The NDAA passed both houses of Congress with flying colors and in spite of a veto threat from the president was signed into law just in time for 2012. Enshrined in this annual authorization of military funding are new rules which allow the indefinite detention of anyone suspected of terrorists – and yes, even US citizens if the government ever chooses.
When I write about this stuff I tend to get really angry and verbose. Fortunately, I have Stephen Colbert to make it all funny:
Well played, Colbert. Well played.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry.
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook. Read my Forbes blog here.
So here’s a question…
If it’s legitimate to paint support for NDAA as being for the indefinite detention of people, can we also turn it around and say opposing NDAA (as it passed) is for pro-sexual abuse in the military given the major reforms and protections for sexual abuse victims in the armed forces within the bill?
I think a lot of the critics would have been happy with some changes to the language and some clarifications.
I guess I’m wondering if we can say Obama signed an “indefinite detention bill” can we also say that folks are opposing a “let rape victims transfer to a different base” bill? Wouldn’t that be just as accurate in the context of the 2012 NDAA?
This stuff in the NDAA that was added as part of the Senate version (and mostly kept, outside of dropping Article 125):
Sexual Assault Provisions
The Committee approved an amendment offered by Senator Collins (R-ME) that requires the military to implement some of the recommendations of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (DTFSAMS) based upon Senate bill S. 1018, the Defense STRONG Act introduced by Senator Kerry (D-MA).
Specifically, the bill would strengthen support for sexual assault prevention and legal protections of sexual assault survivors by:
Increasing the rank of the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response office to a General, or its civilian employee equivalent
Require an appropriate number of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs) and Victims Advocates (VAs) be assigned to each military unit
Ensuring that survivors have access to appropriate military counsel and maintain their confidential reporting status while seeking counsel
Ensuring that conversations between survivors and victims advocates and helpline counselors are confidential and cannot be used in court
Ensuring that SARCs and VAs are not collateral duties, but are full-time servicemembers or civilian employees
Ensure that SARCs and VAs are properly trained and certified
Provide survivors with consideration for expedited transfers from bases if they so desire
These provisions were introduced into last year’s defense bill, but were stripped by the Senate, so it is a major victory to have them included in the 2011 bill. The Senate version of the bill did not include two provisions found in the House bill: A provision requiring the permanent retention of records related to rape and sexual assaults is being considered in an underlying bill, and provisions requiring appropriate training at all PME schools is already being implemented by the DOD.
UCMJ Revisions
The bill revises the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in two ways. It changes Article 120 (Rape) from its current complex and confusing multi-layered single statue to create three separate articles of the UCMJ that will correct deficiencies in existing law. This simplified statute will make it much easier for prosecutors and investigators to pursue perpetrators and increase the likelihood of convictions. Although this is a good start, this revision could be much stronger if the DOD would follow the lead of more than 30 states and adopt an “affirmative consent statute” rather than continue to adhere to the archaic “force-based statue.” Changing the definition of sexual assault from a “no means no” to a “yes means yes” criteria would aid in prevent assaults by providing a clear, well defined, trainable standard of conduct for all servicemembers, make bystander intervention easier for peers to police their own and cases of rape and assault provide a clear prosecutorial route for investigators, lawyers, judges and juries leading to increased convictions and harsher punishments for offenders. Our hope is the military takes another look at this key difference in statutory law and moves to affirmative consent ASAP. SWAN presented this groundbreaking proposal directly to the House Armed Services Committee staff in April will continue working to see this change.
The new Defense Authorization bill also brings military law out of the 19th century by completely repealing the archaic Article 125 (Sodomy), no longer making sexual acts between consenting adults illegal. This has been repeatedly advocated not only by SWAN but by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Cox Commission, and the Pentagon’s own Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG).
Pingback: Raising Cain from the Dead — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Pingback: Raising Cain from the Dead — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Pingback: How Indefinite Detention Snuck Into Obama’s Defense Bill | Financial Feeder
Pingback: How Indefinite Detention Snuck Into Obama’s Defense Bill – Finding Out About