Army disqualifies 588 soldiers after sexual assault review

[msanthrope]

9. They can convene a court martial, can't they? Even if the prosecutor declines, a court martial can

still be convened by the command.

Thankfully, in the historic reforms we were able to pass into law just a few months ago, commanders no longer have the power to overturn convictions. And if they choose not to prosecute a case, they must answer to the civilian secretary of their branch. We should also remember that leaving these cases just to lawyers and prosecutors would have its own pitfalls for victims. I know from personal experience that prosecutors are often focused on a “won/loss” ratio, and can be hesitant to pursue charges if there are evidentiary challenges in a case, which often happens in sexual assault cases. In just the past two years, we’ve identified at least 93 cases of sexual assault in which a prosecutor declined to pursue charges, but in which a commander still launched a court-martial. Those are 93 victims of sexual assault who would never have had their day in court if these cases were left solely to prosecutors. Under the major reforms that recently became law, we have effectively eliminated commanders’ ability to abuse their power, but we also retain commanders’ ability to do it right—and we substantially increase the ability to hold them accountable if they fail. Under an alternative proposal by my colleague Senator Kirsten Gillibrand which would strip commanders of all responsibilities in these cases, if a prosecutor declines to pursue a court-martial, then the case is over and that victim has no chance at justice.

http://www.msnbc.com/taking-the-hill/sen-claire-mccaskill-answered-your-questions

When you say you "worked criminal law" does that mean you were an attorney?