Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Generals win right to keep Protecting Sexual Predators

Generals win right to keep Protecting Sexual Predators

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Thanks to Senator Carl Levin of Michegan, the Pentagon boys club of generals (none of which have led me in a war the U.S. really won) will be able to continue making rape victims decide not to report sexual abuse in the military services.

I wonder why??  Maybe just to give them something else they are incabable of doing right!

And that old right wing Presidential candidate McCain is ready to have a duel with Levin.

Reality!`

Guest


Guest

Let me ask this question, because I honestly don't know the answer to it. Can a woman in the service who has been raped or abused by a superior officer just go to a local sheriffs office and swear out a warrant to have him arrested? She should be able to. She should not lose that right by joining the service.  I know deputies can stop drunken sailors who are driving and take them to the county lock-up. Isn't that true? It seems the same to me.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Wordslinger wrote:Thanks to Senator Carl Levin of Michegan, the Pentagon boys club of generals (none of which have led me in a war the U.S. really won) will be able to continue making rape victims decide not to report sexual abuse in the military services.

I wonder why??  Maybe just to give them something else they are incabable of doing right!

And that old right wing Presidential candidate McCain is ready to have a duel with Levin.

Reality!`
Here is Levin's explanation:

http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/statement-of-sen-carl-levin-on-his-bipartisan-amendment-to-combat-sexual-assault-in-the-military

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Nekochan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Thanks to Senator Carl Levin of Michegan, the Pentagon boys club of generals (none of which have led me in a war the U.S. really won) will be able to continue making rape victims decide not to report sexual abuse in the military services.

I wonder why??  Maybe just to give them something else they are incabable of doing right!

And that old right wing Presidential candidate McCain is ready to have a duel with Levin.

Reality!`

Frankly, I don't care about his explanation.  Bottom line, Levin leaves the problem in the hands of the same generals who have allowed the problem to become enormous.




Here is Levin's explanation:

http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/statement-of-sen-carl-levin-on-his-bipartisan-amendment-to-combat-sexual-assault-in-the-military

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

I am beginning to think most of our government have houses made out of candy and eat little children.

Guest


Guest

Generals win right to keep Protecting Sexual Predators 2Q==

Damn it!!!!!

Where's Hansel and Gretel when you need them?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9246msCh7x4

Very Happy

Nekochan

Nekochan

Wordslinger wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Thanks to Senator Carl Levin of Michegan, the Pentagon boys club of generals (none of which have led me in a war the U.S. really won) will be able to continue making rape victims decide not to report sexual abuse in the military services.

I wonder why??  Maybe just to give them something else they are incabable of doing right!

And that old right wing Presidential candidate McCain is ready to have a duel with Levin.

Reality!`



Frankly, I don't care about his explanation.  Bottom line, Levin leaves the problem in the hands of the same generals who have allowed the problem to become enormous.




Here is Levin's explanation:

http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/statement-of-sen-carl-levin-on-his-bipartisan-amendment-to-combat-sexual-assault-in-the-military
Well, in most cases, Generals would not be involved.  The Bill in question would have put it in the hands of military lawyers and there is no reason to think things would be better.

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:Let me ask this question, because I honestly don't know the answer to it. Can a woman in the service who has been raped or abused by a superior officer just go to a local sheriffs office and swear out a warrant to have him arrested? She should be able to. She should not lose that right by joining the service.  I know deputies can stop drunken sailors who are driving and take them to the county lock-up. Isn't that true? It seems the same to me.

Yes, of course she could have done that. Sexual abuse cases of children from the military are prosecuted all the time by the SO. She probably didn't report it to the civillian authorities.

Nekochan

Nekochan

If the crime happens on a base, it's a federal case or military case.  But of course, if a crime happens off the base, the local authorities have jurisdiction.  Also, a military person who commits a crime off base can be tried by both the state court and a military court.

