Image credit: Scott Peterson/Getty Images

Former President Bill Clinton reportedly expressed his support for U.S. intervention in Syria, while criticizing President Obama’s inaction at a closed-press event at the McCain Institute on Tuesday according to news reports.

He cited his own leadership in the 1999 NATO intervention to end the conflict in Kosovo, which included the bombing of Serbian forces and strongholds of then-President Slobodan Milosevic.

“You just think how lame you’d be … suppose I had let a million people, two million people be refugees out of Kosovo, a couple hundred thousand people die, and they say, ‘You could have stopped this by dropping a few bombs. Why didn’t you do it?’ And I say, ‘Because the House of Representatives voted 75 percent against it?’ ” Clinton said according to audio of the event obtained by Politico and The Daily Beast .  “You look like a total wuss, and you would be.”

But under Clinton’s watch there was another conflict, in 1994, in the tiny African nation of Rwanda, where millions of people did become refugees and 800,000 people were killed in less than two months.

Similar to Syria, there was a bi-partisan push by some Senators and human rights activists for the United States to take action and pressure the UN to help stop the bloodshed in Rwanda. But unlike Syria, which all experts agree is complex, advocates for intervention in Rwanda argued it wouldn’t take much. The people doing the killing, the Hutus, did not have a sophisticated weapons system or a strong military. They were mostly young men roaming the streets and countryside, killing indiscriminately with machetes and small arms. The former UN Peacekeeper commander, Canadian General  Romeo Dallaire, told the United Nations and the U.S. that he only needed 5,000 troops at most to end the atrocities and help the Tutsi rebels win.

Still, the Clinton administration made the calculation that the political cost of intervention, even asking the UN to authorize troops, would be too high. Just a year before the United States was involved in another intervention in an African country, Somalia, that had disastrous results after 18 troops were killed, the basis for the book and movie Black Hawk Down.

According to Samantha Power’s  Pulitzer Prize winning book “A Problem From Hell,” about America’s role in the world’s most well-known genocides, Republican and Democrat Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote a letter to President Clinton asking him to request that the UN Security Council authorize sending troops to Rwanda. Power, a former human rights activist and journalist who President Obama has nominated to be the United States UN Ambassador, wrote that Senators were told by administration officials that there was no “base of public support for taking any action in Africa.”

When President Clinton did finally respond to the letter, he defended the actions the U.S. had taken “ranging from paying for medical supplies to pressing for a cease-fire,” Power wrote. Clinton told the Senators that he had spoken out about the killings and that the United States had “called for a full investigation of these atrocities.”

By the time the Tutsi rebels had taken control of the country and ended the genocide less than two months after it began, 800,000 people had been killed and nearly two million refugees had fled to neighboring countries, primarily the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Former President Clinton has said many times in the years since that not intervening in Rwanda is his greatest regret. In March of this year he told CNBC that he believes  had the U.S. gone into Rwanda, even marginally, early on in the genocide at least a third of the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered could have been saved.

There are no reports that Clinton mentioned Rwanda during his speech at the McCain Institute event on Tuesday, but he reportedly had some advice for President Obama about letting public polls and Congress overly influence his foreign policy decision on Syria.

“If you refuse to act and you cause a calamity, the one thing you cannot say when all the eggs have been broken is, ‘Oh my god, two years ago there was a poll that said 80 percent of you were against it.’ You look like a total fool,” he said.

Credit: Susan Walsh/AP Photo

The Senate Armed Services Committee has voted against  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s bill that would have taken military commanders out of the process of reviewing sexual assault cases.

Instead, the committee voted for an alternative proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., calling for automatic reviews of a commander’s decision not to prosecute a sexual assault case.

Last week, the Joint Chiefs of Staff came out against the proposal by Gillibrand, D-N.Y., saying it would undermine good order and discipline.

Earlier Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate Budget Committee that he was opposed to the legislation.

Hagel said he is a firm believer in accountability and,  ”if you don’t hold people accountable then you’re not going to fix the problem.   You can pass all the laws you want and that isn’t going to work.”

On Wednesday, Gillibrand made impassioned pleas in favor of her bill at Wednesday’s mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act.   She told members of the committee that victims have repeatedly said that they fear retaliation in their units if they report a sexual assault.  

“So we can believe them or we cannot believe them,” Gillibrand said. ”Many here don’t believe the victims, they don’t believe the victims.  They don’t’ believe chain of command is the problem. I urge support of our original markup.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., responded by saying everyone on the committee “believes the victims. … I don’t think that distinguishes anyone on this committee from each other. ”

Kaine added, “When our heroes have this problem that is so serious, it’s not just a stain on our military, it’s a stain on our country.”

Though her bill eventually was defeated 17-9, one of the bill’s supporters,  Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he’d changed his vote as a result of Gillibrand’s arguments.

He said he was swayed by her arguments that removing commanders from the process in the British and Israeli militaries had led to an increase in reporting of sexual assault cases.    He suggested that if Levin’s amendment passed and the level of reporting remains “abysmal,” then Gillibrand’s proposal should be revisited.

But even some of the most outspoken critics of sexual assault in the military said they could not vote for Gillibrand’s legislation.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a former prosecutor, said she respected  Gililbrand “with all of my heart” and wanted to do away with sexual assault in the military but she said she couldn’t vote for Gillibrand’s bill.

She pointed out that military commanders will often proceed with a criminal case where civilian prosecutors might not because of the of the “he said-she said” nature of cases.  She added that there was not any data to support the assertion that removing commanders from sexual assault cases  is going to have a positive impact on retaliation in units.

However, McCaskill said she agreed with Gillibrand on one thing: “We are not going to give up focusing on this problem. We aren’t going anywhere.”

She cautioned military leaders against thinking that the debate over sexual assault would end with congressional votes.

“This has just begun,” she said, warning senior commanders that Congress would “hold your feet to the fire.”

Image credit: Susan Walsh/AP Photo

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s legislation that would remove sexual assault cases in the military from the chain of command and turn them over to independent military prosecutors appears on the ropes.  Her bill was opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during a hearing last week and has also drawn opposition by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel who favors keeping the chain of command involved.

Though her amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act cleared her Senate Armed Services  subcommittee on Tuesday, the full committee’s chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) has announced that he will offer an alternative bill that would replace Gillibrand’s bill.  Gillibrand’s bill has garnered 28 co-sponsors, including four Republicans, but does not seem to have majority support in the committee. 

Levin’s legislation would provide for an automatic review of any command decision not to prosecute a sexual assault.  The full committee will vote later today on both proposals as well as other amendments to be included in the final bill which sets the policy for the Defense Department.

Earlier today,  Hagel explained to the Senate Budget Committee why he favors keeping the chain of command during the investigation of sexual assault cases.  

“I don’t think you can fix the problem,” said Hagel, “or have accountability within the structure of the military without the command involved in that.” 

Hagel added that he’s a firm believer in accountability and “if you don’t hold people accountable  then you’re not going to fix the problem. You can pass all the laws you want and that isn’t going to work. “

Hagel had said he favors change, but  ” I don’t personally believe that you can eliminate the command structure in the military from this process because  it is the culture.  It is the institution. It’s the people within that institution  that have to fix the problem. “ 

He said “that’s the culture, the people are the culture.  So I don’t know how you disconnect that from the accountability of command.  As I said , we need to change some things.  We could  to do some things much better.  We have to.  But I think we have got to be very careful  when we talk about taking the command structure out of this process .”

Lt. Col. Joseph Miley was suspended from command of the 49^th Missile Defense Battalion, based at the remote outpost in eastern Alaska. 

The unit of Alaska National Guardsmen operates the ground-based missile interceptors that are capable of shooting down any intercontinental ballistic missiles headed for the West Coast. 

The investigation into Miley’s conduct was initiated on Jan. 9 after several soldiers in his unit stepped forward and alleged that he had condoned fraternization and extramarital affairs among the soldiers under his command.  Adultery is a crime under the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Miley’s suspension was announced in a  statement from the Army’s Space and Missile Command, which along with the Alaska National Guard conducted a joint investigation into the allegations.   The  Alaska National Guard unit reports to the Army while on active duty.

