Washington – The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation that would have stripped military commanders of the power to prosecute sexual assaults and other major crimes.
The bill, proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., had the support of 55 of the chamber’s 100 members, including 10 Republicans. But it was blocked by fellow Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri and other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, who used procedural tactics to prevent an up-or-down vote on the measure.
The Senate instead moved unanimously toward approval of an alternative bill championed by McCaskill that would preserve commanders’ authority to convene courts-martial but give victims a formal say in whether their cases go before military or civilian courts. That version awaits final passage next week.
“I know this has been tough for everyone,” said McCaskill, a former prosecutor, as two hours of tense debate drew to a close Thursday. “But I stand here with years of experience of holding hands and crying with victims, knowing that what we have done is the right thing for victims and the right thing for our military.”
The hard-fought policy battle between two influential female senators came down to just a handful of votes, with Gillibrand’s bill falling five short of the necessary 60-vote threshold.
Although she lost this round to a technicality, Gillibrand demonstrated she has the support she needs to keep her vision for change alive, said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School.
“It’s outrageous that a member of the same party would basically threaten a filibuster,” Fidell said of McCaskill.
“I think Senator Gillibrand has the high moral ground, and I believe she will have the high political ground before you know it,” he said. “In practical terms, this bill will live to fight another day.”
Gillibrand and her allies argued during debate Thursday that the only way to restore trust in the military justice system was to allow independent prosecutors – not commanders – to decide whether a case should go to trial.
“It is like being raped by your brother and having your father decide the case,” Gillibrand said. “That is the perception of the victims.”
McCaskill and other opponents of Gillibrand’s bill argued that taking commanders out of the equation would let them off the hook for their troops’ behavior, erode unit cohesion and expose victims to retaliation.
If you undermine a commander’s authority, his unit “will fall apart,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Reserve Air Force legal officer.
“The commander of that unit is the person we give ultimate authority to make life or death decisions for that unit,” Graham said. “The worst thing that can happen for a unit is for a commander to say, ‘This (sexual assault) is no longer my problem.’”
Last year, Gillibrand and McCaskill worked together to pass major changes in an effort to reduce sexual assaults in the military.
Those changes, which already are being implemented as part of the annual defense bill, prevent commanders from overturning jury convictions, require civilian review of any case a commander decides not to prosecute, mandate dishonorable discharge for those convicted of sexual assault and make retaliation against victims a crime.
Among supporters of Gillibrand’s bill were Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California and Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Boxer argued passionately for Gillibrand’s bill, criticizing the procedural move to block the legislation, called a filibuster, as she stood in front of a huge sign with a red line through the words “Filibuster Justice.”
“I know that Senator McCaskill is trying to fix these problems around the edges, fine, but let’s get to the heart of the matter,” Boxer said. “ . . . If you have problems with the bill, vote against the bill, but don’t filibuster justice.”
McCaskill voted against allowing Gillibrand’s bill to move forward. Her spokesman, John LaBombard, said it was important to note that both bills were subject to a 60-vote threshold. “Everything requires 60 these days,” he said.
McCaskill does not oppose the filibuster, he added.
“She’s recognized Republican abuse and voted to restrict its use, but she supports use of the filibuster against deeply controversial bills,” LaBombard said.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.