Monday, May 31, 2010

US Military’s Biggest Threat Not Terrorists, but Straw Men
  Military piece by Jayme Evans

Ever since Bill Clinton first tried to force the military to allow openly-gay service, many gays and their advocates have argued that they simply want to serve their country; that the issue isn’t about their sexuality, choice of lifestyle or sex, but fundamental fairness. Notwithstanding the fact that gays are currently not prohibited from military service, after analyzing what Congress is attempting to write into law, it appears that the decision to allow them to do so openly is indeed all about sex.

The repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 is being downplayed by Washington bureaucrats as no big deal. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) said it was “An experiment that’s (sic) time has come and gone.“ But, the military is no place for experimentation and repeal of this language is just the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is how openly-gay service members would be accepted, treated, and integrated under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In direct conflict with their public statements of comfort with openly-gay service, analysis of how Congress plans to appropriate 2011 defense funds shows that they are clearly so concerned about a deluge of rape allegations that they devoted nearly one-fifth of a 690-page appropriations bill to the topic of sexual assault and have allocated personnel, funding and physical assets to address the problem they themselves are about to create.

Although allegations of US service members raping foreign civilians have been going on as long as our forces have existed, the military has never had to establish a separate category of funding for a military-wide sexual assault prevention program until now. Consisting of an advisory board, hot-line and resources for dealing with sexual assaults, the program also provides training on how to identify sexual assaults and tips for identifying “cross-cutting” or simple training issues, an end-run around the definition of sexual abuse.

While Congress drastically expands the visible bureaucracy intended to deal with future sexual assaults, behind the scenes, they’re gutting the UCMJ as it applies to both the victim and alleged perpetrator of all manner of sex crimes, including the rape of women and children. It is clear from their legislative language that Congress also anticipates thousands of cases of members taking indecent liberties with foreign nationals, for they also mandated a separate program to rapidly report, track, dispose of and adjudicate claims of rape made by foreigners against US service members. [1.]

Civilian legal systems have spent the better part of the last two decades strengthening their laws against sex crimes and abuse. In nearly all US jurisdictions, a police officer need only receive a domestic violence or sexual assault report and they are required by law to initiate an investigation and provide support services. Social workers, teachers, physicians and others are also mandated by law to report suspected sexual abuse even if they have the slightest suspicion.

Should this legislation become law, a military member can receive medical help for rape without actually triggering any kind of investigation and no one, including an attending physician, is even allowed to report it. In fact, he’s forbidden without the victim’s permission.

The victim or their dependent can also fully decline to participate in a rape investigation with no adverse consequences. Even if an investigation is launched, the bar for prosecution under the UCMJ will be raised far higher. And, since a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual behavior would likely run afoul of the Constitution, all military-related sex crimes will be more difficult to prove or prosecute.

While the Convening Authority of a military proceeding has always made the final decision regarding the adjudication of military legal matters, the commanding officer of a service member who is either the victim or alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault or rape is now required to ascertain the victim’s opinion and forward this information to the Convening Authority before said authority can launch a proceeding under the UCMJ, a clear departure from established military judicial procedure and a complete 180-degree deviation of societal norms regarding sex crimes. [2.]

Advocates of repeal insist that it’s about fundamental fairness. It seems to me to be all about sex. But, if Congress’ legislative intent isn’t clear enough, how about the words of a (now) openly gay soldier? In response to questions on what the repeal would mean to him, Sgt. Anthony Bustos who came out publicly last week on ABC’s World News recounted the way he felt when two soldiers who were friends of his had died in an explosion that also wounded him: “They died not knowing who I was completely.“

This obsession with one’s own individual identity is destructive to military discipline and has no place within the ranks. Yet, rather than keep it from damaging our capabilities any further than it already has, Congress is attempting to institutionalize it.

Who would have thought? Of all the weapons brought to bear against us in all of the conflicts we’ve fought, the US military’s biggest threat comes not from Islamic terrorists, but from straw men such as global warming and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Read the entire 2011 defense appropriations billhere

Jayme Evans
http://warofwits.org/

Notes:
1. Title XVI Subtitle B Section 1632 b(5) - p. 546.
2. TITLE XVI Subtitle A Section 1614 - p. 531.

Posted by Jayme Evans on 5/31/10

Email Author  [Email Article To Someone.]  (Permalink) Print This Page

UPSSA United Progressive Socialist States of America