there can see themselves in that story. if you want your children, i always say, if you want them to have a better life than you have had, you have got to be able to make mistakes. you have got to be up to fail. my father failed many times. but he got back up. through that, i am learning. this is not about freedom from failure. it is about having the opportunity to reach your full potential. it is a difficult message, but we have got to get out and talk about individuals and their problems. and how they can make their lives better. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> and ted vail, lpr class of 2009. i am a business person here in colorado. i had the privilege of spending on most a decade overseas, starting businesses in developing countries. you have a unique background and perspective on the following -- what is our role as a country in helping other countries,

other people, who we a lot of money into developmental aid, and sometimes one wonders where our principles are in that. what is your perspective yucca -- perspective? >> that's really interesting. during the earthquake in haiti, i still have family members there. i am glad this is the last question. i wanted to say something about that. during that time, i was getting messages through family members of the situation down there. i want you to know that i know more people in the state of utah that went to haiti to help know people in haiti. here is the thing. we as americans have given more voluntarily than any other country. do i believe we have an opportunity to care for those who cannot care for themselves?

yes. do i believe that we should, if we have the resources, to help our neighbors who are suffering, should we do that? yes, i did. but the day that we decide that we need federal government to force us to do that is the day that we decide to decline as a society. a day we decided to be less american. [applause] that is not who we are. in my city, we dealt with a fire that burned 6000 acres, and then a flood red after that. -- flood right after that. we had 22 homes devastated. i could show you pictures. water from the bottom up. everybody was asking us questions. are you going to call fema, what are you going to do? if there was ever a day when i just wanted to throw my hands

up and say, $830 a month is just not worth it. that would have been it. my husband was in the basement shoveling, so is everybody else. the next morning after the flood i got up, went over and muchpeople showed up to shoveling mud out of basement. when they asked me that question, what are you going to do? is fema going to come help yucca -- come to help? i said, we are going to have this cleaned up before washington realizes we are on the map. [applause] through volunteer efforts, we were able to clean up the basement in three days. we were able, through our own efforts, fundraising help people repair. hard work, education, thrift, savings will take us far beyond

what any government program can ever promise. following -- volunteer work. that is who we are. that is what we need to remind people how we are going to get back on our feet. thank you so much. i really appreciate it. go out there, work hard, don't leave me out there alone. [laughter] [applause] thank you. >> a discussion about how editorial cartoonists portrayed the effort to pass a universal

health care law. the wiggly addresses by president obama and nebraska congressman lee terry. -- weekly addresses by president obama and nebraska congressman lee terry. stan "washington journal," colander and peter morsi -- morici discuss the prospects of a budget agreement. and the budget policy center will look at immigration legislation. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> mr. secretary, we're going to come down as undecided. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, as i listened

methose comments, it struck what a wonderful thing free- speech is. >> that was a hearing where donald rumsfeld was making justification's for attacking iraq. what you did not hear were questions that we got a chance to ask him, which were, how much money is halliburton going to make? how many u.s. soldiers will be killed? how many iraqi civilians will die from this adventure? i would like those answers now. > more with medea benjamin sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> another judge advocate general of the army will talk about legal issues facing the military, including sexual assault, same-sex marriage, religious freedom, and women in combat. from furman university in south carolina, this is just under an

hour. hallmarks of the american democratic experiment and one of the hallmarks of our constitutional tradition is that -- centuries as our public as a republic, we have debated fundamental questions that go to the core of our values and our american identity. we debate the meaning of the freedom of religion and the establishment of religion. we debate the meaning of freedom of speech and what equality means and how it translates into the quality and issues such as race or gender or sexuality. we debate the roles of the different branches of government, the role of the president as commander in chief and as the head of the executive branch, and the rules of congress and the courts and our

complex system of checks and balances. , as much asbates their contentious and difficult theyconstantly changing, must be translated and applied to our armed forces. that it is sometimes true the political decisions, the social policy decisions, the legal or constitutional decisions that emerge in the civilian arena is transferred in exactly the same manner to our military, there are times when it is not. there are times when the particular necessities of national security or the particular intensity of the organization and values and mission of the military requires some adjustment in rules that we would adopt in the civilian sphere, but cannot adopt locke

stock and barrel in exactly the same way in the context of our military. we're deeply grateful to our armed forces and those who served as the centuries, not just for all but a done to preserve our national security, but for the extraordinary commitment over history, despite many ups and downs, the powerful commitment to our fundamental values, to our commitment to the rule of law, to our conceptions of due process, and to the constitution of the united states itself. usre fortunate to have with as the professor has already noted one of the american leaders who was in one of the most pivotal spots in our democracy, the judge advocate general of the united states army, lt. general dana chipman.

