Congress can’t even police themselves
Via NRO
The military’s most severe critics have focused on commanders’ alleged inability to prosecute sexual-assault cases. The alternative, according to these critics, is to remove commanders’ ability to prosecute cases and grant new authority to “impartial” military lawyers. The New York Times is an enthusiastic cheerleader for this effort.
As part of its latest argument for circumventing the chain of command and command authority, the Times trots out the recent failure of two high-profile sexual-assault prosecutions — one against an Army general, the other against a former Naval Academy football player. Here’s the Times, locked into its narrative that commanders shouldn’t adjudicate sexual-assault cases:
Two highly publicized military sexual assault cases this week appear to strengthen the argument of those who want to take such cases out of the hands of military commanders — but not only for the reason that has been widely debated in Congress, which is that the hierarchy is unfair to women.
Instead, critics say, the slap on the wrist delivered to Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, who was accused of sexually mistreating a subordinate, and the not guilty verdict delivered to the former Naval Academy football player who was accused of sexual assault reflect a military command that bowed to political pressure and brought bad cases to trial.
This is utter nonsense. The motivation for circumventing the chain of command was not to protect the accused. The motivation for circumventing the chain of command was to obtain more successful prosecutions. The political pressure was clear: Prosecute more, and prosecute more successfully. That’s why marginal cases are being brought to trial, not because commanders are uniquely bad at justice.