Senators Reiniforce Dedication To End Rape In Congo And Sudan

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

Top Senate Democrats and State Department officials reiterated their intent to help Sudan and the DRC with its rape problem.

According to Melanne Verveer, the U.S. State Department Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, “36 women are raped daily” in Sudan.

"This must stop," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "As colleagues we must come together - across all the lines that normally divide us - to end this madness...If raping an infant is not a crime against humanity, I don’t know what is.”

The attention of lawmakers was piqued after the release of reports by Human Rights Watch, which said that “the number of women and girls raped since January has significantly increased in areas of military operations by armed groups and soldiers of the Congolese Army.”

Boxer explained the need to intervene immediately as one representing more than a humanitarian crisis. “If raping an infant is not a rime against humanity, I don’t know what is” she said.

According to Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), “The United States has an important role to play, in helping to facilitate such initiatives and ensure sound policies are implemented”.

DRC-based journalist Chouchou Namegabe Nabintu said that “The rapes are targeted and intentional, and are meant to remove the people from their mineral-rich land through fear, shame, violence, and the intentional spread of HIV throughout entire families and villages.”

Verveer said that the problem can not be resolved by attempting to prosecute perpetrators. “The law enforcement personnel and magistrates continue to treat rape and sexual violence in general with a marked lack of seriousness,” she said. But, "a solution must be found to stop the war and restore an order that will have to be completely reshaped in order to reduce the power the soldiers now have,” she said.

”Ending the conflict is the most important direct and certain path to ending the violence. Peace negotiations ... should remain our highest priority” said Verveer.

Sexual Assault in the Military

"Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq,” Congresswoman Jane Harman (CA) reported to the congressional committee for Military Sexual Assault Victim Support and Response. The committee met Wednesday with military personnel to discuss how the Department of Defense can improve victim support and advocacy. Beginning the hearing was former marine Laura Waterson. Ms. Waterson was sexually assaulted by an officer in her unit in early 2001. Her testimony shed light on the meager and often time insulting support provided to her by the military following her report that she was sexually abused. Through out her often weepy eyed testimony Waterson described the extremely painful aftermath of her assault that ultimately to “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the end of her marriage, and extreme irrational behavior.”

Waterson’s testimony spoke to the issues that surround support for victims of sexual assault within the military. Following an assault there is the issue of confidentiality due to the fact that many women fear persecution or humiliation from other soldiers or are intimidated by commanding officers. Attending the hearing was the mother of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, whose daughter was murdered shortly after reporting that she was raped by a fellow officer. The victim’s mother believes that if the marines had provided more effective protection for Maria after her assault she would still be alive.

Currently, sexual assaults that occur in the military are to be reported to Sexual Assault Response Correspondents (SARCs). After the initial report it is the SARCs responsibility to provide support and advocate for the victim. Attending the hearing was SARC and Army Sergeant Michael Horwath. Sgt. Horwath described his duty as a “liaison between the survivor and their commander.” Waterson’s testimony shed light on the fact that the SARC has no legal ability to effect change in a commanding officer’s decision in any give sexual assault case. Furthermore, the acting commander of the unit in which sexual assault takes place has no legal or occupational incentive to follow through with thorough investigations and strict punishment. Congresswoman Jane Harman, an active member of the committee, stressed that this “is an epidemic that impairs our nation.”

While SARC and Navy Chief Petty Officer Tonya McKennie said that she “can ensure that the victim will receive all the advice and support that (she) can possibly offer,” she is not a part of the team that investigates the assault and she is limited to “interactions and suggestions” when it comes to reporting to the commanding officers. Congressman Michael Turner admitted that “this is an ongoing process and we don’t have it right.”

DoD defends sexual assault policies

The National Security Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on sexual assault in the military. The hearing sought to ensure that that the Department of Defense has adequate policies and oversight mechanisms in place to prevent, treat and punish sexual assaults.

The DoD established the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) after a similar Congressional hearing in 2004, and the director of the organization was subpoenaed to speak today. Michael Dominguez, principal deputy undersecretary for defense from the DoD was present at the hearing, however the director of the SAPRO did not show up. Chairman Waxman and other members of the subcommittee chastised Dominguez and the DoD for disregarding Congressional subpoena and asked Dominguez what the DoD is trying to hide by not allowing the Director of the office in question testify. Waxman then dismissed the DoD officials from the hearing, without allowing them to testify, in light of their inappropriate actions.

41 percent of female veterans seen by military doctors say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military and 29 percent reported being raped during their military service, said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Cali.). According to Department of Defense reports, in 2006 2,947 sexual assaults were reported, 73 percent more than in 2004. Since the creation of the SAPRO, the DoD has initiated training and improved reporting of rapes and sexual assaults but has inexplicably failed to track prosecution rates or how victims are faring within the military service, Harman said.

“Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq,” Harman said.

Harman is introducing legislation calling on the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to end assault and rape in the military, to encourage and increase investigations and prosecutions.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) reintroduced the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, which acts to bring military laws up to par with civilian laws in the cases of sexual assault. The DoD must do more to ensure that American civilians serving in Iraq and Afghanistan receive the same protections as service members, she said.

