US military chiefs unanimously oppose Congressional bill that would let prosecutors handle sex assau - Polidicks

[quote](CNN) -- Chiefs of every military branch told a Senate committee Tuesday they opposed letting prosecutors, rather than commanders, handle sexual assault investigations, as one senator has introduced legislation aimed at doing just that. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said there may be public confusion about the military's reporting process. Referring to media reports that there is only one way to report sexual assault, the Michigan Democrat asked each of the military heads at a hearing if there currently are multiple options in addition to notifying a unit commander. They replied yes. They also told the committee that instances of commanders ignoring their judge advocate generals' advice in sexual assault cases are extremely rare. Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, earlier called sexual assault in the military "an enemy to morale and readiness" and urged his colleagues to tread carefully in tackling the issue. Inhofe said he is opposed to any legislation "removing commanders from their indispensable roles" in the military justice system and noted that military and civilian courts are different animals because members of the military do not enjoy the same rights as civilians.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/04/politics/senate-hearing-military-sexual-assault/index.html[/url]

(this is how you know how corrupt our military's leadership is)

[quote]Inhofe said he is opposed to any legislation "removing commanders from their indispensable roles" in the military justice system and noted that military and civilian courts are different animals because [B]members of the military do not enjoy the same rights as civilians.[/B][/quote] "For instance, the right to not be raped!" They remind me of little kids who had something taken away from them because they weren't handling it safely. "There's no problem here! We were doing it right! We'll do it right, we swear, just give it back!" If they were handling these cases correctly to begin with, then we wouldn't have to take the cases away from them in the first place.

I really don't see why prosecutors shouldn't get to handle such things, especially if it's on American soil.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40942463]I really don't see why prosecutors shouldn't get to handle such things, especially if it's on American soil.[/QUOTE] so the military's officers can maintain their level of authority and corruption

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40942463]I really don't see why prosecutors shouldn't get to handle such things, especially if it's on American soil.[/QUOTE] They're not talking about civilian prosecutors they would still be military prosecutors, just not in the members chain of command. Which is how it works already for sexual assault cases, the only stupid thing being your commanding officer can randomly tell the court to throw the case out.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40942500]They're not talking about civilian prosecutors they would still be military prosecutors, just not in the members chain of command. Which is how it works already for sexual assault cases, the only stupid thing being your commanding officer can randomly tell the court to throw the case out.[/QUOTE] Why would a commanding officer have such power to do that? It's almost as if you can get away with anything so long as your CO let's you.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40942523]Why would a commanding officer have such power to do that? It's almost as if you can get away with anything so long as your CO let's you.[/QUOTE] They have that power because of military tradition I think. The CO is the top of the food chain overall ruler of a command. But we're in 2013 and alot smarter, more conscientious, and advanced then we were a hundred or even fifty years ago. It's time to let go of some of our military traditions for the sake of decency and progress.

It would be cool but unlikely if Congress voted in the bill without the consent of the Military Officers.

[QUOTE=person11;40942933]It would be cool but unlikely if Congress voted in the bill without the consent of the Military Officers.[/QUOTE] Why does Congress need the consent of the military?

[QUOTE=Last or First;40942444]"For instance, the right to not be raped!" They remind me of little kids who had something taken away from them because they weren't handling it safely. "There's no problem here! We were doing it right! We'll do it right, we swear, just give it back!" If they were handling these cases correctly to begin with, then we wouldn't have to take the cases away from them in the first place.[/QUOTE] [url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_US_military_personnel_have_the_same_constitutional_rights_in_a_court-martial_as_they_do_in_civilian_court#page2[/url] Took three seconds to find.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40942988]Why does Congress need the consent of the military?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Why are you not supporting the military's choice on this? Are you a communist who hates freedom and democracy?[/QUOTE] Politicians don't want to look like they don't support the troops. Appealing to the populations patriotism is a good way to win votes.

politicians don't give a fuck about the troops

[QUOTE]Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said there may be public confusion about the military's reporting process. Referring to media reports that there is only one way to report sexual assault, the Michigan Democrat asked each of the military heads at a hearing if there currently are multiple options in addition to notifying a unit commander. They replied yes.[/QUOTE] Just to clarify this single point, at least for the Army there are a multitude of options to report sexual assault, with the options falling under two kinds of reports, restriced and unrestricted. You can read more about it here: [url]http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/policy_restricted_unrestricted_reporting.cfm[/url]

[QUOTE=SKEEA;40944040]Just to clarify this single point, at least for the Army there are a multitude of options to report sexual assault, with the options falling under two kinds of reports, restriced and unrestricted.[/QUOTE] The problem seems to be the commands unwillingness to actually deal with problem instead of the actual established systems within the military for dealing with possible sexual abuse cases.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40942988]Why does Congress need the consent of the military?[/QUOTE] Legally, it does not. But I have a feeling that the officers hold a lot of influence over Congress and their constituents.

It's not uncommon for the top brass to publicly denounce laws regarding the military in the US

Wait, I thought you get struck by both local and military laws.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;40944040]Just to clarify this single point, at least for the Army there are a multitude of options to report sexual assault, with the options falling under two kinds of reports, restriced and unrestricted. You can read more about it here: [url]http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/policy_restricted_unrestricted_reporting.cfm[/url][/QUOTE] After reading some of that, I'm unsure where I stand on this. It seems it's optional for the victim whether they want to do a restricted report, and they can change the report to unrestricted if they want to. Restricted meaning the victim receives the healthcare and counseling they need but wishes the crime to be solved internally, and unrestricted meaning the victim receives the healthcare and counseling they need but wishes the crime to be handled by law enforcement. So the issue here is not solely on the military covering things up, but also that the victim actively chooses that they do not want this issue to be handled by law enforcement. While unrestricted of course seems to me like the hands down best option, in the event that the victim does not want to press charges it still seems better to have the report option where they receive the healthcare and counseling they need without alerting authorities, than that the victim would not be given the healthcare and counseling they need because of avoiding to report the crime since they do not want to alert the authorities... Sooo... I'm a bit torn.

[QUOTE=Simski;40946063]After reading some of that, I'm unsure where I stand on this. It seems it's optional for the victim whether they want to do a restricted report, and they can change the report to unrestricted if they want to. Restricted meaning the victim receives the healthcare and counseling they need but wishes the crime to be solved internally, and unrestricted meaning the victim receives the healthcare and counseling they need but wishes the crime to be handled by law enforcement. So the issue here is not solely on the military covering things up, but also that the victim actively chooses that they do not want this issue to be handled by law enforcement. While unrestricted of course seems to me like the hands down best option, in the event that the victim does not want to press charges it still seems better to have the report option where they receive the healthcare and counseling they need without alerting authorities, than that the victim would not be given the healthcare and counseling they need because of avoiding to report the crime since they do not want to alert the authorities... Sooo... I'm a bit torn.[/QUOTE] You said two different things in your post. In both restricted and unrestricted healthcare is provided. If you choose restricted you can change to unrestricted at any given time. Also the crime isn't solved at all with restricted reporting.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40947292]You said two different things in your post. In both restricted and unrestricted healthcare is provided. If you choose restricted you can change to unrestricted at any given time. Also the crime isn't solved at all with restricted reporting.[/QUOTE] It was intentional. Restricted seems good for one reason and one reason only, and that's that it provides healthcare and counseling. If the unrestricted option was the only way to get healthcare and counseling, that would mean some victims who for reasons unknown do not want to get the authorities involved could end up not getting any healthcare and counseling for choosing not to report at all.