Gillibrand Sticks With Original Bill on Military Sexual Assault

Gillibrand Sticks With Original Bill on Military Sexual Assault

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., backed off Sunday on modifying her proposed overhaul of the military justice system to take all serious crimes including sexual assault out of the chain of command.

“We’re going to stick to the original plan because it’s a better bill, at the end of the day,” that stands a better chance of getting the 60 votes in the Senate needed for approval, Gillibrand said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Last week, Gillibrand floated a proposal that would take only sexual assault cases out of the chain of command, and not all serious crimes such as murder or theft.

“We are considering making this one change to get to 60 votes in response to suggestions from undecided senators,” Gillibrand told reporters last Wednesday.

The proposed modification of her bill immediately drew fire from advocacy groups that had backed her initial bill that would strip commanders of their authority to refer cases to courts martial and overturn verdicts, and give that authority to independent prosecutors from the Judge Advocates’ General corps.

Gillibrand’s bill, now offered as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, was expected to come up for debate this week in the Senate. Gillibrand currently claims to have commitments from 46 of the 60 senators needed to cut off debate and get a vote on the amendment.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have opposed Gillibrand’s amendment and are backing proposals to keep serious crimes within the chain of command while holding commanders more accountable.

In defending her initial proposal, Gillibrand said Sunday that ”having the bright line of elevating all serious crimes out of the chain of command, makes sure both victims’ rights are protected and defendants’ rights for civil liberties reasons.”

Tags: ,

Join the Conversation

That simply exposes your political hand.

Serious crimes shouldn’t be in the military chain of command at all. “Purplizing” it should go straight into the Federal judicial processs for that district or region and not to the various military Judge Advocates’ General Corps. The military chain of command should handle discipline problems only.

Just an FYI-Gilibrand has remained silent regarding the coverup of sexual assault that occured in the NYS Legislature. Sheldon Silver, the head of the NYS Assembly and a fellow Democrat paid off a women using taxpayers money who was sexually harassed and assaulted by a member of his staff-I guess if your a Democrat you can get away with such things!!!

This shows how rights get taken away. A big change will not go, so a smaller change of policy is introduced. Outcome everyone is happy…? Wait doesn’t everyone like having rights…how can anyone be happy having thier rights taken away that have been earned by big sacrifices.

This bill, if passed, will totally destroy the chain-of-command! When will our military leadership stop bowing to Obama and his dimwits, including SECDEF? They have to stand up and fight for what is right in the military or the all volunteer force will wither and die. Once that happens, our country is done, or maybe that is what Obama wants?

Gilibrand clean up your own party — the one that has a real war on women. Simply trying to find a “cause” to get her name out there.

The disciplinary system was designed to give the commander discretion based on wartime needs.

Having a “rear echelon” justice system and a different one for front-line units might make more sense. Does the commander need as much power over their troops in Vandenberg as a commander might need in say, Kandahar?

The senator has a reputation as an intellectual light weight. What is she doing formulating policy and changes to the UCMJ? Just one more strike in the left’s war on the military.

NO, and NO again

Let some other country do this. The goverment is screw over the military and Retirees in Pay and benifits, Because we are spending to much. Once we try them they like all the other middle eastertn countries will turn their back on us and try to kill us.

Stay out

A commander puts his or her reputation on line by taking a case to trial. This is good for military justice, since it creates a high standard of evidence. Consider the case of the USAF Lieutenant Colonel who was tried in civilian court for sexual “assault” in Arlington, Virginia — he was acquitted of the charges on questionable grounds. The more intelligent course of action would be to let the military have jurisdiction, with non-judicial punishment quickly and efficiently applied, fine imposed and the officer’s career ended once and for all. Would this not serve the cause of justice better ?

I see among other things you do not understand the UCMJ or it s workings. Federal system is good for Civilians criminal acts where the UCMJ was designed to cover those in the Military and to avoid double jeopardy. The rules in the UCMJ is designed to make sure the government follows specific laws and procedures to ensure a fair trial but lately due to political pressure even that is being overlooked to satisfy political Correctness and such.

No, because it has been proven time and again that the good old boys system protects wrongdoers.

The fact that you put assault in quotation marks already says something about your stance on this issue.

It has been shown time and again that victims of sexual assault are not getting justice in the current system. If you think nothing needs to change then you’re just an idiot.

Very bad policy. Taking responsibility away from commanders gets you “less responsible commanders”. Not a formula for an effective military.

The answer is to make commanders responsible for their decisions.

All that said this issue is all about undermining the military. Civilian men sexually assault women at exponentially greater ratios than military men but politicians are pursuing the military…

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | , and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.