HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Levin dropping key provis...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 06:19 AM

Levin dropping key provision from military rape bill

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:30 AM - Edit history (2)

That provision would have put review of rape cases in the hands of a an independent judicial office rather than the commanding officer of the rape victim. This makes it impossible to effectively prosecute rape in the military, and the armed forces will continue to attract sexual predators. I urge EVERYONE to call Carl Levin's office today to protest this decision.

Levin's phone: (202) 224-6221
Select the option to speak with his staffer so that their office is flooded with public opinion on how serious this is. I pointed out that it is not only a key issue for those in the military, but as a party with a majority female electorate, it looks extremely bad that they not take rape seriously. This action only serves to protect rapists and it angers women in particular since so have been assaulted during their lives, while rates in the military are double the civilian population. Men too are subject to higher levels of sexual assault in the military than in the civilian population. The military attracts sexual predators who operate unchecked.


WASHINGTON — In a striking showdown between Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and a member of his own party, Mr. Levin said on Tuesday that he would remove a measure aimed at curbing sexual assault in the military from a defense spending bill.

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, offered a measure that would give military prosecutors rather than commanders the power to decide which sexual assault crimes to try, with the goal of increasing the number of people who report crimes without fear of retaliation. Mr. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said he would replace Ms. Gillibrand’s measure — which has 27 co-sponsors, including four Republicans — with one that would require a senior military officer to review decisions by commanders who decline to prosecute sexual assault cases. Although Mr. Levin’s measure would change the current system, it would keep prosecution of sexual assault cases within the chain of command, as the military wants.

Mr. Levin’s decision to support military brass in their resistance to Ms. Gillibrand’s proposal sets up a confrontation between a long-serving chairman of the committee with strong ties to the armed forces and a relatively new female member — one of a record seven women serving on the committee — who has made sexual assault in the military a signature issue.

“They basically embrace the status quo here,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, a co-sponsor of Ms. Gillibrand’s bill. “It’s outrageous.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/proposed-measure-to-curb-sexual-assault-in-military-to-be-cut-from-bill.html

43 replies, 2263 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Levin dropping key provision from military rape bill (Original post)
BainsBane Jun 2013 OP
whathehell Jun 2013 #1
BainsBane Jun 2013 #4
whathehell Jun 2013 #9
burnodo Jun 2013 #2
BainsBane Jun 2013 #3
Doctor_J Jun 2013 #5
pangaia Jun 2013 #10
ReRe Jun 2013 #14
karynnj Jun 2013 #15
forestpath Jun 2013 #31
truebrit71 Jun 2013 #39
MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #6
DCKit Jun 2013 #7
a kennedy Jun 2013 #8
BainsBane Jun 2013 #16
pangaia Jun 2013 #11
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #12
BainsBane Jun 2013 #13
Doctor_J Jun 2013 #34
Solly Mack Jun 2013 #17
James48 Jun 2013 #18
BainsBane Jun 2013 #20
historylovr Jun 2013 #22
Doctor_J Jun 2013 #35
jwirr Jun 2013 #19
BainsBane Jun 2013 #21
jwirr Jun 2013 #23
Pelican Jun 2013 #26
BainsBane Jun 2013 #27
snooper2 Jun 2013 #24
Pelican Jun 2013 #25
BainsBane Jun 2013 #28
Pelican Jun 2013 #30
Whisp Jun 2013 #29
redqueen Jun 2013 #32
BainsBane Jun 2013 #37
bullwinkle428 Jun 2013 #33
BainsBane Jun 2013 #36
Dawson Leery Jun 2013 #38
BainsBane Jun 2013 #40
LineNew Reply K
BainsBane Jun 2013 #41
ismnotwasm Jun 2013 #42
BainsBane Jun 2013 #43

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 06:35 AM

1. Outrageous. It seems Levin wants to gut the bill, because without the provision, there is no bill.

It's astonishing the degree to which these pricks will go to keep their petty power.

I don't get, because it's not as if the case would go to a "civilian" court, for fuck's sake,

it would still be a MILITARY court, just not within the "chain of command".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:27 AM

4. Apparently he's too cozy with the military brass

I saw we refuse to let this stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:13 AM

9. Absolutely...This deserves a flood of calls and emails. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 06:45 AM

2. Kick it up the chain, eh Carl?

 

Because that will work so much better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:16 AM

3. It's outrageous

Boxer is right. It makes the renders the reform useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:38 AM

5. Anyone else thinking our party is headed for extinction?

Leahy dropped the gay couples provision from the immigration bill. Now this. Then there is the president who, as far as I can tell, is useless wrt getting anything done from a progressive standpoint. He's backed off of every single issue that the Repukes challenged him on. We have the White House, and a majority in the Senate, yet on both fronts we are continually backing off/appeasing.

