On the public record
Every politician on the site, every statement on file. Search, filter, and read the public record.
13,000+·quotes on file
I take it that your opinion is similar to Ms. Parrish that the structural solution is to take this decision out of the chain of command, and you feel that will make a substantive difference in the amount of reporting and, presumably, the…
I believe, in the committee on a number of the options and alternatives that have been put forward in various bills.
There are few prosecutions. There are fewer convictions.
What would you think of the idea of making retaliation itself a punishable offense?
Until you create some objectivity in the process where there is no bias and influence and prejudice against the victim, the lower-ranking individual in the situation, you are not going to solve this problem.
There are enough specifications in the UCMJ to address it now.
My question is the key word you used was 'can.' Should that be 'shall'? In other words, should it be an automatic proposition if the JAG officer disagrees that it goes up, not a further discretionary decision?
I would suggest that this might be an area to, again, get the word out that if the word gets back that somebody is being retaliated against in some way--shunned, ostracized, whatever--that that in itself ought to be, in some way…
Should retaliation be an offense? If someone retaliates against someone for reporting, should that, in itself, be some kind of punishable offense?
It just seems to me that one of the most important things is for you all to mean it. To mean it.
I would suggest maybe you want to look at something more specific than tampering with the system.
What about a situation where a decision not to prosecute would have to have the written concurrence of the JAG officer associated with that decision?
Senator Gillibrand has suggested that we ought to take this out of the chain of command because that is a problem in the prosecution.
I would just suggest that this issue of retaliation is significant.
This strikes me as not fair, but it also strikes me as leading to a perverse outcome.
Is a reduction in market share a goal of this administration?