“LTC Miley’s command status will be determined, following a final legal and commander review of the investigation findings and recommendations, subsequent approval of the investigation report, and due process for the suspended officer,” said a statement released Tuesday by Army Space and Missile Command.  Miley’s executive officer has been appointed as the unit’s acting commander. 

“During this period, the brigade leadership will be at Fort Greely to ensure continuity of operations for this strategically important mission.”

Bloomberg News Service was first to report in May that Miley was under investigation.  

Miley becomes the second Army officer in a week suspended from command because of an investigation involving sexual misconduct under their command. 

On Friday, Maj. Gen. Michael T. Harrison, the general in charge of U.S. Army forces in Japan was suspended from his duties due to allegations that Harrison failed to report or properly investigate an allegation of sexual assault.

Sexual assault in the military has become a hot-button issue in Washington following a series of high-profile cases and new Pentagon statistics indicating a significant increase in the number of estimated cases of unwanted sexual contact.

On Monday, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, told a summit of senior Army officials gathered to deal with sexual assault that  too many soldiers do not think there is a sexual assault problem in their commands. 

Odierno said that when he travels to units, he often finds commanders who tell him, “I don’t have a problem here, there is no problem in my platoon, there is no problem in my company, there is no problem in my battalion.”

“That’s baloney,” said Odierno. “That’s the problem. We’re not seeing ourselves.  I’m an all-male unit; I don’t have a problem.” 

“That’s not right,” he said. “In fact, you probably have some perpetrators, probably have some predators and you probably have some males who have probably been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed.”

Odierno listed five imperatives that needed to be communicated throughout the Army to tackle sexual assault, among them, “We got to hold individuals, units and commanders and leaders accountable.”

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Maj. Gen. Michael T. Harrison’s duties. He is the commanding general of United States Army Japan and I Corps (Forward).

The “Fourth Amendment Restoration Act,” which can be read in full here,  is designed “to stop the National Security Agency from spying on citizens of the United States and for other purposes” and would require a warrant with probable cause before government investigators could proceed with a search.

In a statement the senator said the revelation “represents an outrageous abuse of power.”

Related: The Government’s Phone, Text, and Email Spying Explained

On Wednesday the Guardian newspaper reported the Verizon company had shared daily records of all its customers’ phone calls with the US government between April and July, after a secret US court approved the program. But the Washington Post reports the classified records may go back to 2006 and involve other companies.

The Post followed with a new report today that several leading Internet companies had contributed to a separate program that allowed intelligence agencies to tap into “audio, video, photographs, e-mails and other documents” of their users.

Today President Obama dismissed what he called “hype” around the reports, and insisted, “nobody is listening to your telephone calls.

“They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism,” he said.

Related: Obama says “Nobody is Listening to Your Phone Calls”

The president repeatedly stated that members of congress on relevant national security committees had been briefed on the programs. Senator Paul is a member of his chamber’s Homeland Security Committee but as of press time his office has not made clear whether he would have been privy to the Verizon measure.

Today’s bill is strikingly similar to a second piece of legislation introduced by Paul recently, aimed at protecting against what he deems to be unreasonable searches and seizures. Last month the Kentucky lawmaker submitted the “Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act,” which was broader compared with the narrow focus of phone records in today’s legislation. The former bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Updated at 1:57 p.m. ET

As the court martial of Army Private First Class Bradley Manning got underway Monday, prosecutors argued that the former Army intelligence analyst “knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy” when he leaked 700,000 U.S. government documents to Wikileaks.

Manning’s defense attorney did not deny that his client had leaked the documents but did so because he was “young, naïve and good-intentioned”.  The release of the documents has been described as the most extensive leak of classified information in U.S. history.

In the three years since first being detained during a combat deployment to Iraq, the former Army intelligence analyst has become a cause célèbre for civil liberties and anti-secrecy advocates who consider him a whistle-blower.

The court-martial for Manning, 25, is taking place at Fort Meade, Md., north of Washington D.C and is expected to last three months.

