The Next Challenge for Religion: Accept Mental Illness and Embrace the Sick; Don't Shun Them

On Veteran's Day last month, Televangelist Kenneth Copeland insisted that American veterans returning from combat need not suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), mostly because they were killing in the name of God and would therefore remain somehow Biblically "blameless" and thus emotionally unharmed.The comments were moronic, and in fairness intensely criticized by heavily conservative religious groups including the Southern Baptist Convention. But Copeland's words shouldn't just be written off as an isolated and ignorant rant. There is reason to believe that many religious individuals- particularly ones with a "just world" view and a belief in an omnipotent if often inscrutable God- tend to want to explain away mental illness in terms of a spiritual failure or a demonic force.Historically, this should come as no surprise. The physically disabled, disfigured and diseased were for millennia made to feel somehow responsible for their predicaments and admonished to either beg forgiveness or somehow pray harder. There has long been an irksome internal conflict presented to those who believe in an all powerful God Who would yet allow disease and disability to stalk His creatures. Certainly not all religious thinkers over the centuries wrote off these maladies as the fault of the stricken, but even as religious thought has evolved, the idea that people are somehow responsible for their fate has remained a tempting conclusion for those who have a difficult time with how God appears to work in the world.  It is also, sadly, a common, defensive strategy imposed by the lucky to distance themselves from the unlucky. Ask the legions of sexual violence survivors who have borne blame in exactly that way.Where somatic disease is concerned, though, to a large extent, medical science, common sense and better standards of human decency have led most religious away from blaming and isolating the physically ill.But we need to ask ourselves very frankly if the same thing is true when it comes to mental diseases and disorders. Prayer may no be longer be the sole remedy suggested by a deeply religious person for an inflamed appendix or a broken bone. Yet how often is it still being suggested confidently as the only necessary answer to chemical depression, organic mental illness, and yes- Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

Proposed Changes to Military Preliminary Hearings: Reasonable, Easily Implemented, and Sorely Needed

While I believe Congress should pass the Military Justice Improvement Act, there's a far more easily implemented change being urged on the President that should meet little resistance. But even it is considered "radical" in some military circles. Recently, a Navy Times article focused on proposed changes to Article 32 hearings, which under the Uniform Code of Military Justice operate like preliminary hearings in civilian systems. The “32,” as JAGs typically refer to it, is a less formal hearing where evidence is presented to a neutral investigating officer. That officer then makes a recommendation about the case to the Convening Authority, that is, a commander (usually a general officer) who then makes the final decision as to whether the case is “referred” for court martial.The changes- implementable by the President- are being proposed specifically for the enhanced protection of complainants in sexual assault cases; the need for them became apparent to reformers particularly after the exhausting, multi-day examination of a Naval Academy midshipman involved in a rape case against three classmates late this summer. The changes are sorely needed, in least in terms of how Article 32 hearings often play out in sexual violence cases, and they are eminently reasonable. Yet the language used in the article is perhaps a measure of how concerning any change to the military justice system is to insiders. The reporter describes the proposal as a “major reform” and a “radical overhaul” of the process. It is neither.The officer who presides over the Article 32 hearing listens to evidence, prepares a summary of the testimony, and gives recommendations for disposition to the Convening Authority. At present, there is no requirement that the investigating officer in an Article 32 hearing be a military judge. Or a JAG. Or someone with any legal training at all. The I.O. can be simply another officer uninvolved with the case, meaning a company commander in an artillery brigade, a signal corps officer, or one of any other specialty.For many UCMJ offenses,  this is not a matter of concern. The idea of the Article 32 hearing is to allow for a neutral party in the officer corps to consider the matter before a commander at a much higher level considers whether to convene a court martial around it. That officer doesn’t have to be legally trained, in many cases, to competently consider facts and listen to witnesses.But sexual assault cases are unique and difficult to adjudicate fairly. This is particularly true when they involve (as they almost always do) circumstances like parties known to each other, alcohol consumption, or counter-intuitive behavior like delayed reporting or post-assault communication. Aggressive defense attorneys, bound by ethics to defend their clients zealously, can and do sometimes take advantage of both the relative informal setting and legal inexperience of the I.O. to ask questions of complainants that would not be permissible in a court martial.In the extreme, this can amount to a strategy of harassment in hopes of improperly discouraging a victim from continuing with a prosecution. Certainly not all defense attorneys plan this kind of legal attack, but without an adjudicator that is familiar with the limits of the law, aggressive and improper questioning can go unchecked even when prosecutors object. I.O.s can seek legal assistance during an investigation, but they don’t have to. Further, defense attorneys may actually outrank both the prosecutor and the I.O, adding a further complicating dynamic. Senator Boxer and co-sponsors (Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Speier) are asking the President to formalize the Article 32 process so it mirrors more closely preliminary hearings in Federal courts. This is not too much to ask.I’ve been told by JAG friends in other services that military judges are regularly utilized to oversee Article 32 hearings. My observation of the Army process though, was much different. I personally never saw a military judge assigned to an Article 32 hearing, and knew of only one or two cases when a JAG presided over one.Military-wide, the process should be tightened to guarantee that justice for both parties is best approached, and in exactly the way that American criminal procedure provides: By guaranteeing that legally trained professionals who know the rules will also enforce them.

