On June 4, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing, “Pending Legislation Regarding Sexual Assaults in the Military.” Chair Carl Levin (D-MI), Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), and other members of the committee heard testimony regarding solutions to address the issue of sexual assault in the military.
In his opening remarks, Sen. Inhofe said, “Over the past few weeks, several of my colleagues have introduced bills that propose significant changes to the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]. I thank them for their commitment to combatting sexual assault in the military and look forward to working collaboratively with them on these efforts. But I’m opposed to any provision that would remove commanders from their indispensable role in the military justice process.”
Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), arguing against commanders being part of the military judicial process in sexual assault cases, said, “Not every single commander necessarily wants women in the force. Not every single commander believes what a sexual assault is. Not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape because they merge all of these crimes together.”
In his testimony, General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “We are acting swiftly and deliberately to change a culture that has become too complacent. We know that lasting change begins by changing the behaviors that lead to sexual assault…Should further reform be needed, I urge that military commanders remain central to the legal process. The commander’s ability to preserve good order and discipline remains essential to accomplishing any change within our profession. Reducing command responsibility could adversely affect the ability of the commander to enforce professional standards and ultimately, to accomplish the mission. Of course, commanders and leaders of every rank must earn trust to engender trust in their units. Most do. Most do not allow unit cohesion to mask an undercurrent of betrayal. Most rise to the challenge of leadership even under the most demanding physical and moral circumstances.”
Nancy Parrish, president of Protect our Defenders, also testified. She said, “Congress must assume its responsibility and no longer approach reform based on what military leaders would like to accept. We cannot afford to simply continue to make marginal changes. The military leadership has long insisted that absolute command discretion is required in order to maintain good order and discipline, and to ensure mission readiness and unit cohesion. Yet, when victims are punished and perpetrators go free and everyone knows it to be the case, trust, the essential ingredient to an effective, functioning military is undermined. It would also undermine unit cohesion and trust, if as defense counsels frequently argue, commanders, in response to political pressure, simply pursue witch-hunts against anyone accused. Why have the commander in a position where so many people may question their objectivity, both those that believe the victim and those that support the accused? We need to remove from the process all those with a personal interest or even an appearance of a potential conflict of interest and bias.”
The following witnesses also testified:
