Couple people requested to see this, so I'll post it. If you don't want to read it, or if it is too long, then don't. For the record, most -Blam!- are probably the r word (r@pe) for sexual assault. [quote] The Ambivalent Nature of the United States Military and Department of Defense Concerning the ongoing problem of Military Sexual Assault Private First Class LaVena Johnson had been stationed in Iraq for only eight weeks before the nineteen year old was founded dead of what appeared to be a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head; the case appeared to be simple, the tragic suicide of a promising young soldier in the midst of the Iraqi conflict. However, not everything was as it appeared. Although the United States Department of Defense (DoD) reported that Johnson’s death was a suicide, and continues to stand by that claim, evidence from the autopsy report released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) shows a deeper story: Bruises on various parts of the body, a broken nose, a gunshot angle that would be nearly impossible for someone to pull off alone, and a chemical solution found poured over and inside John’s private regions (Jordan). To this day, many contest that Johnson’s “suicide” is part of a larger problem that has plagued the United States Military for years – a sexual assault problem in the ranks, with a standard of cover-ups and lack of justice for victims who have lost so much serving our country; not lost to enemy combatants, but to their own brothers in arms. The official numbers are staggering – according to a 2013 Department of Defense report to Congress, roughly 26,000 men and women in the army were estimated to have been sexually assaulted during Fiscal Year 2012, a jump from 19,300 estimated cases in 2010(Rosenthal, and Miller). Since the initial scandals broke in the early 1990’s, the spotlight on the problem has only continued to grow, with many feeling that the Military has not done enough to combat the problem and ensure the safety of their soldiers. This ambivalent nature that the Department of Defense and Military have displayed over the years is not only counterproductive to any efforts made to address the situation, but has continued to lead to thousands of soldiers’ becoming victims every year to these heinous crimes. By not making significant changes to the judicial system, which includes changing of the reporting policy and removal of commanders from the decision to move to prosecution, no substantial improvements can be expected. One of the biggest problems in how the United States military tackles sexual assault cases begins at the reporting process. Under the US military law, reporters of sexual assault cases have two options for reporting: restricted and unrestricted. When a victim first brings up the incident and wants to report it, they are given the option, with two vastly different outcomes. Unrestricted reporting allows a military investigation to proceed into the matter, presumably with the support of the victim. Restricted reporting allows the victim to receive treatment for her injuries, physical and mental, however no investigation is allowed to begin while it continues to be filed as restricted. There are numerous flaws to the restricted reporting system – namely that it allows the attacker to remain free and continue to do so. Restricted reporting also does not allow for a military protection order to be put into place, allows for evidence to be lost as time goes on, prevents justice from being taken, and can even lead to the victim being punished in the long run (Reporting Options – Restricted Reporting). According to the report to Congress, there were 816 restricted reports, nearly 1/3 of the 3,374 reported cases overall (United States). Vicki Ferris, a former Master Sergeant who served for 37 and half years in the United States Army, says the system is “a crock of manure. Just another way to “sweep the problem under the proverbial carpet” (Ferris), and I can’t agree with her more. The idea that you can report a serious criminal matter and not have it looked into at all is flawed and unheard of in our world – if I were to go up to the Police and say “Hey! Someone is about to rob the bank over there!” they would look into it to a degree – not ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen. There is no viable reason to have this system in place, and the practice should be abolished in favor of a system that proceeds with an investigation as soon as the claim is made. Choosing to not begin any investigation, loosing significant evidence, and allowing the attacker to remain at large. This is what the restricted reporting system does, and that is a major problem. The second, and arguably greater problem in how the Military tackles the sexual assault problem, is giving Commanding Officers overwhelming power in proceeding in the investigation and trial. This stems from the concept of “a commander’s authority is absolute.” What this essentially means that, if a Commander chooses to not investigate the claim, not proceed to trial, or to give “other punishments” to the attackers – that is perfectly fine and can only be altered by other Commanders, but is rare (Jacob, and Ponti). This is the first inherent flaw – sole authority of commanding officers to make these extreme decisions opens the door to vast amount of biased decisions – and this is apparent in past cases. Last year, Lt. General Craig Franklin overturned the sexual assault conviction of Lt. Colonel James Wilkerson, citing his (Franklin’s) belief that, even after the trial, he doubted the victim’s truthfulness (McVeigh). When you give one person so much power that they can defy verdicts, change sentencing, and even prevent cases from having investigations or trials, you thrust the door wide open for corruption and biased decisions – imagine a world where police captains could impede investigations and tell prosecutors not to go to trial because the accused is a family friend, or old school mate, or drinking buddy. This is what you face when dealing with the current judicial system. In order to fix this problem, the United States government should look to some of our NATO allies – especially Australia and Canada. Both countries have taken substantial steps to change how they address the problems. This includes establishing investigative services, which have investigators specialized in sexual assault work outside the military chain of command in order to avoid cohesion, and changing the way prosecution works, such as having trained, independent prosecutors who, again, do not work in the chain of command (Jacob, and Ponti). These types of changes were included in legislation by New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, but ultimately failed to garner enough support a few weeks back due to various issues, including more support for a more moderate, watered-down bill that changed almost nothing. So, who are the people who oppose tackling the problem? This is a tough question, as there is no rational person who is going to look at the numbers and say that there is no ongoing problem in the military. The biggest opponents of substantial changes to how the military tackles this problem, however, remains the United States Military and top brass themselves; So, despite the ongoing problem, the organization itself stands by how it conducts itself. Various military leaders, in a hearing on the matter last June, each told Congress that they did not support changes to the command structure in dealing with these issues, even pushing the notion that the military justice system, accord to Chief of Naval Operation Admiral Jonathan Greenert, “is sound” (Herb). Again, going back to when Lt. General Franklin repealed a judicial verdict because he felt it was wrong, how is that sound? In many cases, the military judicial system does bring justice – it does not in sexual assault cases. I do not fault the brass in this case, as they rose through the ranks in the system, and believe it to be fundamentally sound. However, there is significant evidence out there to support the opposite, and ignoring the evidence only continues to allow the attackers to expose the flaws in the system and continue to attack their fellow soldiers. The ambivalent nature of the United States military in choosing to not make changes to address the problem of sexual assault amongst their ranks only continues to allow the problem to grow. Even now, in the beginning months of 2014, two high profile cases, both ending in acquittals, have shown that the system is broken and does not get justice for the victims. As we continue through the year, and people like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand continues to campaign on the rights of victims, do not expect much to change due to the upcoming midterm elections. However, the fight to bring changes and justice to sexual assault victims cannot end because it is not easy fight. Instead, we have to continue to work to make changes, in order to bring justice for the hundreds of thousands of former victims, and work to ensure that our future soldiers do not face this problem. Many of us praise America for having the strongest military in the world – now it is time for us to make sure that our military joins our allies in ensuring the safety of our troops from the horrors of sexual assault.[/quote]