MJIA: The Right Approach to Military Justice with the Right Kinds of Cases

C.S. Lewis, in the character of a demon in The Screwtape Letters instructing a protege on how lead men to Hell, notes that murder is no better than cards, if cards will do the trick. Lewis was talking about sin, of course, and which ones could successfully separate a person from God. But a limited analogy can be drawn between Screwtape’s analysis and the subtle circumstances that can thwart criminal justice. Cynicism, perfidy and incompetence are all well-known enemies; players in the system influenced by these will fail victims and their community. But there are also more subtle, even inadvertent circumstances that can hinder justice as well.In almost three years as a civilian expert with the Army JAG Corps, I encountered almost exclusively highly competent, honorable and devoted trial lawyers both prosecuting and defending criminal cases. I also largely found commanders- the decision makers within the military system- to be fair-minded, conscientious and decent.Still, at least in terms of how the concept of criminal justice is viewed in the civilian world, I saw systemic aspects of military justice that, despite best intentions, somtimes stand as impediments to the kind of justice we expect in response to serious crimes. These are best confronted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's Military Justice Improvement Act.  Military expedience and deference, in particular, can have unintended negative consequences, at least in the cases I consulted on, which included rape, assault and murder. Expedience is demanded in the court martial system given the common exigencies of military life. There must also be great deference, not only to individuals of higher rank, but also to the institution itself.These are not negative in and of themselves; indeed, they are important principles of an institution that must be cohesive, responsive and lethal. Service members willingly accept a lower value on individuality for the good of the institution. Being a part of the military is a very different experience from civilian life. Its justice system should and does reflect these differences.But when it comes to felonies, particularly ones not instantly related to military readiness, it does not have to. That is the thrust of the Military Justice Improvement Act.Under it, commanders, the men and women responsible for increasingly larger units within the ranks, can and will continue to have complete judicial authority where mission-specific crimes like desertion, insubordination, and espionage are concerned. What will shift, partially, will be the responsibility for deciding the merit for prosecution of more traditional felonies like sexual violence, murder and robbery. These crimes can certainly affect a unit’s readiness and cohesiveness, but they have a decreased relationship to military operations, and a profoundly different effect on victims. Traditional, often interpersonal crimes deserve an approach both 1) unhindered by the larger concerns of the command and 2) enhanced through handling by specially trained, unformed legal experts. Sexual violence in particular, given its utter uniqueness in criminality, demands this approach and thus has largely inspired it.In the meantime, commanders will still have involvement over cases, including supervision of the accused and the victim during the process, and the opportunity to seek lesser disciplinary action in the event that a case is not referred for prosecution. We ask more from military commanders than ever before; the vast majority respond honorably and competently. But asking commanders, even with legal counsel, to make decisions about interpersonal crimes- particularly when inextricably burdened with concerns about unit effectiveness- is both unnecessary and potentially detrimental.Where sexual violence is concerned, critics point to the willingness of commanders in most cases to pursue charges against offenders, and this is a fair point. But we only know about what is reported, and a major belief behind the MJIA is that the direct involvement of commanders in criminal justice decisions has a chilling effect. This is more than a hunch; it’s been gleaned from surveys, interviews and the accounts of service members over time.The MJIA is not a panacea for sexual violence or other major crime in the United States military. But it is an idea far less radical than critics charge and worth implementing to bring one aspect of military justice- and only one- in line with that of the larger world.