Supreme Court: $2.5 billion too much for Exxon Valdez; death penalty not allowed for child rape

Exxon v. Baker (5–3 that $2.5 billion was too high a damage award): After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon paid $3 billion in cleanup fees and fines. Alaskan fishermen brought this case for compensatory damages due to their lost revenue from the damaged fishing areas. They also asked for punitive damages. The jury awarded $287 million in compensatory damages to some of the fishermen (some others had already settled their claims), and it assessed $5,000 in punitive damages against captain Hazelwood and $5 billion against Exxon (an appeals court later halved the amount awarded to Exxon, to $2.5 billion). Exxon made three arguments in this case: that it should not face punitive damages for Hazelwood's actions, that these kinds of events were regulated by the Clean Water Act and no other damages were appropriate, and that the damages award was too large. Justice Alito sat out the case, and the Justices split 4–4 on the question of whether Exxon can be fined for Hazelwood's actions, so the 9th Circuit's decision that Exxon can be held responsible stands. The Court found 8-0 that the Clean Water Act does not prohibit this kind of action. Finally, the Court found 5-3 that the damage award was excessive. Justice Souter, writing for the majority, went through a long historical analysis and found that an appropriate ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages in maritime cases is 1:1.. Justices Souter, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas agreed on this point. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg each wrote separately to say that they thought Congress should decide the question of punitive damages in the maritime field, and until then the $2.5 billion award should be left standing. Justice Breyer wrote separately to say that he thought the excessiveness of the recklessness here was enough to justify the award.

Kennedy v. Louisiana (5–4 that death penalty is unconstitutional in cases of child rape): Kennedy raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter. He was sentenced to death. He brought suit, claiming the death penalty for child rape violated the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In announcing the opinion, Justice Kennedy said that the 8th Amendment must be interpreted “not by the standards that prevailed when the 8th Amendment was adopted” but by evolving standards of decency. Noting the Court's prior decisions of Roper v. Simmons (2005, invalidating the death penalty for minors), Atkins v. Virginia (2002, invalidating the death penalty for mentally retarded), and Coker v. Georgia (1977, invalidating the death penalty for adult rape), Justice Kennedy summarized the legal situation in the states: 6 U.S. states allow the death penalty for child rape, while 44 states and the federal government do not allow it. There has been no execution for child or adult rape since 1964. Finally, there are only 2 people on death row in the United States for crimes other than homicide (the petitioner is one of them). In comparison, there were 5,702 child rapes in 2005, almost twice as many as homicides, so that number of people would be opened to the death penalty if the law were upheld. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, voted to invalidate the law. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Coker case led states to believe laws like this would be struck down and dissuaded them from passing them, and thus their scarcity is not reflective of a real consensus of opinion. Notably, Justice Alito did not spend much time discussing whether it is proper to examine the 8th Amendment under “standards that prevailed when the 8th Amendment was adopted,” yet Justices Scalia and Thomas joined his opinion in full without writing separate opinions.

Giles v. California (6–3 out-of-court statements by a murder victim are not necessarily allowed as evidence in the murder trial): Giles shot and killed his girlfriend. At trial, he argued self defense. To rebut that claim, the prosecution sought to bring into evidence statements the girlfriend had made about prior violence against her by Giles. Giles argued that the 6th Amendment gave him a right to cross examine her, but since she couldn't be cross examined the statements couldn't be used. California said that it was Giles's fault that she was unavailable, so he had no right to complain. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, found that the 6th Amendment right to confrontation did not have an exception for cases like there; there is an exception if someone makes a witness unavailable intentionally so that the person cannot testify, but California's argument against Giles was broader than that. Justices Scalia, Roberts, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito joined that opinion, arguing based on historical cases that an exception to the confrontation clause does not exist. Justice Thomas wrote separately to argue that statements to a police officer (like these were) should be admissible anyway, but he joined the majority because he agreed that Giles's actions were not reasons to make the statements admissible. Justice Alito wrote separately, making an argument similar to Justice Thomas's. Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, wrote separately to say that they were not convinced by historical cases but by the need to avoid the circularity of having a court find that a defendant killed a victim in order to have evidence admitted in the defendant's murder trial; if the court finds that the defendant killed, what question is left for the jury? Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and Kennedy, dissented, arguing that historical cases found that an exception applies and the evidence should be admitted.

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land (9–0 saying Indian Tribal Courts can't hear cases over non-indians selling reservation land to non-indians): The bank owned some land on an indian reservation (sale of indian land was allowed for a short time by Congress). It sold that land to a non-indian. The Longs had previously leased that land with an option to buy, and they claimed the terms offered to the new buyers were better than the ones they had gotten. They brought their claim before an indian Tribal Court. Tribal Courts generally do not have jurisdiction over non-indians, and the only exceptions are when the case involves a consensual relationship involving an indian (such as a lease or contract) and when the case deals with reservation land and would dramatically affect the tribe. In this case, Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, the Tribal Court was hearing a case about a non-indian bank selling non-indian-owned land to a non-indian, so the Tribal Court had no jurisdiction. He said the Longs are free to pursue their discrimination claims in federal court. The decision of the Court was unanimous, but 4 Justices (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer) would have let the non-indian keep the land while still allowing the Tribal Court to fine the bank $750,000 for the discrimination.

The Court announced that it will release the remaining opinions from this term tomorrow, Thursday, June 26.