he has had a distinguished career in the service of the .nited states and is a lawyer after finishing his commission in the infantry at west point, he went to one of the nation's great law schools, stanford university law school, and received his g.d.. he then went on to receive other academic degrees, including a master plot in military science from the judge advocate general's school. then a master of strategic studies degree from the united states army war college. he has had an extraordinary career within the judge advocate general's corps, deployed in a variety of operational and staff positions, some of them among the most important in our recent history as a country. these include his deployment to the first special forces operational detachment, the delta airborne, the joint special operations command,

united states special operations command, and the united states central command. was deployed as a legal adviser to the joint operations task force for operation in doreen freedom in afghanistan. for a long time, he and i were bought in virginia as legal educators. he served as the head of the judge advocate general center for law school in charlottesville. taken extraordinarily important position as the judge advocate general of the united states, a position that carries with it the rank of lieutenant general. there is no one better qualified that i can imagine to help us evolvingd how the ever conceptions of equality, matters such as race, gender, and sexually, are now being applied to the context of the united states military. please join me in warmly of theng, not only one

country's great military in the leaders, but also a parent of a student -- his daughter is a junior -- you are allowed to p on thatthat -- cla -- [applause] please welcome lieutenant- general dana chipman. >> thank you. thank you to the university and the institute for allowing us to escape the sequestered environment in washington, d.c. i will not speak any longer than 30 minutes. i would like to preserve a chance for you to ask questions. you can ask me a question about anything. supper.ging for my please feel free to ask whatever you'd like. i would like to tell you first talking to greenville in 1970. i came here as a 12-year-old. i live right across the street

from urban university and chapel road. i was a seventh grader at thank in chapel elementary school. coming from orange county, california and to a recently desegregated environment, a different time. i went to duncan chapel. was a freshman in high school. she was taken to a different school. i saw firsthand for kit from orange county, california where i walked past orange groves in my elementary school, i saw a different environment as greenville was going to the challenges of racial desegregation. that was my first foray into issues of the discrimination world. my next chance to see these issues play out a little bit more closely was in 1976 when i entered the united states military academy at west point. i was in the first-class with women there. i saw that institution, this fundamental challenge of how we

can accommodate women to a program that was probably all male, and where the administration was not allowed excited about opening up west point opportunities to women. i got to see how that evolved over the course of four years. then i saw a different aspect of discrimination as i arrived at the army's litigation division in 1992 in washington with the inauguration of president bill clinton. one of the things you may recall, before he took office, he said, i will figure out how we can open up our armed forces to homosexuals and lesbians to serve in our military. at that time, that opened the policy known as don't ask, don't tell, which has now been overturned. i get a chance to see how these issues play out in a different area of discrimination.

experiencesf those were formative as i descended -- ascended. in the last four years, we have undergone some enormous changes in social policy. time i would like to talk to about tonight. if i could have my next slide? i want to walk ronald it. i think everything in important -- everything important in life comes from "catawba and hops -- hobbes." this is one of the great american cartoons. kelvin says, look, this is what i intend to focus on. hobbes says, you should read a winter -- lead an interesting life. things iys, there are

can change, and i will work hard on the change. then he says, there are things i cannot change, but i will still work hard because there are things that ought to be changed. i will apply the same diligence and focus to try to change the things that i cannot get over the hump, i cannot get beyond the next up, and yet they are worthwhile. that focused underline some of the work that is done in this area as we seek to change our policies to make fundamental reforms of some of the social are affecting all of us. i just read middle school book report. goes something like this -- julius caesar lived a long time ago, he was a general, they killed him. i'm hopeful my and will not be quite like caesar's. i'm committed to not speaking

