There’s More to Address

Recently, a study by the veterans’ clinic at Yale Law School uncovered that there is a huge disparity between the rates at which the Department of Veterans Affairs grants disability claims for victims of sexual assault than for other post-traumatic stress disorder cases.  Sexual assault in the military has very obviously been a prominent issue in Congress, but it is only recently that these residual effects have been exposed.

This less well-known battle has been gaining attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  Their written report, “Battle for Benefits: VA Discrimination Against Survivors of Military Sexual Trauma”, reveals that while veterans suffering from PTSD have no trouble receiving their well deserved benefits, those suffering from the similar condition of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) fight an unfair battle and are often unsuccessful. 

The reports key findings include shocking percentages, such as the grant rate for MST-related PTSD claims has lagged behind the grant rate for other PTSD claims by between 16.5 and 29.6 percentage points every year, and that a gap of nearly ten percentage points separated the overall grant rate for PTSD claims brought by women and those brought by men. 

These gaps are outrageous.  Not only are we seeing a very large gender discrimination, we are seeing an unnecessary separation between two psychological disorders stemming from the same root.  Various interest groups, such as the ACLU and SWAN (Service Women’s Action Network), have been working to expose their findings and push people to understand that this issue goes beyond what Congress is hoping to fix 

They describe these veterans as facing a “broken bureaucracy”.  The bigger issue here, though, is the disconnect between the executive and legislative branch and interest groups and how this will play a roll in not only getting Veterans’ Affairs to resolve this problem, but how the president will implement Gillibrand’s legislation that will hopefully go into law. 

We have been made aware that often times the interests of interest groups and citizen’s poses as a limitation to successful bureaucracy and legislative oversight.  I believe that the more groups such as SWAN and the ACLU reveal the residual effects of military sexual assault on our veterans, the issue will garner more support and sympathy and hopefully inspire more change.

While Congress is currently working on a great first step to revising how these cases of assault are reported, there are obviously more flaws in the system that need to be addressed outside of the legislative branch.  The disparities occurring in our military go far beyond what a few members of Congress can garner support for.  With the push of interest groups and the fight to revise how Veterans’ Affairs grants disability claims, hopefully change will come on the larger scale it needs to. 

 

Sources:

 http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20131107/yale-law-school-study-benefits-lag-for-sex-assault-victims-in-military

http://www.newsweek.com/va-discriminates-against-survivors-military-sexual-trauma-report-2856

https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/battle-benefits-va-discrimination-against-survivors-military-sexual-trauma

Continued Debate: Military Justice Improvement Act

After a week of intense debate surrounding next year’s Defense Authorization Bill, the Senate is no closer to attaching the Gillibrand amendments, also known the Military Justice Improvement Act. As mentioned in previous posts, Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) is working to remove the decisions to move forward in sexual assault cases from the military’s chain of command. This measure goes farther than the provisions already stipulated in the bill and widely supported by Senator McCaskill (D-MO).

The Military Justice Improvement Act is a strong example of bi-partisanship in an especially polarized congress. Senator Gillibrand has the support of 53 senators, two of the most notable being Senators Cruz (R-TX) and Paul (R-KY). The biggest hurdle for Senator Gillibrand, at this point, is gaining the support of her colleagues across the aisle before the Senate returns from recess on December 9^th to reach a filibuster-proof vote count. With the support of Senators Cruz and Paul, she stands a better chance at using them to help gain additional support from Senate Republicans. In a time of rising polarization and congressional inaction, the support from both sides of the aisle is huge step in the right direction.  While some argue that the polarized congress stems from a polarized public—on this issue, that does not hold true. A recent poll showed that almost six in ten Americans support taking the decision to prosecute military sexual assault out of the chain of command, following with the Gillibrand amendment. Those in the Senate now should act as delegates, and vote on this amendment as their constituents demonstrate widespread support. That being said, Gillibrand is determined to have this measure of change enacted, and has said that she will call for a separate vote on the Military Justice Improvement Act if it does not move forward.

