Dispute over Afghan rape case could delay Army secretary's nomination

A dispute over the U.S. Army’s treatment of a soldier who defended a young Afghan boy being raped by a local police commander could hold up the nomination of the next secretary of the Army.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who has fought the Army’s decision to dismiss a decorated Green Beret over the rape incident, has formally asked Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to add the case to the hold placed on Eric Fanning’s nomination.

“My support for your action, as you also stated yourself, is nothing personal,” Hunter, a former Marine officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote in a letter to Roberts obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “The ability of any senator to hold a nomination is an effective mechanism to ensure the executive branch is forthright, transparent, and accountable.”

Senate procedures permit any senator to place a “hold” on the nomination of a presidential appointee, preventing a full Senate vote until the issue is resolved. Roberts placed the hold when he learned Fort Leavenworth, the location of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Kansas, was being considered as a possible site for relocating detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to the Army Times.

In his letter to Roberts, Hunter noted the Army has yet to act on its recommendation that Sgt. First Class Charles Martland be removed from service.

In 2011, Martland and his detachment commander, Capt. Danny Quinn, confronted an Afghan Local Police (ALP) commander who admitted to raping a young boy repeatedly over several days. When the commander laughed in their faces, Quinn and Martland admitted to physically picking him up and throwing him outside the compound.

“For this action, Martland was removed from the outpost and faced reprimand. He later was allowed to reenlist, only to face a Qualitative Management Program review board in February 2015,” Hunter wrote in his letter. “The Army argued that the black mark on his record, which states he assaulted ‘a corrupt Afghan commander,’ is cause to expel him from duty, despite the fact that he has the full support of his command and immediate leadership.”

Martland and Quinn have not been the only U.S. service personnel punished for reporting instances of Afghan forces sexually assaulting children, according to a September report in The New York Times. Although the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Campbell, has denied the existence of any policy instructing troops to ignore rape allegations against Afghan forces, “American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene—in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases,” according to the Times.

“Sgt. Martland, who received a Bronze Star for valor for his actions during a Taliban ambush, wrote in a letter to the Army this year that he and Mr. Quinn ‘felt that morally we could no longer stand by and allow our ALP to commit atrocities,’” the Times reported.

Advocates for religious liberty and freedom of conscience within the military fear punishing troops for taking actions such as Martland’s could have a chilling effect on morale.

“It is vital that our military protect, not punish, troops who do act heroically based on their religious or moral convictions,” Michael Berry, senior counsel and director of military affairs at Liberty Institute, wrote in an email. “When service members fear that the military will punish them for doing the right thing, my concern is they will stop doing the right thing. That’s bad for our military, and bad for our nation.”