walker than 30 minutes. we will get there. to talkg i would like about, four different areas -- i will talk a little bit about our religious accommodation policies and the challenges we had in applying free exercise oedipal -- as it applies in the military context. i will talk about sexual assault issues we're facing right now, because i think that is one of them one remaining fundamental areas of any quality that we have to address before we can .ully integrate our ranks i will talk about some of the other areas we have made some progress on over the last four years in particular, same-sex benefits with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. some of you do not know what the judge advocate general his. i thought i would at least tell

you who we are. before i go into my remarks george washington appointed the first judge advocate of the continental army. in a $20 a month. i have done the math. at 6% rate of return annualized since then, i think i'm underpaid. that is my sense. it is a british term, judge advocate general. whether a judge or an advocate nor a general. a judge nor an advocate nor general. our judgee of advocate employees in operational practice here not too long ago. we have about 5000 lawyers. that is your tax dollars at work. it is probably the second largest law firm in the country right now. that is 5000 early goals as

well. the enterprises about 10,000 people. that is just the army. i'm glad you're paying your tax payments promptly. we've got a lot people out there. there are challenges. our practice involves legal assistance and contracts, fiscal law, operational, international law, which provides contract law advice to our clients, administrative and civil litigation. it is a broad practice. it is a practice i have enjoyed over these 27 years now. both one that i think is richly rewarding and very challenging. slide, please. here is the first issue are want to talk about it is secretary panetta's opening of combat roles for women. any of your call this announcement? it was about six weeks ago.

i think what is significant about that, you think we did this on a pier altruistic goodness, idealistic reasons. no, i don't so either. i think this is one of the problems we had a, with our operations in afghanistan and iraq, we needed more combat medics. the great signature achievement of this conflict has been a better capability for medical care. you look at what our medical establishment has done, we're sitting people with wounds pretty significant unlike any conflict you have ever seen. many of our medics were women. we had to figure out how to get that talent to the front of the battlefield. we abandoned the restrictions and collocations restrictions that had prevented women and medics from serving but the point of entry. that is one reason we did that.

a second reason is, believe it or not, there are not as many folks who are qualified to join our armed forces these days. this is about maximizing talent. expanded opportunities for women who can complement the skills in a broad range of different areas. do i think there'll be a lot of women concerned in the infantry squad? i do not think so. i do not want to serve in the infantry squad. i went to law school to avoid the infantry squad. the idea is we will maximize the talent that we have available -- if you can meet the standard, you can serve. this is about, how do we retain our share of talent in this global marketplace of competing for talent? we're competing with the private sector and other government opportunities. secretary panetta and the administration decided we would

open up more opportunities. we're studying it right now in the same way we had to study the issue of integrating women at west point. we're going through the analysis of, what the criteria? infantrye in the squad, one of the things you might have to do is to be able to drag a 200 pound person for three to four seconds over a distance of 20 yards. what is that about? a fire drill,ing it is a 35 second rush, and if somebody gets shot, you would want to take that person to a place of safety. standard, meet that you can serve as an infantry member. that is the kind of analysis going on. it is motivated in part by fundamental fairness, the idea that we need to open up opportunities for those most

qualified, and also just to produce personal effort and a time when there are other opportunities to serve. that effort is underway. haveptember 2015, we will made decisions on opening up these additional specialties. there are courses right now that women are pursuing. ranger school is probably our most elite light infantry kind of school. it is not yet open to women. i fully expect it will be shortly. the staffer school which is a combat engineer school has already been opened to women. women perform magnificently in hat qualification. i see that yielding great dividends ahead. by january 2016, that is the end-state, we have to determine which of our specialties will remain closed.

standards that apply will be gender neutral. if women can meet the standards, they will be allowed to serve. i think is going to be an --thesting evolution israeli defense force, they employ women across the board. our allies have done the same opening up women to serve. at the end of the day, i think it is a fundamental decision for america to confront the idea that not only to our sons, but our daughters fight at the tip of the spear. that is a tough thing for me as a father to still think about. you all may approach that differently. our demographic has changed. this is the reality of where we are with women in the service. you think about what is going on across america at the top of the pyramid, and the army staff,

we've got about 12 of the college of cardinals, three-star generals. they said around the table and make policy decisions. of our 12, three are women. we have long periods in our history where we did not have one woman at a three-star level. we had a four-star commander who is female. we've got three three-star serving now. it is showing how much more that rank has been opened up based on talent. the three largest defense contractors in the washington region, their ceos are women. just recognize, this has been an explosion of talent across the scale of opportunities. last week, ahead of the fortunate opportunity to testify before the senate armed services committee. then of the senators on committee are women. 20 senators across the senate are women. just recognize, again, this has been a significant change.