Another aspect of this amendment that has yet to be discussed is where the President falls in these discussions, and what the relationship between the Executive Branch and Congress is on this amendment. President Obama has been very outspoken on the issue of military sexual assault and how all measures need to be taken to prevent the horrific actions from continuing on as is. However, President Obama has not indicated whether he supports the more extensive actions proposed by Senator Gillibrand or those already included in the Authorization Bill, supported by Senator McCaskill. At a press conference this week, press Secretary Jay Carney said “It is something, as I said, the President is very concerned about, I don’t have any more insight on potential amendments at this time.” As this amendment is opposed by some of the Department of Defense’s leadership—it places the President in a tough position with the leaders at the Pentagon. While the President has not yet used his bully pulpit to bring the few democrats who are not in support of this measure in to party line yet, there still is the opportunity to do so when Congress resume from break. If this bill is added as an amendment and eventually is passed, there might be resistance from the Department of Defense. President Obama should then issue a signing statement to ensure for proper implementation of this protective measure. On the other hand, if this measure is not added as an amendment and President Obama is not satisfied with the limited nature of reform in combating sexual violence, he can issue executive orders to force more action against these horrific crimes.

By Sophie S. 

This week, Law and Order: SVU tackled the harsh current issue that is military sexual violence.  The episode, titled Military Justice, had the SVU team investigating the brutal rape of a military officer.  While SVU has previously covered this issue, executive producer Warren Leight decided to reexamine it because he recognizes that this issue does not just go away.  Leight hopes that this episode inspires further conversation and change. 

Conveniently timed, this week the Senate is set to consider an annual defense policy bill that would implement Gillibrand’s amendment and allow survivors of assault to take an alternate route outside the chain of command for prosecuting attackers.  Despite the support of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Gillibrand is still digging for support among other members of Congress.

She spoke to ABC about the importance of this legislation, and that “’having the bright line of elevating all serious crimes out of the chain of command’ will ensure the protection of both victims’ rights and defendants’ rights.”  She also told ABC that this chain has long been broken and the time for change is upon us. 

The combination of SVUs exposure of this amendment and Gillibrand seeking public support and attention is an interesting one.  Whether or not the dual coverage was intentional, it has brought a great surge of attention at a crucial point in this piece of legislation’s life.   While a large portion of our voting population has been made aware of the controversy and discussion surrounding this issue, it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media attention SVU has given Gillibrand’s amendment will affect its chances of passage. 

With a light cast on this issue to a whole other sector of our voting population, we could see a little bit more pressure put on members of Congress.  Now that the general public has seen a fictional representation of the severity of the issue, it’s possible a new wave of public support could back this piece of legislation.  Media is something for everyone, regardless of partisan beliefs, and hopefully this bill will inspire voters to rally behind Gillibrand’s amendment.  The hope is that this new wide range of public support will push Congress to move forward with this bill. 

Currently, though, Gillibrand is seeing an overwhelming amount of public support for her proposal while still searching for the last few votes needed by Congress.  This could indicate that congressmen are acting as trustees, and voting for their interests instead of the interests of their constituency and what seems like the interests of the country at large.  This issue is definitely going to be one that comes up in the 2014 elections, and will be scrutinized by both sides.  When it comes to accountability and voting for what the public wants, it would not be shocking to see a change in who is elected. 

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57612718/senate-showdown-over-military-sexual-assault-bill/

http://www.examiner.com/article/tonight-svu-takes-on-a-hot-button-issue-assault-the-military

 

— Maddie J

Defense Authorization Bill–Amendment Process

As Congress resumes its hectic schedule following the government shutdown, the Defense Reauthorization bill for 2014 will be up for a heated debate in the days ahead. In this bill, Subtitle B is titled “Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault Prevention and Response” and has dozens of policies pertaining to the regulation and efforts to stop sexual assault in the military. This is especially relevant as the Department of Defense released the number of sexual assault complaints this past week. There were 3,553 complaints this past year—up 50% from the year before. That being said, while a 50% increase in the number of cases is not great—it also is a positive reflection on the willingness of survivors to come forward in reporting their assailants.