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, Navy Undersecretary Nominee, Has Made Sen. Gillibrand's Point on Military Justice

I’d say that Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, the President’s nominee for undersecretary of the Navy, perhaps misspoke when she made the patently awful sounding statement “the impact [of judge advocates outside the chain of command making prosecutorial decisions in sexual assault cases] would be decisions based on evidence rather than the interest in preserving good order and discipline.”Except that Dr. Rooney didn’t speak. The statement was written, as testimony, to the Senate committee considering her nomination. One would think that answers reduced to writing are a product of more coherent thought and willful expression than what is sometimes uttered, despite best intentions. Rooney chose, or approved of, these words, and frankly they sound shocking, at least to people who don’t view justice the way she appears to view it. In fact, it seems that Rooney views military justice the way many military commanders and insiders do, that is as a tool for commanders to maintain discipline and good order rather than an ideal unto itself.I’ve written on this before and I’ve pointed out, in fairness, that the promotion of justice is the first of the three clauses that describe the purpose of the United States military justice system. But Rooney’s apparent attitude that justice is more of a tool toward the forging of a larger goal- the maintenance of a cohesive and lethal fighting force- is one I commonly saw reflected during my civilian service to the Army.She has since back-tracked in a letter to chairman Carl Levin, saying that while commanders certainly need to consider evidence in whether to bring charges such as sexual assault, they also need to consider more than that, and include factors such as the impact on morale and discipline.Small wonder this clarification served to alarm Gillibrand more, not less.Rooney believes that prosecutors are, apparently, too narrowly focused on simply whether a crime was committed against one human being by another. “Prosecutors, in my experience, evaluate evidence with an eye toward whether a conviction is likely,” she said. “Commanders consider additional factors.”I’m not sure what prosecutors Rooney is referencing. Prosecutors are not, despite this description, auto-piloted hammers who bring charges as long as a cold analysis favors a conviction. In fact, prosecutors at all levels do consider other factors like resources and the interest of the involved parties and the community.But what civilian prosecutors don’t do, ideally and certainly structurally, is concern themselves with whether the prosecution of a wrongdoer might be best avoided because of its effect on a larger group as an organism or entity.This is exactly what Gillibrand is correctly fighting to end once and for all: The understandable but potentially justice-adverse tendency that commanders have to consider factors unrelated to whether one individual committed a serious criminal offense against another.Rooney also notes favorably that commanders have “non-judicial punishment options” in dealing with offenders. But the offenders that Gillibrand’s initiative targets are service members who are committing rape and felony sexual assault. Non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ involves relatively minor confinements, restrictions, extra duty, counseling, and other disciplinary measures in lieu of a court martial for minor offenses.Gillibrand herself, in reference to Rooney’s original troubling statement, asked “in what world would you recommend that the decision to prosecute a serious crime....not be based on evidence?"Indeed, I’d follow up with, “in what world would you recommend non-judicial punishment for a felony sex crime?Gillibrand’s proposed Military Justice Improvement Act does not disturb a commander’s ability to use non-judicial punishment for minor offenses, which means Rooney is either dreadfully misinformed or actually believes that NJP might be the answer to some cases of sexual violence, given the “other factors” she believes commanders should consider.The supremacy of the individual observed in our culture is not one that can be similarly observed in military life. Many aspects of it involve compromising the needs of individuals for the larger health- and fighting ability- of the group.But where justice, and a competent and effective response to sexual violence is concerned especially, the current system should be amended- reasonably- to do better. Dr. Rooney seems to make this very clear.

Gail Heriot in the Weekly Standard: Wrong on Military Justice, Wrong on Rape

Law professor Gail Heriot’s current piece In the Weekly Standard asserts baldly that the military has no sexual assault crisis, and instead is reeling from media and Congressional hysteria. To be fair, she makes some true statements. Unfortunately they’re all beside the point, or suggest the opposite of what Heriot aruges.She asserts that colleges and universities are dangerous sexual environments for women, as much if not more than the military. This is true. And also beside the point. College life is alarmingly dangerous in terms of sexual violence and most institutions aren’t doing nearly enough to address it. The military is also a dangerous environment. But unlike the vast and diverse universe of American higher education, the military is under direct civilian control and literally "uniform" in terms of its response, which can be addressed by Congress more readily than colleges and universities.Heriot also asserts that "off-post rapes" committed by service members (and thus pursuable by both civilian and military prosecutors), are pursued by military prosecutors at far higher rates. This is a good thing, but not surprising. Off-post sex crimes committed by service people are usually committed against other service people and involve military witnesses. The military is in a better position to pursue those cases and has more interest in doing so. Civilian prosecutors offices are also notorious for declining to prosecute challenging sexual violence cases (i.e, the vast majority), so no one should be offering them (collectively) as a standard to be emulated. But again, how does a lackluster civilian response translate into the military having no serious issues with its response?Yes, the military prosecutes rape, and increasingly does so aggressively and competently. Aside from bold initiatives like the Army’s Special Victim Prosecutor program that I helped develop, I worked with Army trial attorneys whose talent and dedication I’d pray for if a loved one were victimized and her case prosecuted.But first a report must be made. This is a major response issue the military faces, for the exact reason Heriot inadvertently mentions. Reporting a crime as a soldier or sailor is more like reporting to an employer than to police. Sex crimes are difficult for anyone to report. Imagine reporting to a superior you work with everyday (while your attacker is in or near the very same environment) and then to a command stream where cohesiveness and unflagging enthusiasm are the most demanded attributes. What if your attacker is valued and admired, depended upon where life and death are concerned, but you aren’t? What if you’re isolated on a forward operating base near an active front? The military is not blameworthy for most of these circumstances; they are simply among the hardships experienced by members of a force that must be nimble, cohesive, and lethal when called upon. The efforts of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA), aim at addressing these realities with military lawyers, just outside the chain of command where inherent conflicts exist.Heriot dismisses these challenging circumstances by predictably confusing drunk sex (which happens constantly in military and civilian life without being confused as rape) and rape, which is rarely reported even when clear and devastating. She misconstrues UCMJ standards on incapacity, and like many people seems to think that rape is usually the product of an alcohol-fueled misunderstanding rather than a predatory act. She’s wrong. Her reliance for insight on an aggressive defense attorney like Michael Waddington, with a career incentive to make the military appear reactionary, is dubious. As for the Navy prosecutor who sees a distinction between “rape” and “Navy rape?” Move her to contract law.Curious to me most of all was Heriot’s subtly emasculating criticism of the “supplicating” General Raymond Odierno whom she chastises for assuring Congress that combating sexual assault was our military's number one priority (rather than defending the country, apparently).I’ve never met Odierno, but I know he’s a nuclear engineer and considered a literal genius by pretty much everyone who has. Perhaps what Odierno understands is that the military’s highest priority (assumed and obvious except by the occasional law professor) can’t be achieved until the well-being of the young brave men and women ultimately responsible for its security can be. 

On Suicide, Sexual Violence, and Army Civilian Service: I'll Be Silent No Longer

Exactly four years ago, I was hired by the best equipped, most richly funded and lethal fighting force ever assembled. Their primary need for my expertise surrounded the scourge of sexual violence occurring within their ranks. I gave them everything I had for 32 months as a civilian with a background in special victims prosecution.I was supposedly hired to do far more than train JAGs on the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault. I was told- initially at least- that my mission was to make candid observations and help create meaningful changes; hence bringing me in as an HQE or “Highly Qualified Expert” at a level on par with general officers and the Senior Executive Service.I took the mission seriously, and in return I was largely bullied and marginalized, almost exclusively by a tiny handful of unfortunately placed mid-level officers who viewed myself and my two colleagues as subordinates, there to carry out their pre-planned agendas, rather than the change agents we were supposed to be. To my detriment, I fought back. The bullying continued, blossoming into what amounted to stalking humiliation as I entered my third year of service. I left honorably in February of 2012.I have never written of that experience in this space, for two reasons: First, I encountered largely honorable, dedicated and decent men and women in every facet and at every level of the US Army, and did not want anything I said to create an unfair impression of a group I admire greatly and through which I made lifelong friends. Second, I simply feared I could not do it fairly.Instead I wrote privately to the JAG leadership who hired me, several months after leaving, to express what I believe were ignored blind-spots despite the valiant efforts I had seen and in some measure been a part of. I got a polite non-response and decided I had done and said enough.And then I saw this. The Army reported a record 325 suicides in 2012, up from 283 in 2011. The issue is of course deeply complex; 12 grueling years of war provide infinite reasons. But the analyses I have read remind me darkly of things I suggested with regard to the mental health of not only JAG lawyers themselves but also investigators, commanders, support personnel and soldiers of every rank and responsibility who were witness to or otherwise affected by the crimes I was hired to help reduce. Two of these issues stand out in particular, and on both I fought for changes and development. I did so largely in vain.One issue was same-sex sexual assault. Whether or not the victim identifies as homosexual (most perpetrators do not), they are uniquely disadvantaged. Prior to the final repeal of the odious ban and the "DADT" compromise, many victims remained silent because any real or perceived consensual homosexual conduct before an attack could still lead to discharge. Prior to the lifting of the ban in 2011, I implored the JAG to bring in nationally known and respected experts to help us understand the issues, believing that reports of victimization would likely rise. Same-sex rape victims are some of the most wounded, vulnerable and isolated imaginable; we needed specialized resources as investigators and prosecutors to assist them.I was ignored, at times aggressively so.I also petitioned for better vicarious trauma services for the JAGs- both prosecutors and defense counsel- who had to consume not only the facts of the cases we regularly saw, but also things like high definition video of child rape and torture in the context of child pornography cases. Again, I was ignored; Army officers, I was told, received vicarious trauma training already. When I pointed out that this was largely combat related (a very different stressor) it was suggested that I alert the leadership when I encountered someone who “seemed to need help.”These two examples address a tiny percentage of the issue of mental health and the danger of suicide within the military context. But they were two that I felt I had a responsibility to address, even if tangentially, as part of my mission. I quickly became used to my ideas being ignored while working for the Army. Such is life, and I do not begrudge substantive differences in opinion, particularly with regard to an institution and culture that I only served temporarily and without wearing a uniform.But when those differences are more about posturing and personality conflicts than rational argument, and when present and former warriors are taking their own lives in desperation and despair as war and its accompanying hardships continue, I cannot in good conscience remain silent on any aspect for which I have insight.I know the concern is there. I know that general officers understand the pain of suicide; they attend the funerals without exception. They engage the families. They bear the misery themselves in large measure. I simply wished then and wish now that the ones I worked for would have given me more of an ear than their subordinates did. 

10 Years in Iraq: The Fragrance of Flowers. The Horror of War. The Burden of Doing Justice in its Wake

Note to readers: The post below was one I wrote not in anticipation of the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, but an anniversary of the atrocities at Al-Mahmudiyah. I've since realized the post is more appropriate for publication at a significant anniversary of the invasion. The reason is simple: The atrocities at Mahmudiyah are as intrinsic and foreseeable an aspect of war as any that can be imagined. The designers of the war must never be allowed to escape that.“Abeer” translates in Arabic to “the fragrance of flowers” and was the name given to the 14 year-old girl ruthlessly raped and murdered, along with her parents and six year-old sister, on March 12, 2006, near the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. The murderers were a group of American soldiers, stationed at a nearby checkpoint in an especially brutal time after the American invasion three years previous.Of the many honorable men and women I met serving as a civilian in the Army JAG Corps, the one I came to know the best was among the first and most involved prosecutors in the Al-Mahmudiyah massacre. It wasn’t enough that he endured a difficult and dangerous deployment as part of the 101st Airborne Division. He was also saddled with bringing, of all things, the weight of that crime home with him as he handled the case near Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He did this while readjusting to stateside and family life as a husband and father. He’ll acknowledge that burden if it’s pointed out. But he will never, ever complain about it. First, because by God’s grace, his own family is intact and healthy, and he was able to hold them when he returned. Second, because seeking justice for Abeer and her family was an honor he accepted with humility and a deep sense of duty that I found typical in the Army JAG Corps. He sought justice for his Army and his country. But I suspect most of all he sought justice for for Abeer, and the details he came to know of her life and the unspeakable circumstances of her death.The details are public, if you want them. I can tell you that nightmares are all you’re likely to get for mining them, and I say this as a trained absorber of such things.The Army JAG Corps ignored several things I encouraged them to address while I served as a consultant. In a time where soldier suicides are spiking in particular, perhaps the most puzzling to me was refusing (to my knowledge and based on their responses to me at the time) to even look into proactive assistance for JAG prosecutors and defenders who must absorb, if not horrors like Mahmudiyah on a daily basis, then things like increasingly detailed and technologically advanced videos of children used in pornography or worse.And then there is war, the ones we’ve been waging now on the backs of a volunteer military and its valiant but exhausted support bulwark for nearly 12 years. Among myriad other things, war requires the prosecution and defense of combatants accused of atrocities and horrors more regularly than many grasp.I blame Mahmudiyah solely on the men who conceived and carried it out. They represent nothing but themselves; not the US Army, not the stress of combat (which the vast majority of soldiers endure without resorting to murder and rape) and not even the war itself. Regardless, the men and women who must address legally what military conflict inevitably produces must be cared for during that process. Of its many poisons, war vomits things like Mahmudiyah regularly. It did so at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, at My Lai,Quan Ngai, in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It has done so in every war and under every flag unfurled since the beginning of combat.The architects of the 2003 Iraq War, just as the drum-beaters for Vietnam, may argue with scholarly confidence that they were right, or with grave regret that they were wrong. But none may claim a lack of foreseeability for one single thing that occurred or will occur as a result of their decisions. No act, no matter how shocking, how damning, how soul-crushing and freakishly inhuman, is unforeseeable the moment war is engaged.Similarly, the stress of sorting out, in courts of military justice, the details of anything war yields is also foreseeable and addressable. It’s not enough to own, no matter how deeply, what war really is. We must also support appropriately those who must seek justice in its wake.     

Military Justice and Sexual Violence: An Ideal, or a Tool for Commanders?

“The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States." -Manual for Courts-Martial, Preamble, Section 3, Nature and Purpose of Military LawIn an honest discussion about what the US military values and pursues in terms of addressing wrongdoing within its ranks, it would be unfair not to point out that the promotion of justice is the first of three clauses defining its very purpose in the MCM, or Manual for Courts-Martial. That being said, in 32 months of civilian employment with the United States Army as an experienced sex crimes prosecutor, hired to assist the JAG in addressing sexual violence within the ranks, I heard far less about the first clause and much more about the second. As a singular concept, “good order and discipline” is at bottom the condition most crucial to enabling our military to do what must do. I was told again and again that military justice had to be understood in a different context than that of the civilian world. Justice in the military is an ideal, but more practically a “commander’s tool” to maintain good order and discipline.A commander is an officer responsible for the development, maintenance, and actions of a particular military unit. Junior commanders include Army captains in charge of 150 or so soldiers in a company. A senior commander might be a general commanding tens of thousands of soldiers in a Corps. Regardless of their level of responsibility, all commanders must maintain good order and discipline. Without it, everything else they seek to preserve- including the very lives of their warriors- is at risk. So a cohesive, obedient and ordered fighting force is the ultimate goal. Most everything else, at least in terms of the mission to be carried out, is secondary.Two things should clarified here: First, the JAG officers I encountered, in addition to commanders, were almost always deeply decent, honorable men and women who abhorred, among other things, sexual violence perpetrated by one of their own. Second, the concept of “justice” as we normally view it in the Judeo-Christian context, is appropriately intertwined with good order and discipline. Of the things that inspire servicemen and women to follow the rules and act as a unified fighting force, a belief that they’re treated equally and justly is probably first among them. So it’s not that justice isn’t a concern of military commanders. Rather, it's a concern tempered by other imperatives, most not typically experienced or appreciated by civilian observers.Enter sexual assault and military priorities.More of the civilian world now knows, from the sexual assault case out of Aviano, Italy, that high-level commanders (with the authority to convene general courts-martial, or simply Convening Authorities) can overturn the findings of a military tribunal. No reason for doing so is required, and the action of the convening authority is not reversible.Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) last week questioned a panel of Judge Advocates General about how justifiable it was to allow one commander to negate the findings of a military tribunal after months of litigation (the convening authority who overturned the panel verdict in the air force case never spoke to the victim). Gilibrand argued forcefully that the sole authority to negate the findings of a general court martial was anything but emblematic of or conducive to “good order and discipline.” Instead, she argued, the power of one commander to undermine the efforts of a full and concerted legal process only chills reports and emboldens perpetrators. This, in turn, eats away at good order and discipline by compromising the backstop of enforcement that aims to keep all servicemen and women safe from harm by- first and foremost- each other.I suspect Gilibrand is right. But the issue of justice as an ideal versus justice as a means to an end must be fully understand by civilian decision makers before changes are made, if they are to be. Understanding the military view (as I understood it) did not change my perspective. But it helped to know why a different perspective existed.

Homeschooling At Its Worst: A Child Starvation Case in Oklahoma

Among the worst cases I've ever consulted on, this one involved a 10 year-old boy tortured through "discipline," isolated from the community and ultimately starved to death by both his mother and her paramour. The paramour was an enlisted soldier at Fort Sill, Oklahoma; the case came under my purview because I was an Army civilian consultant at time the case was investigated. The children, including the dead young boy, were "home-schooled," which for the murdering parents was simply a convenient way to isolate him from an otherwise decent and caring military community around them.I've written on the dangers of home-schooling in this space before. I am not anti-home schooling, and in fact have great respect for people who do it right (a few are old friends). Further, I recognize how children can be and certainly are harmed in traditional schooling environments. But the isolation, secrecy and helplessness of the victim are never more accentuated or unanswerable than in a torturous, unregulated and out of control homeschool environment. Allowing for further deregulation of home education in the name of "freedom" will lead to more children stripped of not only freedom but also safety, health, and their very lives.