How Did Your Senators Vote?

Senator Gillibrand's proposal to take the Commander out of the sexual assault prosecution proceedings did not pass a Senate vote this past Thursday.  

You can check to see how your Senators voted on the bill.

Go to www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_2.htm

Look for Vote #59 or Issue 1752

Senator McCaskill's bill will get through the Senate but the House Majority Leader says there is little chance of it getting through.  This bill would eliminate the Good Character Defense and give the victim an opportunity to provide input regarding the court venue, i.e. military or civilian, when pertinent.

Know Anyone on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS)?

"The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) was established in 1951 by Secretary of Defense, George C. Marshall. The Committee is composed of civilian women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces. Historically, DACOWITS' recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women. The Committee shall be comprised of no more than 20 members appointed by the Secretary of Defense who have experience with the military or with women's workforce issues."  (From the DACOWITS website)

Currently DACOWITS has two standing committees, Assignments and Wellness.  The Assignments committee, chaired by LtGen Frances Wilson, USMC-Ret., focuses on accessions of women into the officer corps and full integration of women into previously-closed positions.  The Wellness committee, chaired by RADM Betsy Morris, USN-Ret., is concerned with the prevention of sexual harassment and sexual assault as well as reproductive health care services.

DACOWITS is scheduled to meet on March 13 and 14.  I plan to attend.  It would help me if you have a connection with any of the members of DACOWITS, listed below.  Or go to the website for pictures and bios.

Ms. Holly Hemphill, Chair

BG Maureen LeBoeuf, USA-Ret., Vice Chair

CMSgt Bernice Belcer, USAF-Ret.

COL Margarethe Cammermeyer, USA/USAR/ANG-Ret.

Ms. Nancy Duff Campbell

Ms. Teresa Christenson

BG Julia Cleckley, ARNG-Ret.

FltCM Jacqueline DiRosa, USN-Ret.

SgtMaj John Estrada, USMC-Ret.

Honorable Debra James

CAPT Beverly Kelley, USCG- Ret.

Rev. Dr. Cynthia Lindenmeyer

Ms. Donna McAleer

RADM Betsy Morris, USN-Ret.

LTC Hae-Sue Park, USA-Ret.

MGen Gale Pollock, Army Nurse Corps, Ret.

LtGen Frances Wilson, USMC-Ret.

The Far Reaching Impact of Military Sexual Assault

Military Sexual Assault has an immediate impact on one person but it can be felt on increasingly larger scales.  This video shows the ways in which Military Sexual Assault can affect the whole nation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpMeiv1EGBw

Military Justice Improvement Act

As you may be aware, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) proposed legislation to move the prosecution of an alleged military sexual assault offender from the standard chain of command to an external military judicial chain of command.  Toward the end of last week, word was getting around  Military Justice Improvement Act was finally going to come to the Senate floor for a vote this week and that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) indicated her intention to filibuster when it does.  That would mean Sen. Gillibrand would need 60 votes, instead of the simple majority, to get the bill passed.  Sen. Gillibrand has been stating that she has 54 votes.  Her office has been claiming that 10 senators are undecided so Sen. Gillibrand and advocacy groups have been lobbying hard for their votes.

Unfortunately for the Gillibrand bill, the "Role of the Commander" subcommittee of the Congressionally-appointed Response Systems to Adult Sexual Crimes Panel wrapped up their work two weeks ago and submitted their assessment that "the authority vested in senior commanders to convene courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for sexual assault offenses should not be changed."  The memorandum (Initial Assessment of Whether Senior Commanders Should Retain Authority to Refer Cases of Sexual Assault to Courts-Martial) submitted by the subcommittee to members of the Panel indicated they had not found evidence to support that removal of senior commanders from the prosecution process would:

     -  Reduce the incidence of sexual assault in the military;
     -  Increase reporting of sexual assaults;
     -  Improve the quality of the investigation and prosecutions; or
     -  Increase conviction rate of those accused.

The impact of this assessment on Sen. Gillibrand's bill will not be known until the vote.  The Senate did not debate this bill today.  Tomorrow is forecast as a major snow event so it is unlikely government will be operating.  If the bill is not considered on Friday, it will sit for yet another week while Congress takes a recess.

I attended the meeting of the Response Systems Panel on January 30, 2014 and took advantage of a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirement to allow public comment.  You can watch the entire hearing at http://www.c-span.org/video/?317502-1/dod-sexual-assault-crimes-response-panel or just my five minutes at http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4483188

Over the next few days I plan to post several additional commentaries about Sen. Gillibrand's proposal. I will attempt to explain some of the background to the problem of military sexual assault and to share some of what I have learned over the past six months.  I hope you will find it as enlightening as I have.

Washington Post Letter to the Editor

In response to a front page article “Behavior by brass vexes military” published by the Washington Post on Sunday, Jan. 27, I submitted the following letter to the editor.  It was published on Sunday, Feb. 2, page 16.


The U.S. military needs a culture change

Regarding the Jan. 27 front-page article “Behavior by brass vexes military”:

Although flag and general officers are expected to set a sterling example of leadership and personal behavior, the military culture has tacitly accepted a different standard.