As we move into a week of hot debate on the Senate floor—Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is working hard to attach an amendment to the bill that would stipulate that the survivor’s commanding officer be removed from the reporting chain of command and place the power into the military prosecutor’s hands. Gillibrand is proposing this measure, because she believes that this will prevent abuses done by commanders to protect the assailant from being prosecuted and ensure that the system is more accountable. While the Pentagon does not support this measure, Gillibrand has 47 Senators support.

Gillibrand’s proposal was up for debate earlier this year in the Senate Armed Forces Committee, but failed to garner enough support to be directly included in this bill. It is not currently clear as to how many votes Gillibrand would need for this provision to be attached to the Authorization Bill as an amendment. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), chair of the Senate Armed Forces Committee is opposed to this measure and rather supports the already-included provisions in the bill that are largely championed by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). He stated earlier this week that this amendment, like hundreds of others that will be considered as the Senate debates the Authorization bill, would need to pass a 60-vote threshold instead of the normal simple majority because it is so controversial in its nature.  That being said, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allows this amendment to be added with a simple majority, members of the Republican Party have already stated that they will filibuster this measure. There has been no mention on how the Senate Rules Committee will be of impact on this matter.

Seeing that Gillibrand only has 47 Senator’s support at this time, she has not yet met either threshold—and this won’t be an easy battle. However, if this provision does not garner the support it needs to beat a filibuster—the reversion point is far superior to the status quo as it stands now. The current policy of addressing sexual assault in the military is lacking (status quo), and the proposed bill as it stands now has many areas in which it will significantly help the military improve in this area (reversion point). These proposals currently in the bill include the power to remove commander’s ability to overturn jury verdicts and mandate dishonorable discharge for those convicted of sexual assault. They have not been mentioned thus far as areas that would be cause for a filibuster, or that would need to garner enough support to overturn a veto. President Obama is very supportive of the efforts to curtail the pervasive issue of sexual assault in the military, and would not hinder those methods. However, there are going to be many other controversial areas discussed in this bill—like NSA surveillance techniques—that could be cause for veto-worry. I question why both Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand are leaving the sexual assault provisions in the general budget instead of passing a separate bill pertaining to this issue directly, when it runs such a high risk of being overpowered by other areas pertaining to military spending.

By: Sophie S.

External Pressures Promise Favorable Results for ENDA

Just last week the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, a bill that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, gained huge momentum.  Having already passed in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, it is scheduled for a floor vote tomorrow.  The ENDA was last brought to a Senate vote in 1996, but unfortunately failed.  More recently, it passed in 2007 in the House, but received little Republican support when introduced in the Senate.  

In a refreshing update, the bill has thus far received immense bipartisan support.  Not only are the co-sponsors Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), it was publically backed in committee by Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT).  The worry now, before tomorrow’s vote, is whether or not the bill will garner a filibuster-proof majority.  As of Thursday, 59 senators had expressed support, with one more leaning towards “yay”. 

While many Senators are expressing support solely because they believe in the content of the legislation, the Human Rights Campaign has put a lot of time and money into lobbying efforts for this bill.  In addition, the American Unity Fund has quietly spread the word that they encourage Senators to vote “yay” on the bill.  This vote will be important in the next election when the scores come out.  Having recently addressed the important of vote scores and lobbying efforts, I plan to pay close attention to how the Senate as a whole votes.  It will also be interesting to see how executive pressures affect votes.  The administration used executive action to advance policy on gay rights and pushed hard to repeal “don’t ask don’t tell”. 

 Pressures from the executive branch, outside groups, and within the party are always influential when it comes to vote counts, but this one seems to have a particularly large amount of backing.  While there has been no official whip count, both parties are counting huge supporting numbers.  Whether or not these Senators vote for themselves, their constituents, or with the thought of reelection in mind, the issue remains a heated one and will continue to be addressed regardless of how tomorrow plays out.  

