A U.S. Marine accused of sexually assaulting one woman and carrying on a relationship with another in violation of Marine protocol maintains his innocence, with his defense lawyer calling him “the victim” in the case.

Maj. Mark Thompson, a former instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, is accused of engaging in sexual encounters with two enrolled students at the Academy in 2011. Maj. Joseph Grimm, Thompson’s defense attorney, told the court that Thompson was the “victim of fabrication,” denying his client having fraternized with either midshipmen. One, Ensign Sarah Stadler, testified that she and Thompson had a relationship of repeated and consensual sexual encounters over the course of her senior year at the Academy.

The other, whose name has not been released but is now a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps, accuses Thompson of taking advantage of her after a day of drinking. “I’m not really sure if I struggled” the alleged victim said during her time on the stand describing the events. “I don’t think I did because I was so shocked and confused, like some out-of-body experience.” According to both Stadler and the alleged victim, the two were present at Thompson’s house on April 30, 2011 for a day that the Marine Corps Times says “allegedly ended with strip poker, sex, and assault.”

Grimm denied that the day proceeded as described, saying that the two midshipmen did enter Thompson’s house to use the bathroom but left quickly after. Thompson allegedly spend the night with his girlfriend at the time, who is expected to testify later in the court-martial. The Marine faces one count of aggravated sexual assault and indecent acts, for which he faces a potential thirty-year sentence, and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer.

If the allegations prove to be true, Thompson’s case would be another example of the ongoing trend of sexual assault in the military that has finally reached the attention of the general public. In just the last month, the Air Force’s top official in charge of preventing assaults was charged with sexual battery and a sergeant with a similar position at the battalion was placed under investigation for allegedly forcing a subordinate into prostitution.

The first of these reports came just one day before the Pentagon revealed that an estimated 26,000 instances of sexual assault occurred in 2012, according to its latest report. The military’s sexual assault problem has been kicked up to the highest levels already , with the Pentagon and White House working alongside Congress to help solve the crisis.

President Obama addressed the issue when speaking at the Naval Academy’s commencement last week, saying sexual assault has “no place in the greatest military on Earth.” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel made similar statements the next day at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. “Sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military are a profound betrayal of sacred oaths and sacred trusts,” Hagel said, adding, “This scourge must be stamped out. We are all accountable and responsible for ensuring that this happens. We cannot fail the Army or America.”

Ahead of possible major actions from the Pentagon and Congress on sexual assault in the military, the U.S. Army is forced to confront yet another instance of a member of the armed forces involved in a shocking sexual assault scandal.

In the latest incident, the Department of Defense revealed on Tuesday a sergeant first class in the U.S. Army stationed at the Ft. Hood, TX military base is under investigation for sexual assault. Along with allegedly sexually assaulting two of his peers, the the sergeant is being investigated for possibly forcing a subordinate into prostitution. Making matters even worse, the soldier under investigation was assigned as the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program coordinator for an eight-hundred person battalion stationed at the base.

The investigation draws a parallel to a case just last week in which the head of the entire Air Force’s sexual assault response program was himself charged with sexual battery in Arlington, VA. No charges have yet been filed against the individual at Ft. Hood, but Pentagon spokesman George Little issued a statement about DOD’s response to yet another alleged instance of rape culture in the military:

I cannot convey strongly enough [Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's] frustration, anger, and disappointment over these troubling allegations and the breakdown in discipline and standards they imply.

Secretary Hagel met with Army Secretary McHugh this morning and directed him to fully investigate this matter rapidly, to discover the extent of these allegations, and to ensure that all of those who might be involved are dealt with appropriately.

To address the broader concerns that have arisen out of these allegations and other recent events, Secretary Hagel is directing all the services to re-train, re-credential, and re-screen all sexual assault prevention and response personnel and military recruiters.

Lawmakers quickly lined up to add their voices to the long list of those condemning the latest outrage and sexual assault in the military writ large. “These allegations only add to the mounting evidence of the need to change our military justice system to better hold perpetrators accountable and protect survivors of sexual assault,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said in a statement. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) head of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement he was “outraged and disgusted” by the latest reports from Ft. Hood, pointing to his own granddaughter in the Army and the “feelings of worry and doubt” many feel when family members join the service.

Much as last week’s case came just days ahead of the Pentagon releasing its annual report on sexual assault in the armed services, Tuesday’s story broke with major implications for the military on the horizon. Wednesday is the deadline for branches of the armed services to provide their plans for how to integrate women into combat units to the Pentagon. Last year, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters that the move could help reduce the number of sexual assaults in the military in the long-run as “the more we treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally.”
Read more

Two members of the Obama adminsitration have for the first time revealed that the United States’ intelligence community has evidence that chemical weapons have been used during the ongoing struggle between the Syrian government and rebel forces.

According to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, the United States now believes “with some degree of varying confidence” that sarin gas specifically was the agent utilized in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry went further, telling to the Associated Press that the Syrian government launched two chemical attacks within the country.

The White House also sent a letter echoing Hagel’s assessment to Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in response to a letter the two had previously sent. According to the letter, the U.S. is unable to determine precisely who used the deadly gas at this time, but believes the Syrian government is the culprit as the regime still maintains control over its weapon stockpiles.

Hagel’s statement — given to reporters while traveling in the Middle East — comes after several days of such claims being made among U.S. allies, including France, the United Kingdom, Israel and Qatar. Until today’s revelation, the United States maintained that there wasn’t enough evidence to make that determination with certainty. According to the letter to Congress, the U.S. assessment is based on “physiological evidence,” setting it apart from the photographic evidence the British and French used to come to their conclusion. The White House was also sure to point out that the chain of custody of that evidence is unclear, making the exact details of how the sarin exposure occurred and under what conditions unclear.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons has been a major concern to Western and Gulf states monitoring the conflict in Syria, who have feared both their use against civilians and rebels alike. Accusations in March flew from each side of the Syrian conflict, claiming that the other had used chemical weapons. These claims prompted the launch of a United Nations investigation, which the Syrian government has so far stymied.

One of the reasons the Obama administration has placed such importance on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian war is their special status in international law. After witnessing the widespread use of choking gases like chlorine and blistering agents like mustard gas in World War I, the international community codified rules prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. The Protocol was flouted during World War II (particularly by Japanese and Italian forces), but it has held more force in recent years. The only confirmed uses of the sorts of nerve gases allegedly used in Syria — easily dispersed, rapidly acting poisons that have become the most prevalent form of chemical weapon — were by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and against Kurdish civilians in the north.

What remains to be seen is precisely what action the United States will take in response to this revelation. The use of chemical weapons has long been a declared “red-line,” an action that would prompt the United States to intervene more directly in Syria. “I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command — the world is watching,” Obama said in December. “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.”

Israel Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon on Monday made clear that he believes that any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program should be only be considered as a last resort, the latest signal that Israel is moving closer to the United States’ views on how to handle Iran.

Yaalon’s proclamation came during U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s visit to the Middle East this weekend, including his first visit to Israel since his conformation. Hagel traveled to the region in part to finalize an arms deal worth $10 billion, split between the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Speaking to reporters, Hagel said, “I don’t think there’s any question that [the deal is] another very clear signal to Iran.”

Yaalon agreed with the Obama administration’s policy that the “military option” remains on the table for confronting Iran, saying “one way or another Iran’s nuclear program will be stopped.” He also emphasized, however, the importance of such a move only coming should all others fail:

“We believe that the military option, which is well discussed, should be the last resort,” Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon told reporters at a news conference with Hagel.

“And there are other tools to be used and to be exhausted,” Yaalon said, listing diplomacy, economic sanctions and “moral support” for domestic opponents of Iran’s hardline Islamist leadership.

In a profile published at the time of his appointment, Reuters highlighted Yaalon’s preference for Israel to follow a cautious approach when determining how to handle Iran, a stance he appears to have brought with him into the Defense Ministry. Yaalon was also listed among the members of Netanyahu’s previous cabinet opposed to launching strikes on Iran in 2011, according to Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Yaalon’s appointment as Defense Minister, given his previous positions on Iran, highlights the shift in Israeli rhetoric in recent months. Following Netanyahu’s so-called “Red Line” speech at the United Nations in October, the drumbeats for war have receded at least slightly. Israeli officials, particularly Netanyahu, have cooled their rhetoric due, in part it seems, to Iran’s continued conversion of its enriched uranium into a form harder to enrich further. But also, as his most recent trip to Israel showed, President Obama has largely succeeded in moving Netanyahu closer to his thinking on Iran since October. “I think there was a policy shift from Netanyahu,” CAP’s Matt Duss said on MSNBC last month, adding that “it’s Netanyahu really climbing down” to Obama’s position.

As Yaalon indicated, all options regarding Iran have yet to be exhausted. Iran on Monday announced it is seeking a new round of talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear program, tentatively scheduled to take place in May. A recent report from The Iran Project also emphasized that there is much the international community can still do to engage Iran diplomatically to end the stand-off over its nuclear program.

Republicans in Congress came out swinging against what they label as the Obama administration’s cuts to military spending in its new budget, specifically citing the threat North Korea’s missiles pose as a reason to preserve missile defense spending. A close read of the Pentagon’s weapon procurement plans, however, show an increase in spending to the missile defense programs most closely related to countering North Korea.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) made headlines on Thursday when he inadvertently revealed a still secret Defense Intelligence Agency asessment of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In one segment of the DIA’s assessment, which was mistakenly labeled as unclassified in the copy provided to Congress, the Pentagon spy agency determined North Korea “has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles; however, the reliability will be low.”

Lamborn defended the disclosure after the meeting, as he was worried that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to fund missile defense:

“My whole goal in bringing this to light was to make sure we don’t cut missile defense spending,” the congressman said. “At the worst possible time, the President’s budget does exactly that.”

Republicans like Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) also seized on the North Korean crisis to attack the Obama administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget on Friday — despite the fact that baseline spending is actually up by $1 billion. And while missile defense spending is cut $550 million in the President’s proposal, those cuts are primarily due to cancelling the Medium Extended Air Defense System, which the Pentagon has said it doesn’t want. In fact, Lamborn’s specific worry so far as it relates to North Korea is concerned is demonstrably false.

Read more

The letter an Air Force general wrote defending his decision to overturn a jury’s sexual assault conviction made its way online on Wednesday, showcasing the sometimes arbitrary nature of military justice when it comes to sexual violence cases.

Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin drew headlines and outrage in March for overturning Lt. Col. James Wilkerson’s sexual assault conviction, nullifying his remaining prison sentence and returning him to service in the Air Force. In his letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley defending his decision, Franklin explained that he was acting fully in compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that he would be “entirely remiss in [his] sworn military duty and responsibility” if he had not overturned the jury’s findings.

Franklin’s memo listed 18 points of contention he saw in the evidence presented during Wilkerson’s court-martial, including several points that either were ruled inadmissible in court or specifically shifted the blame of any assault on the victim:

• The victim turned down three offers of a ride and seemed to have differing reasons why she wanted to stay.
• The victim had trouble identifying and describing parts of the house, didn’t remember the attacker’s mustache and didn’t correctly describe her path out of the house.
• Wilkerson’s wife’s account of the events differed in some details from her husband’s, but Franklin said the conflicts suggested that the two didn’t collude on a manufactured story.
• Testimony from the friend who took the alleged victim to the hospital the next day was not admissible in court, but Franklin said it indicated there could be a reason the woman might be less than candid.

“As I have previously stated, after considering all matters in the entire record of the trial, I hold a genuine and reasonable doubt that Lt. Col. Wilkerson committed the crime of sexual assault,” Franklin concluded. Franklin’s decision to overturn the findings of both the jury and the military judge in the court-martial is entirely in line with current law, which provides that the “convening authority” — the senior officer who called the court-martial — can throw out any case’s ruling without providing a reason. In his letter, Franklin made clear that he was not setting a precedent for future convening officers in writing to Secretary Donley.

Franklin’s explanation was not well met on Capitol Hill, where several members of Congress are already seeking to change the law. “This explanation crystalizes exactly why the convening authority should not have the unilateral ability to overturn a jury verdict — and why we need legislation that restricts their ability to do so,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said in a statement. “This letter is filled with selective reasoning and assumptions from someone with no legal training, and it’s appalling that the reasoning spelled out in the letter served as the basis to overturn a jury verdict in this case.”

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Tuesday proposed a change in the current law that would strip the convening authority of their ability to overturn verdicts in most cases as the first step in correcting the military’s sexual assault problem. Currently an estimated 19,000 instances of military sexual trauma take place in the U.S. armed services every year, the vast majority of which go unreported for fear of reprisal or scorn.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Monday announced that he would provide recommended legislation to Congress to change current rules on military tribunals that allow convicted rapists to go free, in response to a high-profile case that has drawn outrage.

The case in question involved Air Force Lt. Col. James Wilkerson’s conviction before a military tribunal of sexual assault, for which he was tossed out of the military and sentenced to a year in prison. Unfortunately, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin used his ability as the “convening authority” — or the senior officer who called the court-martial — to overturn the jury’s decision less than four months later and reinstate Wilkerson into the Air Force. Franklin’s decision led to widespread condemnation from members of Congress and the general public.

Hagel in March ordered a review of Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (USCMJ), to investigate the ways that changes to the policy could prevent cases like Wilkerson’s from occurring again. The review was completed recently, leading to Hagel issuing two recommendations Monday afternoon that will be sent to Congress in the form of draft legislation:

First, eliminating the discretion for a convening authority to change the findings of a court-martial, except for certain minor offenses that would not ordinarily warrant trial by court-martial. While convening authorities would no longer have the ability to dismiss charges for serious offenses like sexual assault, defendants would continue to have access to a robust system of appeal rights.

Second, requiring the convening authority to explain in writing any changes made to court-martial sentences, as well as any changes to findings involving minor offenses. The intent is to ensure that convening authorities are required to justify — in an open, transparent, and recorded manner — any decision to modify a court martial sentence.

Hagel also acknowledged that the Pentagon has not done enough to curb sexual assault and pledged to do more:

Despite the attention and efforts of senior leaders throughout the Department of Defense, it is clear the department still has much more work to do to fully address the problem of sexual assault in the ranks. This crime is damaging this institution. There are thousands of victims in the department, male and female, whose lives and careers have been upended, and that is unacceptable. The current situation should offend every single service member and civilian who, like me, is proud of their association with the United States military.

The Secretary’s recommendations should face a warm welcome when they reach the Capitol. “When I met with Secretary Hagel before his confirmation hearing he pledged his commitment to taking this issue head on,” Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY) said in a statement provided to the press. “I commend him for honoring that commitment and taking this important step. Now Congress must act on legislation I am drafting with several of my colleagues that will remove authority over these cases outside the chain of command to increase reporting and strengthen accountability in the military justice system.”

Read more

Tensions on the Korean peninsula are nothing new — historically, North Korea frequently rattles its saber for one reason for another. But the recent escalation in tensions between the North and South have experts worried that this time might be different, that the threat of the United States being drawn into a devastating war with the nuclear-armed North is real in a way that it might not normally be. At the very least, it’s worth paying special attention this time around.

The escalation of tensions began in mid-February, when North Korea conducted its third-ever nuclear test. While the North’s ability to strike the United States is limited at best, the Obama administration interpreted the test as a violation of international law, and pushed through stricter, though still porous, sanctions on North Korean elites.

North Korea responded in turn by threatening to nullify the armistice that ended the original Korean War, reverting the North and South to a legal state of war. Two days ago, it shut off the last remaining line of communication between the two Korean militaries, warning that “Not words but only arms will work on the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces.”

Thursday night, the United States responded in kind, conducting a bombing drill with two B-2 bombers over South Korea. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel described the thinking behind the move: “The North Koreans have to understand that what they’re doing is very dangerous.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un got the message Friday morning. He ordered his country’s missile arsenal be readied to strike South Korea and the United States if necessary. While North Korean Unha-3 missiles could theoretically reach the West Coast, it’s not clear the missiles actually work. Moreover, North Korea lacks the technology to arm the missiles with nuclear warheads and to deliver them accurately even if they can get them in proper working order. (One expert has noted that “there is little to no chance that [North Korea] could successfully land a missile on Guam, Hawaii or anywhere else outside the Korean Peninsula that U.S. forces may be stationed.”)

So how is this different from the last 60-odd years of North Korean provocations? Many think it isn’t. Writing in the National Interest, Rajon Menon says the current Northern provocations are an example of the Hermit Kingdom’s “measured madness,” an attempt to wring more concessions out of an overcompensating international community.

But North Korea experts Victor Cha and David Kang disagree. They argue that Kim Jong Un’s inexperience (he’s only been running the country since December 2011), together with the South’s new President and more aggressive military stance, means there’s a greater risk (not certainty by any stretch, but risk) of escalation this time around:

So why worry? Two reasons. First, North Korea has a penchant for testing new South Korean presidents. A new one was just inaugurated in February, and since 1992, the North has welcomed these five new leaders by disturbing the peace. Whether in the form of missile launches, submarine incursions, or naval clashes, these North Korean provocations were met by each newly elected South Korean president with patience rather than pique. The difference today is that South Korea is no longer turning the other cheek…for half a century, neither side believed that the benefits of starting a major war outweighed the costs. The worry is that the new North Korean leader might not hold to the same logic, given his youth and inexperience.

Read more

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s response to Congressional inquiries about what, if anything, he can do following an overturned sexual assault conviction in the Air Force lays bare just how far the military has to go in providing justice to victims of sexual violence.

At issue is Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin’s decision to overturn a jury’s conviction in the case of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson on charges of aggravated sexual assault. Wilkerson’s reinstatement in the Air Force last week, where his only punishment appears to be his removal from the possibility of promotion, and the dismissal of the jury’s ruling sparked outrage.

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) wrote to Secretary Hagel, demanding to know what action could be taken in the case. In his response [PDF], Hagel informed the senators that Lt. Gen. Franklin’s decision as the convening authority — or the officer who initiated a court-martial — “cannot be changed, either by the Secretary of the Air Force or by the Secretary of Defense per title 10 U.S.C. 860.”

However, the Secretary added that a review of the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s statutes on convening authorities had already been launched:

I have directed the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense, to review this case to assess whether all aspects of the UCMJ were followed, and, after consultation with the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy, to report to me on whether the case points to changes that should be considered in the UCMJ, or in the military services’ implementation of the UCMJ and, if so, what changes should be made.

Senator Boxer appeared to take Hagel’s letter well, issuing a press statement praising the swift response. “I am heartened that Secretary Hagel is taking immediate action to review the facts of this troubling case and acknowledges that it is high time to take a hard look at how the military handles sexual assault cases,” Boxer said.

Despite Boxer’s enthusiasm, it appears that the actions available to Hagel are limited under current legislation. While the 2013 NDAA put into place several reforms to better prevent and respond to sexual assault, none of them deal with the issues at play in the case of Wilkerson. Rep. Jackie Spier (D-CA) in response to the situation, has announced that she’ll introduce legislation on Tuesday to specifically reform the convening authority.

Spier’s legislation could be part of the solution suggested by Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law, to “abandon the command-centric aspect” of the military’s justice system. Along with removing the authority of commanders to block courts-martial in the first place, Fidell believes that the U.S. military’s justice system could in this way shift away from its 18th century foundations. “The switch should not be in the hands of a non-lawyer,” Fidell said, in an interview with ThinkProgress.

All told, sexual assault remains an under-reported phenomenon within the military, with an estimated 19,000 instances of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) thought to have occurred in 2011 alone. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in a public statement last week acknowledged that officials in the military often “look the other way” in instances of sexual violence.