Scholarship Saturday: A federal case against an opaque military justice system
By Isaac Kennen
Scholarship Editor
www.caaflog.org
In
late 2015, the Associated Press reported that the military justice system
operates without the same “openness designed to provide accountability” to the
civilian justice system. Associated Press, “Opaque military justice
system shields child sex abuse cases,” 24 Nov 2015. In contrast to civilian
proceedings, which are “open to the public, as are court filings, including
motions and transcripts,” the AP complained that its access to information from
the military justice system requires “many [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)]
requests, appeals and fees, and often months of waiting.” Id.
Shortly
after the AP’s report, at least six U.S. Senators, from both major political
parties, demanded that the Department of Defense lift the “cloak of secrecy” in
military justice. They asserted that the secrecy “calls into question the
integrity of the institution and hides the system’s shortcomings.” They also
asserted that the military justice system “is rife with bias, lack of transparency
and no accountability.” Associated Press, “Senators
demand transparency in the military justice system,” 8 Dec 2015. Ann Lopez,
“Senators
demand reform in handling of military sexual assault cases,” WSHU Public
Radio, 25 May 2016.
More
than two years later, the allegation of opacity against the military justice
system remains, and the assertion that FOIA offers a sufficient means by which
the public interest can be vindicated is being challenged in federal district
court.
Yale
Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic has filed this
complaint against the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint
is filed on behalf of Protect
our Defenders and the Connecticut
Veterans Legal Center and asserts that, as to multiple FOIA requests
filed since Summer 2017, the respondent Departments have refused to release
information about gender disparities in the military justice system.
The
plaintiffs complain that their FOIA requests have repeatedly gone
unacknowledged and that, even when they are acknowledged, responses tend to be
late and insufficient. The complaint further alleges that the respondent
Departments regularly make deficient efforts to search for requested records
and do not appropriately handle appeals. For relief, the plaintiffs are asking
the district court to compel the respondent Departments to expedite processing
of their existing FOIA requests, to answer those requests in a way that
complies with FOIA, to waive all FOIA fees, and to pay attorney’s fees.
Back in 2015, on the heels of the AP’s reporting and the expressions of Senatorial outrage, this blog noted, in an article entitled, The perception of opacity in military justice, that:
The military justice system currently relies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to address redaction and release, protecting the privacy rights of victims, witnesses, and even the accused. That process isn’t fast, but it’s what the law requires.
Further, we noted:
There are good reasons to want greater public access to military justice records. Like any system, there’s still room to improve military justice. But the AP’s claim that the system is “opaque” and “shields child sex abuse cases” is overblown.
Two
years later, the assertion that FOIA offers an adequate means of ensuring
transparency remains reasonable, at least in theory. But, of course, theory is
only as good as practice. The sufficiency of FOIA as a means of meeting the
public’s need is, of course, dependent on that construct being executed
faithfully.
The
complaint filed by Yale’s Veteran’s Legal Services Clinic on behalf of their
nonprofit clients invites skepticism as to whether FOIA’s theory is being put
to practice in the military justice system. If, two years after initial
complaints were made, FOIA is still not allowing the public to readily observe
the military justice system, then some other tool may be required.
- Originally published on February 3, 2018
on www.caaflog.com. Preserved
by archive.org, here. In the CAAFlog archive, without attribution, here.