— Maddie J

Sources:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-to-take-up-federal-ban-on-sexual-orientation-discrimination-in-workplace-20131028

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/employment-nondiscrimination-act_n_4182230.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/03/memo-to-senate-republicans-your-constituents-want-you-to-vote-for-enda/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/30/the-fate-of-enda-is-still-uncertain-in-the-senate-heres-why/

Ending “Revenge Porn”

Just last month, the California State Legislature signed into law a bill that would start the process of making what is commonly referred to as “revenge porn” an illegal act. Revenge porn is the public distribution sexual photos of someone without the subject’s permission, and typically is done after a breakup. For the most part, these photos are of women. These acts are extremely hard to regulate in a period of mass information and distribution, because once the original poster makes something public on one website, it has the capacity to spread widely through third-party distribution. However, the distribution of these photos is an extremely humiliating process for the individuals involved, and there has been a recent call to attention on this issue.

California’s iteration of this legislation was brought forth by bipartisan sponsorship in a democratic majority senate, and passed through both houses with near unanimity. While we continue to see an increased polarization across the board on most issues, party polarization on this issue would be hard to explain away during election season.

This legislation in California is an example of problematic innovation, because this is a specific problem that called for action by officials. Thousands of peoples privacy has been violated with the continued circulation of these images, while there is little power for redress. With that, it is not an example of slack legislation because there was not excess time or money for the state of California to spare.

While this was a great step forward in the fight against this type of privacy violation and sexual harassment, this legislation does not necessarily reach far enough. It is codified with the provisions that it is a punishable misdemeanor with up to a six-month sentence, and $1,000 dollar fine. However, it contains a large loophole. This law stipulates that it can only be applied to individuals who distributed the material if they were the creator. This provides a huge loophole for distributors of these conceivably private materials, because they might be in possession and then distribute photos that they did not take, leaving them immune from prosecution. California has created an extremely large loophole for itself, because one study has shown that up to 80% of the photos were taken by the victims themselves. While this bill does not cover nearly enough of those affected by revenge porn, it is a large start in an area that has not typically been addressed by state legislators, and has now become a topic of discussion—sparking debates in state legislatures across the nation.

 One reason the California State Legislature might not have introduced amendments to make this legislation tougher against those guilty of distributing this material is because they were afraid of legislators acting with sophisticated voting behavior. If there had been more stringent amendments that would hold those responsible for the compounding distribution on alternative websites, or even the websites responsible for hosting the information—it could have been seen as a gross violation of free speech because the lack of malicious intent by these third-party distributors. We might have seen a large contingent voting in support of these amendments with the actual intention of making the bill fail, returning it to the status quo of no legislation.

All in all, I do think that this legislation is a great step forward in protecting individuals (but mostly women, seeing that they are largely the victims of these terrible acts) from revenge pornography, but there is a lot that still needs to be done.  While this topic doesn’t seem to be the most prominent example of sexual violence, the exploitation of an expectation of privacy is a gross violation of one’s civil and personal rights, and a topic that needs to be addressed immediately. 

By: Sophie S. 

Recent Events Bring Attention to Needed Reform

With the government recently out of its shutdown, it has been interesting to see the types of legislation that have taken priority recently.  Unfortunately for Gillibrand and supporters of her bill, it has once again been put on the back burner as more pressing issues need to be addressed.

Interestingly enough, though, another report of sexual violence can now be used to drum up support.  Two former Naval Academy football players will face court proceedings, adding to the string of high profile cases that initially called for the writing of Gillibrand’s legislation.

The case comes out of a party that occurred last year near the academy, where the woman, who was then a 20-year-old student, arrived intoxicated and had sexual relations with some of the players but claims to have no memory of parts of the night.  She learned, via social media the next day, of her encounters with the players and also that they were being charged with sexual assault.

