CSotD: Don’t look here — the joke is in your Pentagon.
Skip to comments
Garry Trudeau has become one of the more eloquent and straightforward advocates for military personnel, and if there is a joke to be made today, it is that his willingness to stand up for them is yet another example of his knee-jerk instinct to buck whoever happens to hold power on the Hill and in the White House.
Trudeau's own joke, of course, being the naive assumption by the young women in the final panel that the system works. The gag is in their surprise.
It's funny because they really wouldn't be at all surprised.
As you may have seen or read or heard, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is trying to get an amendment to the pending Defense Authorization Bill that would remove sexual assault and other serious, non-military crimes from the jurisdiction of the chain of command and refer them, instead, to an independent military system.
Here's the crucial paragraph from her office's explanation:
The carefully crafted Military Justice Improvement Act moves the decision whether to prosecute any crime punishable by one year or more in confinement to independent, trained, professional military prosecutors, with the exception of 37 crimes that are uniquely military in nature, such as disobeying orders or going Absent Without Leave. The decision whether to prosecute the 37 serious crimes uniquely military in nature plus all crimes punishable by less than one year of confinement would remain within the chain of command. The bill does not amend Article 15 pertaining to non-judicial punishments.
(And let me add here that I don't think telling someone they look nice today is punishable by a year in prison. I believe general, non-tactile creepiness — intentional or unintentional — would still be handled within the chain of command.)
Trudeau demonstrates the current system, albeit in comedy shorthand, since I'm sure there is a lot more bafflegab and promises of action in real life, and not every case involves having to report the crime to the alleged perp.
But it could. Gillibrand's press release explains that part of things:
According to the FY2012 SAPRO report released earlier this year by the Defense Department, an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assaults occurred in FY2012, a 37% increase from FY2011. Another report released by the Defense Department this year showed that more than 1 in 5 female servicemembers reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact while serving in the military. Also according to the FY2012 SAPRO Report, 25% of women and 27% of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated the offender was someone in their military chain of command. Further, 50% of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done with their report.
Granted, I am not a veteran, but I do know a few things about chains of command and the like, and so, if the military works better than the civilian sector in this respect, I hope someone with direct knowledge will explain how.
Chain-of-command and conflict-of-interest go hand-in-hand far too often, but particularly when a subordinate has a problem with a superior.
There is this eternal truth: You are not as important to the organization as is your immediate superior, and the further up the chain you kick it, the less benefit there is in upholding your gripe.
In the case of a reporter who conflicts with the city editor, for example, going to the top of the chain would hand the publisher a choice of two outcomes:
1. Pissed-off editor, pissed-off managing editor, pissed-off city editor, satisfied reporter.
2. Satisfied editor, satisfied managing editor, satisfied city editor, pissed-off reporter.
Now, folks, I never rose above the rank of interim publisher myself, but I never fell to the rank of eejit, either. I know which choice is gonna prevail 99 times out of 98.
So, if it works differently in the military, explain how.
But one way it does work differently in the military is that, in the civilian sector, you might have to kick sexual harassment in the form of unwanted comments up the internal ladder, but sexual assault goes right out of the building and onto the desk of the local DA, where even the publisher can't quash it, at least not without leaving footprints.
That's what Gillibrand is trying to achieve for the military.
Anyway, if you're upset that today's posting didn't provide any belly laughs, try this link. It seems that, while Gillibrand has bipartisan support — including from rightwingers like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul — she also has bipartisan opposition, including from noted liberals like Claire McCasskill, some of whom are complaining that they are getting pressure from donors to back the measure.
Yes, a lot of people want this, damn them.
But, so far, the numbers are lining up with the brass hats, and the laugh is that nobody admits there might be any sort of pressure involved in that.
According to a letter from those brass hats to Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, "S. 967 would undermine the commander’s essential role by stripping away the ability to directly shape the culture and climate of their command."
Yes.
At least in that one aspect, yes, it would. In fact, that's why it's being proposed.
Anyway, there's more than one definition of "stand up." I often link videos of stand-up comedians, but let me provide, instead, a video of that other kind of stand-up, the "stand-up person."
Comments 10
Comments are closed.