Considering the reported examples, it is no surprise that victims of sexual assault do not trust their commanders to investigate and punish perpetrators. Hidden by philosophies that include, “What happens on deployment stays on deployment,” improper behavior and sexual assaults have occurred in the military for decades. Understandably, commanders who practice “Do as I say, not as I do” may be disinclined to enforce the zero-tolerance policy on sexual assault.

Some suggest that a new culture is needed to stop sexual assault in the military and that this change should start at the top. Because, as The Post reported, senior officers are “reluctant to criticize their peers,” no one wants the embarrassment or expense of a witch hunt, and because an amnesty policy is preposterous, maybe a cultural change from the bottom up would be effective. If boot camps and service academies revamped all hazing policies, bullying and disrespect could be replaced by genuine teamwork and honor among comrades in arms, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Let the culture change begin.

Sara Zak, Arlington
The writer is a retired Navy commander.

Do you know someone on this list?

The Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel

The following list contains the names of members of this panel referenced in a previous post.  I feel fortunate enough to have met several of them when I attended the December meeting of this group.  I will attend another session of this panel on Thursday, January 30.  Please let me know if, and how, you know any of these people.  It might help me broaden my network.
            

             Elizabeth Holtzman,  Former U.S. Representative from New York

            James Houck, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.) 

            Judge Barbara Jones, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ret.)

            David Lisak, Ph.D. 

            Colleen McGuire, Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret.) 

            Melinda Dunn, Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret.)

            Harvey Bryant, Commonwealth's Attorney of Virginia Beach

            Holly O’Grady Cook, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)

            Professor Elizabeth Hillman, Hastings Law School

Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 directed the establishment of a panel to ". . . conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses under article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the purpose of developing recommendations concerning how to improve the effectiveness of those systems." (Department of Defense News Release No: 306-13, May 7, 2013) 

I attended a two day hearing conducted by this panel in December.  Many topics were covered during that session but two made a very strong impact on me.  

The first major point of the presenter, Russell Strand, was that anyone can be a sex offender.  Mr. Strand made the case that each of us has three very different personalities:  one that people see during a normal day at the office; a second that only family and dear friends may know when in a safe environment being yourself; and a third that is unknown to all but its victims.  This third personality is so masterful that it evades any kind of profiling.  Anyone can be hiding this "Mr. Hyde" personality:  your Sailor of the Quarter, a Department Head, the newest person aboard, a shipmate you have know since boot camp.  Mr. Strand made it very clear why the "Good Character Defense" should not be considered during the prosecution of an alleged sex offender.

The second significant point of the presentation was an explanation for often major inconsistencies between stories of the victim and the accused.  A victim recalls the traumatic episode from the "emotional brain."  Her story may seem to lack credibility because it is fragmented, incomplete, inconsistent and different from that of the accused.  The offender will be able to relate the incident clearly and sequentially because he has the memories in his "rational brain."  This discrepancy may make the difference between a case that is prosecuted versus one that is thrown out.

Due to this difference between the emotional victim and the rational offender, the investigation of a sex crime requires a very different approach when interviewing the accuser.  Whereas the typical, "Who, What, When, Where, and Why" technique gets a cogent recount of the incident from the accused, the emotional brain of the victim cannot respond to those questions.  Special victim investigators have learned that the interview with the victim is best conducted with open ended questions such as, "What do you remember about that night?"  It follows that prosecution and defense attorneys must prepare their cases differently to ensure their client gets a fair trial.

This need for special investigation procedures and case preparation becomes a discussion about the cost of special training as well as a need for significant experience with special victims.  Those in support of taking the prosecution of sex crimes out of the chain of command of the accused argue that all the participants, from investigators to attorneys to convening authority need the specialized training and experience that the average military investigator, Judge Advocate General (JAG), Staff Judge Advocate and adjudicating authority do not have.  The contention is that a separate, military chain of command that is trained in special victim cases is necessary to ensure a thorough investigation, fair trial and appropriate adjudication.  

This change would certainly save training dollars and it would make duty assignment rotation less complicated by creating a specific track for special victim JAGs.  But is it necessary? 

My question:  If the investigators are properly trained and experienced to do a thorough investigation and the attorneys are appropriately trained to try the case, why do the upper echelons have to be specially trained?  The military runs on a system where: the enlisted personnel become expert at the nitty gritty; middle management is trained to skillfully apply the "product" of the enlisted; and senior management combines general knowledge, input from middle management and experience to make a final decision. 

This panel meets again next week.  The theme of the meeting is "The Role of the Commanding Officer" (in a sexual assault case.)  I plan to attend and to ask this question.

Pending further enlightenment on this idea, I feel that it is not necessary to circumvent the Commanding Officer (CO) by creating an entirely separate chain of command.  That leaves concern about the CO's ability to make unbiased decisions along the way.  I do believe that some re-training about sexual assault is necessary at ALL levels of the military.  In particular, there are several long-standing myths that, if busted, will allow CO's to be unbiased in their decisions pertaining to sexual assault reports.