A silver lining for many seen on this case is that the superintendent of the academy, Vice Adm. Michael H. Miller, referred two of the suspected players, Eric Graham and Joshua Tate, to general court-martial.  This was seen as an unusual decision, as it was predicted the prosecution would not convict the three suspected men.

But it wasn’t a successful conviction that Admiral Miller was looking for.  He believed that “it is the convening authority’s responsibility to independently evaluate evidence and determine if reasonable grounds exist that a crime has been committed by the accused.”  Many, including the woman’s lawyer, are pleased with the decision to court-martial the three men.  It is evidence of progress in what Gillibrand is trying to achieve within her amendment, which is to hand the process over to an unbiased body.  Although many are arguing against the case in general because of the pressures President Obama has applied to have such cases punished more severely, in general it shows progress by important supporters in the direction we want to go in.

While Admiral Miller’s actions do not completely foster confidence in the justice system within our armed forces, it sets a precedent that the system can and should be revised.  The actions taken within this case will hopefully encourage others put in this unfortunate situation to take the same route.  Little steps like this only create more publicity for what Gillibrand is trying to do, which will hopefully gain it the public and congressional attention it deserves.

— Maddie J

Source:

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Services during the Shutdown

As we enter our third week of the 2013 government shutdown, progress on legislation that would address sexual assault in the military has come to a rapid halt to account for debt ceiling and budget negotiations. On October 1^st, 2013, congress passed the “Pay Our Military Act” (POMA). This act was designed with the purpose to ensure that our national security interests and defense departments are able to run during this government. It stipulates that it is in effect at any point during fiscal year 2014 (that started this past October 1^st, the first day of the shutdown) when there is not a budget in effect and appropriations have not been given out. It stipulates that sums be appropriated for active defense members who are performing services during the shutdown period, those who are civilian employees at the Department of Defense that are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Defense, and those contractors that are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Defense.

While the shutdown was, and still is, affecting progress as far as the legislative proposals of Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand, the Secretary of Defense chose to deem the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPR) as an “essential” function of the Department of Defense in these days of D.C. turmoil. The training seminars and other activities that are used to educate the United States’ armed forces have not been stopped due to the shutdown. The Pentagon’s spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Catherine Wilkinson said, “The SAPR office reported that there haven’t been any delays or cancellations due to the furlough of some of the non-excepted policy-related employees last week.” The SAPR website also makes it clear to employees of the military that their services will remain open for business during this yet-to-be-determined period of time, and that their services will also be available online.

As ThinkProgress reported, “not all areas of government dealing with assault remains as lucky as the military, however. Department of Education investigations into assaults on college campuses, for example, have been forced to be put on hold while the government is closed.” Without the passage of POMA, there was a significant chance that the SAPR program would not have received funding during this interim period. While it was extremely important that the POMA be passed quickly to continue the missions necessary for our national security, it would have been an opportunity to place some of the non-controversial measures of protection for survivors of sexual assault in the military in this piece of legislation. POMA was deemed an extremely important bill by the members of congress, and passed with an overwhelming majority. Had some of the less controversial measures been added in as well, there was a slight window of possibility for reform. However, those in opposition to this bill might have been outspoken against the timing of the amendments, calling it a hostage-taking situation—claiming that those legislators who supported these amendments were placing our national security at risk, and might have caused the bill as a whole to fail. Hopefully in the coming days, Congress will find a solution to the budget negotiations and resume debate on the important issue of addressing sexual violence in the military.

By: Sophie S.

New Support for Gillibrand’s Amendment

While the government shut down, and the days leading up to it, has pushed the current issues in Congress to the back burner, it was interesting to find that recently Senator Gillibrand’s amendment to the annual national defense authorization bill has gained the support of three retired generals. 

Gillibrand’s proposal would take away the responsibility for the prosecution of rape, sexual assault and other criminal cases from the chain of command of the military and give it to independent military prosecutors.      This provision would fix what many believe to be a conflict of interest in these cases and allow a more independent and transparent body to handle them.   

In the past, it has been the attitude of many high ranking military officials that while sexual violence in the military is a problem that needs to be solved, it has yet to be fixed and should go on being addressed at it always has.  Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, the first woman to reach the rank of three-star general, has been quoted in support of Gillibrand’s amendment saying “After carefully thinking about this issue, I believe the Defense Department’s time to solve the problem on its own has expired” … “Civilian and uniformed military leaders have had absolute discretion and power to make changes, but have not fixed the problem and have not stopped retaliation suffered by survivors who report the crimes committed against them.”

Their support stems from towards a system that allows a “commander to sweep his own crime or the crime of a decorated soldier or friend under the rug, [a system that] protects the guilty and protects serial predators. And … harms military readiness.”  In a letter that brigadiers general Loree Sutton, one of the generals in support, wrote she stated that failure to achieve these reforms, and ultimately pass this amendment, would be a further sadness to a long history of inattentiveness.

 Since the defeat of the Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA) in committee in July, Gillibrand has been working to lobby senators in support of the amendment before it goes to the floor. 

It will be interesting to see how the support of Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, Sutton, and David McGinnis, a former principal deputy to the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, helps in her efforts.  The support of advocate groups for survivors in favor of Gillibrand’s measures have been said to be crucial in addressing and passing this amendment.  The recent support of these three very respected retired generals is hopefully the last push Gillibrand needs. 

 — Maddie J 

Sources

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/23/1240784/-Three-retired-generals-get-behind-Gillibrand-s-military-sexual-assault-bill

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/24/generals-kirsten-gillibrand-army-sexual-assault

Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel Meeting

This past week, there were two public hearings conducted by the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel. This panel was created last year through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. This panel is lead by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and nine appointed members. The panel consists of judges, academics, former and current high ranking members of the military. In addition to the panel members, military leaders from some of our top allies, including Israel, Canada, and Australia, participated in these proceedings.  This is the second series of public hearings that this panel has held; the first was this past June. The panel’s key charge is to find and address the military’s deficiencies in prosecuting assailants and providing adequate resources to survivors.

 

During this series of hearings, the main topic of discussion was the role of military commanders in overseeing the court martial process. This topic is more similar to the proposal of Senator Gillibrand (D-NY), in which she calls for the responsibility and authority for prosecuting cases to be shifted from the commanders to the military prosecutors. However, individuals are speculating that the panel and the Department of Defense are withholding their recommendations that pertain to Gillibrand’s proposal until after the senate vote on said proposal. Military leaders believe that this shift in responsibility from the unit commanders to the military prosecutors would marginalize military leadership and decrease general accountability in the command structure. Frederick J. Kenny, Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Coast Guard said, “We believe that making drastic changes that remove the commander from that position will have a detrimental effect on the discipline of the service without proving the corollary benefit of more prosecutions.” Their decision allow the committee’s proposal process to keep up with the busy upcoming legislative session is demonstrative of their reluctance to change the status quo.

 

In recent days, however, Senator Gillibrand’s proposals have been gaining traction with members of the armed services. She recently gained the endorsement of the first woman to become a three-star Army general, the Army’s former highest-ranking psychiatrist, and an Obama administration Pentagon appointee. However, even with this recent shift in momentum for Senator Gillibrand’s proposed change, she is still meeting resistance from her colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator McCaskill (D-MO), another strong proponent for change. Senator McCaskill, along with some of their colleagues, support a current version of the Senate defense bill in which it includes nearly two-dozen other sexual assault prevention provisions. This includes provisions that would remove the power of military commanders to overturn court-martial convictions and making it a crime to retaliate against survivors who report an instance of sexual assault. At the last floor count in August, Senator Gillibrand’s provision had the support of 46 senators, and with the recent support from the military and her continued perseverance on this effort, this number is likely to increase as we continue towards a vote.  

 By Sophie S