The first time we were in Japan, a spouse killed another spouse on base, in base housing.  It was very big news at the time.   Now the spouse was not in the military and she did not fall under the UCMJ.  But she also was not a U.S. citizen.  Ultimately, she was turned over to the Japanese court system where she was convicted of murder.  I think  it had to do with the fact that although the U.S. operated a base there, the Japanese government actually owned the land. Normally, the Japanese government allows the US military to take care of issues/crimes committed by Americans on base, but this was a unique situation.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:If the crime happens on a base, it's a federal case or military case.  But of course, if a crime happens off the base, the local authorities have jurisdiction.  Also, a military person who commits a crime off base can be tried by both the state court and a military court.
Generals win right to keep Protecting Sexual Predators 9k=

*****WARM SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BzNNiWyvyE

Smile

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:The first time we were in Japan, a spouse killed another spouse on base, in base housing.  It was very big news at the time.   Now the spouse was not in the military and she did not fall under the UCMJ.  But she also was not a U.S. citizen.  Ultimately, she was turned over to the Japanese court system where she was convicted of murder.  I think  it had to do with the fact that although the U.S. operated a base there, the Japanese government actually owned the land. Normally, the Japanese government allows the US military to take care of issues/crimes committed by Americans on base, but this was a unique situation.
Generals win right to keep Protecting Sexual Predators 2Q==

I remember that.

I think that the US embassy tried to have her extradited to the United States but Japan wasn't having anything to do with that.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile

Nekochan

Nekochan

That may be the case that the U.S. tried to extradite her... she would have then been tried in a federal court.  But the federal court has no jurisdiction in Japan.   And she wasn't a U.S. citizen.  It happened a few months before we left, in an apartment tower, just a half block from where we lived.  Very weird case.  Two spouses (neither U.S. citizens) got into some kind of fight and one of them tied the other one up in a chair and stabbed her a couple of dozen times.  The dead woman was not found for a few days.  Both of their husbands were deployed at the time.   We left Japan before the case was settled, but I heard that the Japanese court took the case and convicted her.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

What if the victim is on a remote base here or abroad?  And, what makes you think that choosing to report an incident with civilian police instead of your immediate commander doesn't violate military orders or rules?Dreamsglore wrote:
bluemoon wrote:Let me ask this question, because I honestly don't know the answer to it. Can a woman in the service who has been raped or abused by a superior officer just go to a local sheriffs office and swear out a warrant to have him arrested? She should be able to. She should not lose that right by joining the service.  I know deputies can stop drunken sailors who are driving and take them to the county lock-up. Isn't that true? It seems the same to me.

Yes, of course she could have done that. Sexual abuse cases of children from the military are prosecuted all the time by the SO. She probably didn't report it to the civillian authorities.

Nekochan

Nekochan

If the crime happens on base, the local civilian authorities have no jurisdiction.  Bases are federal property, not state property and the military (if the accused is in the military) or the federal courts have jurisdiction.  If a crime happens off base, the victim, military or not, can go to the local police and he/she can also report it to the base police if the accused is in the military.  The perpetrator, if in the military, can then be tried by the State court AND the military court.  Sometimes military service members who have committed crimes off base have gone through the state system and served time in state prison and then when they got out of the state prison, the military tried then and sent them to federal prison. So actually, if a military person commits a crime off base, he/she can be tried TWICE--in state court and in military court.

Guest


Guest

In child abuse cases here in Pensacola, the SO or PPD investigate w/ the military even if it happened on base. I've had several cases where the abuse happened on base. The military investigators work w/ the local authorities and the children are interviewed at the Kid's House. If I remember correctly, the military took action as well as the local authorities.

Guest


Guest

Thank you all for those answers. I have a hard time imagining a sexual assault happening on a base. I feel like a lot of these things could be happening off base, after hours, and after a lot of drink is involved.
If I were a woman and it happened to me, I'd take it directly  to the sheriff's office.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Yes, child abuse cases are special and are handled differently.

2seaoat



State and Military jurisdiction is often concurrent, and in fact a military rape could be prosecuted by the state, and if the military believed that the state court process did not achieve the goals of the military they could court martial.   Most of the time the agencies work out a single prosecution.



Non-exclusive jurisdiction: Offenses that violate both the UCMJ and other state, Federal, or foreign laws are offenses that are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ and another legal authority.  For example, if an active duty servicemember is suspected of a murder that occurs off-base in a small Texas town, both the State of Texas and the military would have jurisdiction to prosecute the murder.  The determination regarding who will prosecute is usually made by the agencies involved, with the military coordinating with off-base authorities.  Note: jurisdiction under the UCMJ for offenses such as the Texas murder mentioned above formerly depended upon a military connection to the offense.  The U.S. Supreme Court changed this standard in the 1980s case, Solario v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987).  Now, any offense under the UCMJ may be prosecuted as long as the military member was subject to the UCMJ, regardless of the service-connection of the offense.



