NCFM NOTE: Make no mistake, what Michael is talking about is nothing more than another attempt to transfer power and control to ideologues after another brainwashing attempt to convince us that there’s an epidemic of rabid rapists behind every bush, but only after expanding definitions of sexual assault including finger wagging and cat whistles … now there’s an epidemic — not. Think about it before you say we’re crazy…

By Michael Conzachi,

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand pushes for Legislation to remove Commanders from the decision making process in sexual assault cases.

Recently, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced legislation into the Senate called the Military Justice Improvement Act.  In short and in part, she is calling for the removal of military commanders in the decision-making process when there are allegations of sexual assault, and some other serious crimes.  The highlight that is getting the attention is the sexual assault component.  The bill will soon be brought before the Senate with the hope that it will become part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate is likely to vote on before the week of Thanksgiving.

I wanted to give you the straight scoop and to not be deceived by colorful language, and noble objectives.

The first part that concerns me is the title and the accompanying highlight, being the “reform” of the way that the military handles cases of sexual assault.  There are the usual claims of the need for transparency and reform, but we already have that in the form of the military chain of command.  What they truly want to accomplish is remove a vital and important check and balance system and replace it with a system in which we would have over-zealous, politically correct, or ideologically driven prosecutors decide whether to bring cases to courts-martial.  The system we have in place is designed to prevent that, but if Gillibrand and her cohorts get their way we will see some of the same kind of witch trials we see every day in our criminal and family courts.

Are their problems and mistakes; sure but we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.  Look at what happens in the civilian court system of procuring restraining orders.  Based on nothing more that the unproven, unverified, and unsubstantiated word of a woman, a man can be issued a court order restricting him in all sorts of ways, lose his 2^nd Amendment rights and many others as well, and order him to make an appearance in court with zero evidence, nada, zip, to make a determination of something that will affect him for the rest of his life.  What happened to due process?

This is the true intent of this bill.  They want military personnel brought before a courts-martial based on just the unproven word of an accuser, even when an allegation is the only evidence in the case.  In short, if you are accused, you go to trial.  That is the primary reason for eliminating the check and balance system of military commanders.

Gillibrand cites a fiscal 2012 report from the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault and Response Office which “estimated,” and that’s they key word, “estimated,” that here were 26,000 cases of sexual “contact and assaults,” another key word, “contacts” that year – a 37 percent increase from fiscal year 2011.

I have tried in vain to obtain information from the Department of Defense of exactly how they reached this number, and I cannot get an answer.  It is because they get this number through some type of convoluted mathematical assessment based on yet another flawed “anonymous survey.”  How accurate is that, yet they keep throwing out this magical number that supposedly is the basis for all of this legislative nonsense and political posturing.

We must look at the ever-expanding definition of what constitutes a “sexual assault.”  Look at what has happened with domestic violence laws, in which almost anything can be classified as domestic “violence.”  Just remember that guys the next time you come home from work tired, grab a beer from the fridge and tune in Sports Center.  That act alone could cause “emotional distress” in your wife necessitating a restraining order.  Don’t believe me; ask the thousands every year who contact this organization and others.

Look at what has happened on our nation’s colleges with the “Dear Colleague Letter?”  In short, the mere allegation of a sexual assault is enough to remove a young man from college and essentially eliminate any future attendance at any other higher institute for learning.

Although I have been unsuccessful in obtaining an email address for anyone in the Department of Defense, I would suggest that all of you write to the Defense Secretary and ask, “Could you please tell me about how the recent figure of sexual assaults in the military has been computed.”  Very simple, how did you arrive at that figure. The address is provided here.

Chuck Hagel
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000

Another legislative proposal was introduced by California Senator Barbara Boxer as an alternative proposal to Gillibrand’s bill.  This proposal intends to reform Article 32 hearings by limiting the amount of personal testimony required of an accuser before trial.  Article 32 hearings are designed to function as a probable cause hearing. However, they claim they have been transformed into a ‘mini-trial’ before the actual trial — where the victim’s credibility and character are attacked.  That is another key word that they like to throw around, “attacked.”  In their minds, when you question the credibility of a sexual assault accuser, you question the evidence being presented, you are attacking the victim.  But this only applies to allegations of sexual assault only when it involves a woman victim, or alleged victim.  If it were an identity theft case or a burglary case, this would be a moot point.

Correct me if I am wrong, but any person in our country’s judicial system, including the military has the right to face their accuser.  In any case whether that be a traffic ticket, a municipal code violation for a barking dog, or murder, that the accused has the right to face their accuser.  Gillibrand and Boxer intend to remove that process only in sexual assault cases, just like the presumption of innocence has been virtually removed from our nation’s domestic violence laws.  The allegation alone is sufficient to initiate criminal charges and court proceedings.

Using that same logic, I suppose I could report an annoying neighbor to the police that I saw him driving drunk two weeks ago, and bingo, we go to trial.  Hey, I allege, it must be true and therefore we go to trial.

We have seen the erosion of our rights in domestic violence and sexual assault cases for years.  This bill does nothing to address any so called and fundamentally flawed epidemic of sexual assault in the military.  This bill is designed to reduce, piece by piece a system of checks and balances, to remove a system of common sense, evidence, and rule of law and replace it with a system that will decimate our military.

While there are sexual assaults in the military in which both women and men are victims, this attempt to remove protections and to presume guilt are the opposite of what are the guarantees of our constitution, the very same constitution that less than 1 percent of the population serve to protect and less than ½ of 1 percent of our population volunteer to serve in harm’s way.  Shouldn’t our military commanders; many of those who make life and death decisions be afforded some level of judgment?  Shouldn’t they be primarily concerned with protecting our citizens and our military personnel rather than hurting the feelings of some special interest group with a loud voice and lots of money?

If any of you are troubled by this please contact your representatives, congress and the senate, and ask them to oppose New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s proposed legislation, the Military Justice Improvement Act, as it is currently written, as it does nothing to solve the problem, it only makes it worse.

The reason there is a command structure in the military is so commanders can oversee their troops, including those who may have committed sexual assault.

Just because one has a law degree does not necessarily qualify them for determining criminality including from allegations of sexual assault.

Tags: discrimination against men], Kirsten Gillibrand, military, sexual assault