No representation from the defense side of the house. Nothing about protecting the rights of service members. Let's all act surprised.
I know a couple of the people on the list and would characterize them as having concern for the rights of the accused, but I wouldn't call exactly call them members of the defense bar. So, yeah.
There is some resume padding going on here. Deploying as an S-1 to a Special Troops Battalion doesn't qualify anyone as a 'counselor.'
How many of the commissions are their going to be?
Meh. Picked to reach a certain conclusion. No defense experts. No one with significant experience with false accusations. Garbage in, Garbage out.
If only they would put just as much effort into discouraging false accusations, and emphasis on correctly teaching the law instead of, "presume she's telling the truth" and "no means no but yes doesn't always means yes," there would be a lot more progress.
So what is the "conclusion" that is "garbage" that is expected and will "not be a surprise"?
The point is that if you want to shape the conversation, you need to be part of the conversation. It doesn't take revealing the Rosetta Stone, there are some basic contributions the audience expects.
You need to show that you have heard what the other person has said before you snark rhetorical questions of it. And you have to do more than scare quote someone before they take you seriously at all.
Charlie isn't chafing that the number of women on the panel means that women are to be believed. He isn't bemoaning that the lack of men on the panel mean that they won't be believed. But there has be no lack of input that could have been attached to this panel.
Where are the Phil Cave's? He has testified before. Where are the Terri Zimmermans. She's got some input. Where is a hint of Patricia Hamm? She's been on a panel or two.
Gigo is just saying that what everyone already knows.
Week In Review