The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    Hey, Prez (you worthless pig)...Stop the rapes!

    By jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 3:09am |

    Perhaps I misconstrue the words "Commander-in-Chief", but I swear before Jesus that English is my native tongue, and the whole title is only three words long.

     

    As I am sure you all know, the suprisingly hard-charging junior Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, recently hit a stone wall in the Senate, blocking a really rather modest attempt to attack a loathsome set of practices that besets members (mostly female) of the armed forces of the United States.

     

    It seems that, unlike similarly situated militaries in several civilized countries, our chains of command are unable, or unwilling, to protect members of the military from getting raped.

     

    Their allies in the Senate, not all of whom are Repugnants, have defeated via filibuster a remedial bill, the principle thrust of which is to remove the investigation of  complaints of sexual assault from the portfolio of the local unit commander.

     

    I will not attempt to deconstruct what to me is a rather simple set of reasons militating for such a reform.

     

    What I wish to focus on is the odd passivity of the guy in overall command.

     

    Now, I am perhaps naive, perhaps unsophisticated.

     

    Withal, if it were I in charge, I believe I would find a way to exercise that civilian control over the military so as to end, (with a stroke of that pen he likes to brag on,) the power of unit commanders to enable the rape of women (and the occasional man) under their command.

     

    So, I ask, what the fuck is wrong with Obama?

    Comments

    I was binge watching House of Cards, where, art imitating life, this issue is central to the plot developments in the second season.  

     

    I guess it cranked me up...

     

    (Don't miss the series, btw)


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 4:47am

    I would think he could effect this change. But what do I know?

    I guess there's a reason this has gurgled up through Congress, and it may be a legal one. Even if not, it's generally better to have "the people" (don't laugh) behind big changes than not.

    Maybe he was hoping that the GOP would fear losing the female vote enough to force them to do something. That would've been better.

    But I think your logic is correct.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 11:13am

    That'd be shrewd, 'cept on this one the split wasn't anything like we are used to...check out the votes .

     

    A sample: For, McConnell(R) and Paul (R) 

                                                                                                           


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 4:33pm

    Amen, brother JR. I would be interested in hearing from any of our well-informed fellow travelers if there is a good reason that Obama can't do as you suggest, but until then I'll echo your refrain, what the fuck is wrong with Obama?


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 1:31pm

    Granted he couldn't even be bothered to twist arms for his own health care plan, what does it take to energize this guy, even if by some tortuous procedural mandates he can't reach down into the nuts and bolts of the prosecutorial mechanism?

     

    It seems to me that he has the power to cancel any decision of any sort made by any member of the armed forces serving under him.  So where a unit commander opts not to prosecute, how is that not a decision subject to Obama's contravention?

     

    And how is it not within his power to transfer every complainant to a different unit, ipso facto.?

     

     


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 4:38pm

    The military is a community governed by a set of laws, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I agree that the code is flawed in some ways and I support Gillibrand's proposal to remove sexual assault cases to civilian courts. But I don't think Obama has the legal power to unilaterally change the UCMJ nor do I think the president should have that power. No single individual should have the power to arbitrarily change the laws that govern a community. Governors of states need legislature approval to change laws, mayors of cities have city councils, the commander in chief has congress. When legislatures fail its up to the people to change them, not for the president to take on powers he has no legal right to.

    I have problems with the increases in presidential power. I don't criticize Obama much for it because he's merely conforming to a modern norm and is no worse and at times less worse than previous presidents. But it would be a vast abuse of presidential power for him to take unto himself the power to arbitrarily change the law governing military personnel.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 3:37pm

    Great thought-provoking comment, oceankat. Made me think of how often we end up changing laws when in actuality the problem we are trying to solve by doing it is really due to prosecutorial incompetence, misconduct or poor priorities. And then how with the new laws, something new goes wrong owing to the same prosecutor problems. Rinse and repeat. Sometimes the answer might be having better quality prosecutors with very clear input/direction from their bosses (whoever that might be depending upon the system) about priorities and the law.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 4:20pm

    Army’s top sex assault prosecutor suspended after assault allegation

    The suspension follows on the heels of a late February announcement by the Army it had suspended 588 troops and employees in “positions of trust” — including sexual assault response personnel — for suspected offenses including sexual crimes and alcohol abuse.

    "This reads like an article from the Onion," said Nancy Parrish, president of Protect Our Defenders, in an email. “Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing funny about it.

    "If true, this case is yet another disheartening example of the hollow pledges of ‘zero tolerance’ we have heard for more than 20 years,” Parrish wrote. “When the military has those at top of the chain who are in charge of fighting sexual assault accused of sexual misconduct at a conference on sexual assault it should be clear to every level headed human being [that] the status quo must be changed."

     

     

     

    www.stripes.com/army-s-top-sex-assault-prosecutor-suspended-after-assaul...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 5:16pm

    Also, oy!