The most serious of the 22 charges Manning faces is aiding the enemy for which Manning could face life in prison if convicted. The additional charges include wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

In his opening arguments Army prosecutor Captain Joe Morrow presented detailed computer forensic evidence of Manning’s computer activity that indicated he began passing along classified information to Wikileaks within two weeks of his deployment to Baghdad in November, 2009.

The prosecutor said the computer evidence indicated that in following months Manning gathered information in bulk, “not onesies or twosies…these were massive, massive downloads.”  Morrow said the information gathered by Manning was of “great value to our adversaries and in particular to our enemies.”

Morrow said Manning “knew the consequences of his actions” as he “literally dumped that information onto the Internet in the hands of the enemy.”

Morrow presented chat logs of Manning’s contacts with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about some of the information that was released to his website. In particular he tried to link Manning’s computer searches with a “most wanted” list of items the anti-secrecy website had published in 2009.  Assange has not been charged in the case.

In his arguments David Coombs, Manning’s attorney, described a young naïve soldier who decided to release the classified documents he had access to “because he thought he could make the world a better place.”

He said from among the “literally hundreds of millions of documents” Manning had access to he chose the documents he released not because of  Wikileaks’ most wanted list but because  “he believed this information needed to be made public.”  “He was young, naïve, good intentioned,” said Coombs.

Challenging the prosecution’s narrative Coombs pointed to a roadside blast on Christmas Eve, 2009 as being the prime motivator for Manning’s leaks.

Coombs said that for Manning the good news that colleagues had escaped injury in a roadside blast that night was offset by the fact that a car carrying five Iraqi civilians took the brunt of the blast, killing one.

The defense attorney said Manning was transformed by incident because “he couldn’t forget the lives lost that day” and “led him to feel that he needed to do something…to make a difference in this world.”

Ultimately he said Manning began to look for information that he could make public.  In doing so Coombs said Manning purposefully looked for information that he believed “could not be used against the U.S. ”

He said Manning leaked hundreds of thousands of battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan out of a belief that “the American public should know what is happening on a day to day basis” in the two countries.  He said Manning’s research indicated the reports  did not include intelligence sourcing, were historical in nature and did not contain information about future operations.

He said  Manning first became aware of the 250,000 diplomatic cables he leaked when his supervisor urged his team to use them in their intelligence reports.  Coombs said Manning found State Department regulations which said most of the cables were unclassified.  He said Manning felt the documents were important because they “showed how we deal with other countries.”

In February, Manning pleaded guilty 10 lesser charges that carried a 20-year prison sentence.   At a pre-trial hearing, Manning read for an hour from a 35-page statement in which he explained his motivations in releasing the classified documents.  He said he had wanted “to spark a debate about foreign policy” and show “the true cost of war.”

Army prosecutors decided soon after that they would continue to pursue prosecution for the most serious charges against him.

After opening arguments prosecutors began the procession of nearly 140 witnesses who will be called to testify for the case. On Monday, several Army criminal investigators were called to testify about the evidence they recovered from Manning’s quarters and workspace in Baghdad, including contacts with Wikileak’s Julian Assange.  Specialist Eric Baker, Manning’s roommate in Baghdad also testified that Manning spent most of his free time on his laptop.

Prosecutors will try to prove that Manning’s leaks aided the enemy by calling as a witness a Navy SEAL who participated in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.   They say that copies of the documents Manning leaked to WikiLeaks were found on the computer hard-drives recovered by U.S. special operations forces during the raid.

Read More: Osama Bin Laden

That portion of the trial will likely be closed to the public and the media.

Now being held at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Manning’s initial detention at the Marine brig at Quantico, Va., became the subject of controversy.   Supporters claimed the conditions of his detention there had amounted to cruel and unlawful punishment, which his attorneys said merited dismissing the case against him.

After a lengthy pre-trial hearing, the judge in the case found there was validity to some of the allegations and reduced his potential prison sentence by four months.

Related: Bradley Manning’s Former Guards Testify About Controversial Incident

Sunday night Coombs posted a statement on his website thanking supporters for their financial support and for raising awareness of the case.

“On behalf of both myself and Pfc. Manning,” he said, “I would like to thank everyone for their continued support over the last three years.”

