probably hate them more than you do because it throws doubt on every other woman out there. What the rest of us object to is the ability of a commander, completely on a whim, who is allowed to overturn an actual conviction in military court. It's hard enough to even able to get a conviction and then to have it thrown out because some idiot thinks he knows better than JAG and a jury is outrageous.

Within the last 5 years, a reservist here in Missouri was almost raped by a lieutenant in her unit after he gave her a roofie. Luckily she didn't have enough in her system to completely knock her out and screamed for help. Even with testimony from the bartender and those who caught him in the act, he was only found guilty of fraternization and conduct unbecoming an officer. Why? Because his commander, other officers, and his defense attorney said he was a great leader in the field and of course, "she was asking for it" (direct quote from another LT on the stand). That great jury of his peers (all men) decided because he had performed well in combat, he shouldn't have his life ruined by one wrong decision. Never mind that her life has now been ruined. That is the attitude I get from your post above - he's a good combat soldier so gives a f*** what he does back in the civilian world.

[8timechamps]

I can't speak for everyone, but the subject of the sexual assault being overturned is a repeated topic of discussion...and most of the guys I talk to (and my opinion) think that it's complete and utter bull**** that a jury got overruled.

This is my position too.

I have no issue with civil interdiction at some levels, for some cases, but no because the military 'can't' get it done. Sometimes, I think a civilian eye brings a better perspective, and I would have no problem with that in this case.

The bottom line is that a jury should never be overruled unless there is legal justification (tainted juror, etc.). It's a can of worms that doesn't need to be touched.