Double Jeopardy: Using the example of the small town Texas murder above, it would not be double jeopardy if the military prosecuted the servicemember under the UCMJ murder even after Texas prosecuted the the individual for murder.  This is because of the “separate sovereigns doctrine,” which allows for states and the Federal government to prosecute the same person twice for the same offense.  As a matter of policy, this usually does not happen, creating an extra layer of protection, a regulatory double jeopardy that is more protective than the constitutional double jeopardy.  Going back to the murder example, if the state of Texas prosecuted the alleged murderer, the Air Force (for example) could prosecute the same individual, but only if the Secretary of the Air Force approves the military prosecution after determining that the civilian prosecution has failed to meet the ends of good order and discipline in the military.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:State and Military jurisdiction is often concurrent, and in fact a military rape could be prosecuted by the state, and if the military believed that the state court process did not achieve the goals of the military they could court martial.   Most of the time the agencies work out a single prosecution.



Non-exclusive jurisdiction: Offenses that violate both the UCMJ and other state, Federal, or foreign laws are offenses that are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ and another legal authority.  For example, if an active duty servicemember is suspected of a murder that occurs off-base in a small Texas town, both the State of Texas and the military would have jurisdiction to prosecute the murder.  The determination regarding who will prosecute is usually made by the agencies involved, with the military coordinating with off-base authorities.  Note: jurisdiction under the UCMJ for offenses such as the Texas murder mentioned above formerly depended upon a military connection to the offense.  The U.S. Supreme Court changed this standard in the 1980s case, Solario v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987).  Now, any offense under the UCMJ may be prosecuted as long as the military member was subject to the UCMJ, regardless of the service-connection of the offense.



Double Jeopardy: Using the example of the small town Texas murder above, it would not be double jeopardy if the military prosecuted the servicemember under the UCMJ murder even after Texas prosecuted the the individual for murder.  This is because of the “separate sovereigns doctrine,” which allows for states and the Federal government to prosecute the same person twice for the same offense.  As a matter of policy, this usually does not happen, creating an extra layer of protection, a regulatory double jeopardy that is more protective than the constitutional double jeopardy.  Going back to the murder example, if the state of Texas prosecuted the alleged murderer, the Air Force (for example) could prosecute the same individual, but only if the Secretary of the Air Force approves the military prosecution after determining that the civilian prosecution has failed to meet the ends of good order and discipline in the military.
Correct, it's not double jeopardy for the State to prosecute and then for the military to prosecute.  But the military member would not be prosecuted in both a military and a federal court.  There is usually no dual prosecution, but it can happen.

2seaoat



http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00669.htm

This addresses how the feds and military address concurrent jurisdiction.

Nekochan

Nekochan

It's an interesting point that Dreams brought up, regarding child abuse cases.  I know in recent years, there has been more of an effort to involve local child welfare agencies.  The military is not well equipped to deal with all the issues that come up in a child abuse case--there is often a question of custody (a state matter) and the child may need to be removed from the home.  My question to Dreams--I know that the child protective agencies are involved in reports of child abuse on base, but have you ever known of a case where an accused abuser, who is active duty military,  abused his/her child on base, in base housing, and was prosecuted in state criminal court for child abuse?  I am curious about this.  I think  that the state has no jurisdiction to criminally prosecute for child abuse that occurs on base, but that it does have jurisdiction to make decisions about the placement of a child who was abused on base.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:Thanks to Senator Carl Levin of Michegan, the Pentagon boys club of generals (none of which have led me in a war the U.S. really won) will be able to continue making rape victims decide not to report sexual abuse in the military services.

I wonder why??  Maybe just to give them something else they are incabable of doing right!

And that old right wing Presidential candidate McCain is ready to have a duel with Levin.

Reality!`
Not so much the Generals, they will do as told. The real pressure came from Levin and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel who stated "Military commanders must remain part of the legal process in dealing with major crimes in the ranks such as sexual assault".


I agree for a bunch of reasons not the least of which is it's easier to punish those who commit sexual assault through the UCMJ. The most difficult issue is the victim needs to report abuse without fear of retribution although there are many ways to do so. None are perfect but neither is any part of the civil process.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Generals win right to keep Protecting Sexual Predators

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum