Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
3. I need to know more, here.
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 01:53 PM
Nov 2013

This would be the first female SECNAV, to my knowledge.

Often times, because people are reluctant to make an accusation contemporaneous with the event, there is no "evidence."

I don't know what this woman means when she says

“The impact would be decisions based on evidence rather than the interest in preserving good order and discipline,” Rooney wrote. “I believe this will result in fewer prosecutions and therefore defeat the very problem that I understand it seeks to address.”


If she's talking about physical evidence, she's right. If she's talking about testimony, that's a different issue.

I would like to see these things stay within the chain of command, but with an oversight mechanism--someone who flies in and looms over the process, and reports back to the CNO as to how it's going. That'll keep everyone honest and train the culture of leadership so that this kind of shit isn't kicked over. It's not appropriate to undermine leadership's authority without evidence, but at the same token, there is a problem in the military and this methodology is the best of both worlds because it leaves the CO in charge of the process while also keeping him or her honest.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gillibrand Slaps Hold on ...»Reply #3