Original post at 7 a.m. ET

Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales intends to plead guilty to premeditated murder next week for the shooting deaths of 16 Afghan villagers last year, Bales’ attorney told ABC News.

Pleading guilty would allow Bales to avoid the death penalty.

John Henry Browne, the Seattle lawyer who represents Bales, confirmed an Associated Press report that Bales would plead guilty during a brief phone conversation from Joint Base Lewis McChord in Washington state, where he said he was meeting with his client.

Bales, 39, will enter a plea next Wednesday at a hearing to be held at the Army post outside of Seattle, Browne said.

Bales will plead guilty to the charges of premeditated murder, for which he could have faced the death penalty if convicted, the AP reported.

The judge in the case and the  commanding general serving as the convening authority for the court martial would have to approve the plea deal.

A plea hearing is scheduled to take place next Wednesday, June 5, said Lt. Col. Gary Dangerfield, a spokesman for I Corps public affairs.

At the hearing, Dangerfield said, “Bales is expected to enter a plea.”

Dangerfield said he did not know what the plea would be as he did not have access to that information.

Bales’ trial was set to get underway on Sept. 3.

Bales did not testify at the evidentiary hearing held last November that determined he should face a court martial for the shootings.

Bales will give a full account of what happened the night of the shootings at next week’s plea hearing, Browne said, according to the AP.

Browne has indicated in the past that Bales did not remember much from the night of the shootings.

On the night of March 11, 2012, Bales is alleged to have snuck out of his unit’s camp in a remote area of southern Afghanistan to conduct separate shooting attacks on two nearby villages.  Sixteen villagers were killed and six others were wounded in the shooting spree. Most of the victims were women and children.

He was detained by fellow soldiers after he was caught sneaking back onto his post.   At the time, the soldiers were conducting a search for his whereabouts because they did not know where he had gone.

At the evidentiary hearing, villagers who survived the attack were able to testify via satellite from Afghanistan and provided vivid, first-hand descriptions of the shootings.

Bales’ wife, Kari, has steadfastly supported her husband’s innocence in the shootings.

At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, she issued a statement saying, “We all grieve deeply for the Afghan families who lost their loved ones on March 11, but we must all not rush to judgment.”

“Medical staff inform us that their injuries do not appear to be life-threatening. Embassy security and health unit personnel are at the hospital and have been in touch with the two individuals and their families,” State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said.

Lt. Col. Todd Breassele told ABC News that one of the men was to be released from the hospital today, and the other was expected to be released Wednesday.

Venezuelan police officials told reporters that the shooting appeared to stem from a fight in the club, which is located in a shopping center in the eastern part of the city.

The U.S. embassy in Caracas is cooperating with authorities to investigate the incident, Ventrell said.

“We are in contact with local authorities, which is a standard operating procedure for us overseas,” he said.

Shootings are not uncommon in the country, which  has one of the world’s worst crime rates. The Venezuelan government estimated that in 2012 more than 16,000 people were murdered, but independent crime tracking organizations estimate the numbers to be much higher.

The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security report on Venezuela last year rated the criminal threat level for Caracas as “CRITICAL,” calling it the deadliest capital in the world.

“Caracas continues to be notorious for the brazenness of high-profile, violent crimes such as murder, robberies, and kidnappings,” said the report. “Armed assaults and robberies continue to be a part of everyday life.”

The official said that, according to the Free Syrian Army, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters have been helping the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad in Qusayr, near the opposition stronghold city of Homs.

“It is the most visible effort we have seen of Hezbollah to engage directly in the fighting in Syria as a foreign force.  We understand there are also Iranians up there,” the official said. “This is an important thing to note — the direct implication of foreigners fighting on Syrian soil now for the regime.”

The official said there are concerns that if the Syrian forces capture Qusayr they will slaughter the civilian population there, which numbers in the thousands. The opposition warns it could be a repeat of the massacres seen in Banias earlier this month, which is roughly 30 minutes away.

However, the official could not verify exactly what the Iranians and Hezbollah are doing — whether they are fighting alongside the regime or just advising the soldiers.