How long can the party exist when their only campaign slogan is, "Not as bad"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:13 AM

10. Makes me sick, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:22 AM

14. Primary out the old farts...

... in 2014! I am sick and tired of bending over. They've been in there entirely too long rubbing elbows with those nasty Rebpulicans. Oh yeah... what's on the other side of the compromise? What are the wingers forfeiting in all this "bipartisanship?" And don't any of you wingers say "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:36 AM

15. leahy is one of the good guys

The reason it was dropped was because it would prevent the bill from getting the 60 votes it needs. The immigration bill is also important - and including the provision would kill both. I think DOMA being declared unconstitutional (which may happen) fixes this for states with gay marriage. It might then be easier to pass the immigration provision nationally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:16 AM

31. Yep. By suicide.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:45 PM

39. How about "They suck worse"...

...What is appalling is the fact that the repukes, as the minority party, are more effective than the majority party. They are the ones that dictate all of the actions of The Senate. Yes, I understand that there are procedural rules that come into play, but FFS at least stick to your guns and MAKE the fuckers go on the record as being the treasonous obstructionist bastards that they are...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:55 AM

6. Well, *someone* needs to fill Joe Lieberman's shoes

Working with McCain to keep the filibuster, now this...

Carlmentum!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:10 AM

7. Ouch! That stings! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:13 AM

8. kinda like the fox in charge of the hen house huh?? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a kennedy (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:02 AM

16. Yes. The Commanding Officer is sometime the rapist

the military prosecutes very few assaults, while it attracts recruits that have a history of sexual assault in their background. The military has clearly become a magnet for sexual predators. Taking the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command is the only way to change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:15 AM

11. I always felt Leahy was on of the good guys...

Well, as good as one can be and get along.. And even that Levin was in 'our court." I still think Leahy is..although not as much as before.. levin? Blechk..
Kristi is one of MY Senators !!..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:17 AM

12. But 2014 is going to be the radical leftist's fault...

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:20 AM

13. for daring to speak our minds

On guns, on rape, and on surveillance, so they claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 12:29 PM

34. Count on it

We'll all be home pouting because we didn't get our rights...er...ponies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:05 AM

17. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:13 AM

18. It is a good compromise

It is important for the intergrity of the Military Chain of Command to have the Commander retain jurisdiction. The Levin proposal to have senior commanders review any decision NOT to prosecute is a good outcome.

As a retired Military commander, and the husband of a retired Miltiary commander, I beleive this is the best path for those who serve in uniform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:17 AM

20. It's a good way to maintain a hospitable environment for rapists nt.

and that's it. The situation is absurd. There is no rational reason for it other than a desire to allow rapists to operate without restraint. Rape is at incredibly high levels in the military. The entire system is a sham designed to protect rapists. It's disgusting and a violation of human rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:29 AM

22. When the chain of command allows

rape to be covered up, for whatever reason, what happens to the integrity of the chain of command then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 12:31 PM

35. That mindset is how the rape culture became SOP

and that's exactly why it's being left in place - the brass likes it the way it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:16 AM

19. This is not the first time a very important issue has been dropped from a military funding bill.

However in this case I think it is the wrong decision due to the injustice that it is covering up. It would be good if you could post Levin's phone number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:21 AM

21. Thank you for that suggestion

I edited the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:48 AM

23. I called. And that is very unusual since I cannot afford to make long distance calls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:01 AM

26. Maybe it's generational...

 

... but I didn't know they even offered phone plans that made the distinction anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:07 AM

27. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:50 AM

24. that's bullshit...

Spineless Levin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:00 AM

25. The first stop should be the chain of command...

 

... but there should be alternatives if they are not responsive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:12 AM

28. That's the current system

and it means very low rates of prosecution and an environment that protects rapists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:15 AM

30. Then I would say that the alternatives are not effective...

 

There is a very short list of things that should not run through a chain of command in the military....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:13 AM

29. WHAT THE HELL!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:37 AM

32. And to think some men here believe that women don't need feminism, because democrats.



Thanks for posting this.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:17 PM

37. I told Levin's staffer that if I wanted to support

a party that didn't care about women, I'd be a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:12 AM

33. Levin was also one of the key figures in stopping filibuster reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:00 PM

36. That's right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:38 PM

38. Which makes the law worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 02:15 PM

40. That seems to be the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 02:49 PM

41. K

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 12:50 PM

42. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 05:51 PM

43. Did you see that for some reason

Clare McCaskil is now going along with this?!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread