Why did Jack Reed block bill to change how military handles rape cases?
The answer is subject to interpretation and gets into the small details of how Congress develops legislation that heads to the president's desk to be signed into law. At issue is a proposal to change how the decision is made whether to prosecute someone accused of sexual misconduct in the military. Under the current system, a general or admiral in the chain of command above the accused person decides whether the case goes to trial. Under several proposals in Washington, the chain of command would be removed from the decision-making process, replaced by an independent military prosecutor. "Crimes involving sexual misconduct at this point should be separated from the chain of command and put in a special prosecutorial and investigative channel," Reed told The Providence Journal. "I think it's the right approach." Advocates fear weakening of bill  About a month ago, Reed and Sen. James M. Inhofe, of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican member on the Armed Services Committee, blocked an immediate vote by the full Senate on a bill sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that would remove felony charges, including sexual assault, from the decision-making powers of the chain of command. Before a floor vote, Reed has said that he wants Gillibrand's bill to go through full consideration by the Armed Services Committee and to be tied to the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual bill also called the NDAA, that addresses a wide range of defense policy issues. "I'm committed to trying to get the best legislation through I can for the benefit of the men and women of the military," Reed told The Journal. But Gillibrand wants immediate consideration of her bill as a standalone, for fear that the committee process  or the conference process that will follow when the House and Senate try to agree on the final NDAA  will strip provisions from her proposal, which has filibuster-proof support in the Senate. The committee has failed survivors over the last 10 years, Gillibrand said during floor discussion of her bill, according to The New York Times. And I do not think it is in their purview to make this ultimate decision.  "We have historically seen military justice reform that one house or both houses have passed be gutted in conference," said Col. Don Christensen, president of Protect Our Defenders, a national group that is dedicated to ending sexual violence in the military and that supports Gillibrand's bill. Christensen is retired after 23 years in the Air Force, where he was a judge advocate general, serving tours as a military prosecutor, as a military defense lawyer and as a military judge. Reed: Limit scope to sex assault  Reed has virtually guaranteed that legislation removing sexual assault from the chain of command will pass this session. "My sense is that with the support of the Department of Defense, the energy that has been generated on both sides of the House and the Senate, the issue of sexual crimes is going to be transferred into an independent prosecutorial system," he told The Journal. "When you have the secretary of defense and a most significant majority of the members, it will happen. I'm very confident that will be enacted into law." But he opposes removing other felonies from the chain of command before a thorough study of the issue is done. "Youve got some significant changes, fundamental changes to the system, which will cause difficult implementation problems," he said, adding that he worries that removing the chain of command from the equation will inhibit commanders' ability to control their units. Questions of expertise, equity  Christensen said that removing all felonies from the purview of the chain of command is a question of skills. Commanders are trained how to lead their units, not how to evaluate the quality of evidence or strength of a criminal case. "The inherent limitations of the chain of command to be making prosecution decisions are not unique to sex crimes," Christensen told The Journal. "The same fundamental flaws that make them unqualified to be making prosecution decisions for sex offenses are there for all other offenses." Christensen also cited recent reports finding disparities among how the military justice system handles cases involving service members of different races as one reason to remove all felonies from the chain of command. Reed said more research is needed. "That's something that's worth significant analysis to determine if there is a systematic failure there," he said. Focus on preventing sex crimes  In reiterating his support for removing sexual assault cases from the chain of command, Reed noted how problematic that crime has proven to be for the military. "These sexual misconduct crimes are something that is undermining the coherence of the military and has to be dealt with," he told The Journal. "The other crimes I don't think have been seen as out of control." He added, "There has been a perception among the personnel that some commanders are not attuned enough to what's going on, [that] there hasn't been the support for victims. It's just the lack of confidence in a lot of the troops in the command system when it comes to this particular offense." But Reed cautioned that changing the way sex crimes are prosecuted will not be a panacea. "It is just one part of the solution, and I don't think we can fixate on this one thing as the be all and end all," he said. "I can assure you that, if that's the only thing that's done  if we don't enhance prevention, education, accountability, command responsibility  then I don't know if this will be successful on its own. We are really pressing to prevent these crimes, not simply to prosecute them."