     

    Opening statements in his court-martial are expected to begin Friday. The general also faces charges of sodomy, groping the captain against her will, engaging in public sex and abusing his government credit card in pursuit of the affair. He faces life in prison if convicted on all charges.

    The offenses Sinclair admitted Thursday could bring up to 15 years in prison, forfeiture of pay and allowance, and severance from the Army. He will be sentenced by an all-male panel of five two-star generals after they hear evidence on the remaining charges.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/us/brig-gen-jeffrey-sinclair-admits-guilt-on...

     

     


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 5:32pm

    OK, I tell ya what...I'll take off my tinfoil helmet and put on my legal scholar robe, and check out the procedural issues you raise.

     

    You may well be right that the CinC authority doesn't extend beyond "Kill him not that other guy", but man, I gotta say goin' in that they all seem to stand up and salute when he walks by, and it's hard for me to imagine that authority that (as I understand it) could put any general to work in the latrines with a toothbrush and a can of Ajax could not also effectively institute a change pursuant to which such and such a type of legal complaint will follow this path to trial instead of that path.

     

    Edit to add: It is also given out that the Chump in Chief put zero weight behing Gillibrand's bill, and for that he's nobody's hero...In other words, even if YOU are right, HE is still wrong...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 4:41pm

    it's hard for me to imagine that authority that (as I understand it) could put any general to work in the latrines with a toothbrush and a can of Ajax

    You are wrong. While in BCT, basic combat training, or AIT, advanced individual training, the drill sergeants seem to have nearly unlimited power to assign any sort of extra duty for offenses its not true when the recruit reaches regular duty and its not even true in basics.

    In some ways enlisted people have more rights than ordinary citizens, in other ways less. Any enlisted person can see a lawyer when given extra duty to demand legal proceedings  though few do as its usually for a minor offense and the duty is correspondingly minor. Any enlisted person facing legal charges, even something as small as an Article 15, will be assigned a lawyer to protect his rights under the UCMJ.

    An example from my own experience in the army as a member of the army band. The officer in charge assigned the whole platoon extra duty for an evening cleaning up the band hall. Any person could have seen a lawyer to take action to challenge the extra duty and demand legal proceedings. None did. Three soldiers deemed ringleaders were also given an article 15 that included a fine. The article 15, as always, would also be in their permanent record. Their lawyer informed them it was illegal to punish them twice for the same offense. Since they had accepted the extra duty the article 15 was illegal. It was thrown out. They had a choice to file a complaint regarding the illegal article 15 which would have been included in the officer's record or to not press charges.

    Any person assigned extra duty, including your general, could challenge that punishment and demand legal proceedings. In your impossible scenario any general would. The only choice left the higher authorities would to bring up formal charges through an article 15 or higher charges.

    The UCMJ is a complete and complex set of rules, laws, regulations that govern and protect the rights of enlisted personnel. Its not something that can arbitrarily be changed by one person be he the general of the post or the CiC. Though I don't know this I have no doubt that included in the UCMJ are the rules/laws detailing how it can be changed.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 6:56pm

    What do you play?


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 7:11pm

    I was a trumpet player stationed with the army band for two years in Indiana and two years in Japan. In many ways it was a great gig, especially Japan. I considered staying in but I couldn't deal with the authoritarian nature of army life even as a musician.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 12:32am

    Do you still play?


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 11:36am

    Now and then but just for fun. Not professionally anymore.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 12:36pm

    I guess I had visions of Private Gomer (the incomperable Vincent d'Onofrio) dancing in my head, courtesy of Full Metal Jacket...

    That's what comes of a guy using military analogies who was never in the army...

    Edit to add: I sure did enjoy the vision of some guy with a chest covered in fruit salad scrubbing away on a urinal with a toothbrush while it lasted.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 7:46pm

    I imagine things like that happen in basic training. I remember once in basics when the platoon come back from some march and everybody's boots were in a big tub of water. They weren't clean enough you see. Then they had to be dried out, cleaned, polished and inspected. But that type of petty bullshit doesn't happen once you're in the regular army.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 12:10am

    My understanding, maybe I'm wrong or maybe things changed, was that an Article 15 was a completely administrative procedure where the person charged pleaded guilty and that there were maximum penalties allowed. If you chose to refuse the Article 15 you could be Court Marshalled and that was when legal protections including the right to a lawyer kicked in.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 10:25pm

    I'm not a lawyer so I can only talk of my experience. Its possible even likely that some of my terminology is incorrect. I'm sure the proceedings can be much more complex than my experience. I was in the army 4 years, 78 to 81. Every time someone I knew got an article 15 he also got an appointment with Lt. so-and-so to get legal advice. Didn't have to request it, he got an appointment to meet and his ranking officers or NCO's had to let him off for the day to go. You could accept the punishment, i.e. plead guilty, or choose to fight and ask for a court date. Only once did someone I know ask for a court date and once the article 15 was flawed and withdrawn as I explained above. Most people simply accept them and whatever fine or demotion comes with them.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/09/2014 - 12:41am

    Blackmailed.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/25/2014 - 10:47pm