” I don’t think they’re arming because I’ve not heard that, but I think they could be doing a little of both advising and fighting,” the official said. “We know that Iran and Hezbollah cooperate in a number of countries, not just in Syria.  And so it is not a surprise that Iran would be there with Hezbollah on the ground.  We do have consistent reports of Hezbollah fighters on the ground.”

Meanwhile in Washington, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the bi-partisan Syria Transition Support Act, which approves lethal aid and training to vetted Syrian rebels, sanctions weapons and oil sales to the Assad regime, and provides further humanitarian assistance for planning for a post-Assad Syria. All but three senators on the committee voting for the bill, which will now go to the full Senate for a vote.

The legislation allows for the U.S. to provide rebels with arms and military training only after they have gone through a vetting process by the U.S. government and found to meet human rights, terrorism and non-proliferation criteria. The bill also creates a $250 million transition fund for the next two years to help Syria’s political opposition transition to governing the country, including supporting new institutions and supporting government institutions that currently exist.

While most of the committee members strongly supported the bill sponsored by chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and ranking member Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., of the three senators who opposed, Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the most vocal, calling the Syria conflict “murky” and warning that America was getting involved in a situation “where it’s impossible to know who are friends are.”

Paul cited the current problem with insider attacks in Afghanistan as an example of how, when not careful, the United States leaves itself vulnerable to attack by the very people it is trying to help.

“Syria is 100 times messier than Afghanistan,” Paul said, and warned that the measure could be “a slippery slope to war.”

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., also expressed skepticism of the act, saying that he doesn’t think the United States knows whom they are really arming.

But Senators Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; Corker, and Menendez passionately argued that if the United States doesn’t do anything now, the only people with weapons will be the Assad regime and the extremist elements of the opposition.

“Extremists groups with links to al Qaeda are exploiting the conflict and gaining ground in a state with large chemical weapon stockpiles,” Menendez said. ” The time to act and turn the tide against Assad is now.”

An Army official tells ABC News that the case does not involve sexual assault.

Brig. Gen. Bryan T. Roberts was suspended today as Commanding General, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, according to a  statement from Army Training and Doctrine Command. The post, located in Columbia, S.C., is the largest of the five facilities the Army uses for basic training of new soldiers.

Roberts was suspended by the Commander of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Gen. Robert W. Cone, due to allegations of misconduct that  ”include adultery and a physical altercation,” which the statement said “are being thoroughly investigated.”  Adultery is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

“The information at this time does not indicate this is a matter of sexual assault,” an Army official told ABC News.

No details were provided about the alleged physical altercation for which Roberts is being investigated.

Brig. Gen. Peggy C. Combs will serve as the interim commander pending the results of the investigation.  Coombs was previously the commandant of the Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear School, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.

The Army’s Criminal Investigation Command is investigating the case and had gathered enough preliminary evidence for Cone to suspend Roberts from his command, Army Training and Doctrine Command spokesman Harvey Perritt said.

“[The] Army holds all soldiers regardless of rank or position accountable for their actions,” Perritt said.

Investigators are questioning witnesses and gathering evidence in the case, which could last several weeks or months, he said.

Roberts has been suspended from command pending the results of the investigation, he could be relieved of command of the post depending on what the investigation concludes.  Roberts has been in command of the post since April 2012.

Another Army one-star general is currently on trial for adultery at Fort Bragg, N.C.  Last year  Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair was serving in Afghanistan as a deputy commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division when he was accused of engaging in adultery and sexual assault.  Sinclair faces life in prison if convicted on the sexual assault charge.

Over the past two weeks, sexual assault in the military became a hot-button issue in Washington after two sexual assault prevention officers found themselves involved in incidents of sexual assault.

Two weeks ago the Air Force lieutenant colonel who ran the Air Force’s office of sexual assault and prevention was arrested for allegedly groping a woman, and last week an Army sergeant who served as a sexual assault prevention coordinator at Fort Hood, Texas, was removed from his post while he was investigated for alleged sexual assault.

The incidents led Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to order the retraining and rescreening of the 45,000 sexual assault prevention officers and military recruiters.