our motivation, of course, is to reach the best and brightest, to retain the best human capital we can find across the enterprise. can i have the next slide please? same-sex benefits. this is an issue that frankly -- an interesting time. a look at how this issue is playing out in washington. i think this is showing me what will happen here ahead. we have the repeal of don't ask, don't tell in the fall of 2011. it was pretty much a non-event. people said, this is going to be a cathartic change, it is going to be significant, and the people of massive social proportion. many of us can do it would not be that. we knew going in, the generation allare representing, you have understood this for a long

time, it is not about who you are with, but the quality of the person you are. we have seen that play out. it has been an interesting change. notwithstanding the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy and the opening of opportunities for service, we still have this defense of mayor jack issue, d -- of marriage act issue. that is what will prevent the full integration of same-sex couples across the armed forces. a week from today, the supreme court will hear an argument in the doma case. what i'm seeing right now shipping in the washington media -- shaping in the washington media -- they describe the demographics of our nine justices. some married late, some adopted children, some have no children. it is interesting, the

fundamental defense that remains under doma is the idea that a marriage between a man and woman is the only vehicle in which you can have procreation, the appropriate role to raise a child. that is the strongest argument for those who would still seek thattain doma and the idea marriage between a man and woman is the only legitimate vehicle. what i see this week is a series of articles designed methodically to strike down the idea that procreation is the only thing that is worth saving. we've had the final choices of nine supreme court justice. -- justices. polls, 81% of those recently surveyed are in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. a profile of a same-sex couple at the heart of the doma case.

then a significant republican congressman, not to say, i am in favor of gay-rights, with a child in college. and today, and all veterans -- i'm thinking,-- we've just about lined up every constituency i can think of in support of this. i see the effort ahead. i do not know where the court will head, but if i am a betting man, i fully expect that it will be struck down. i think this issue has evolved so rapidly and has gained such support across a broad range of constituencies. i would predict doma is going to fall. that will be ok. we will be able to move along from there. slide? seen somethat i have effort on and -- this is an interesting to see all over many

years -- i came to the army in 1976. i recall soldiers of the sikh faith that served. they had the turbines -- turbans. if you want to know the quality of the soldiers, wonderful soldiers who would always been surging in british regiments. with this.can live at some point along the way, later in the late '70s or early 80s, it was thought, we're no longer going to allow people to have different apparel, different uniform standards. the idea that you could serve as -- with atha turban, turban, that was denied. at some point, there was a supreme court case. if you could wear a yarmulke and under a normal military head

gear, that would be ok. under that decision, we had jewish rabbis and others serving openly. that was fine. that was the only accommodation made for grooming standards. we started to fight this war in saudi arabia, and following the gulf war invasion of 2003, the army said, if you are a woman serving in saudi arabia, you need to wear muslim womenk that typically wear in public. we had an air force lieutenant- colonel who said, not so fast, i'm serving nation, my male counterparts do not wear any special accommodation for uniform. i do not want to wear that. 2003 in thesed in authorization act, no more. a statute was passed that said,

we cannot force or encourage or persuade women to wear disclosing if do not want to. i saw that play out. -- this clothing if they do not want to. i saw that play out. in 2001, i saw operation in doreen upper -- enduring freedom in afghanistan. had gotten away from. in the navy. -- from beards in teh navy. the special operations said, look, we need to blend in. we need to preserve our force protection. we need more credibility with the afghans we're dealing with. men wore beards. see,s been interesting to in 2009, when i assumed my current position, we had five religious accommodation requests that were granted. two were with muslims who wanted

to work. , two were with orthodox jews who wanted. as well. then we had a woman who wanted to wear the hijab. the air force granted the right for her to wear that. it has been a little bit of a challenge. ton congress passed the act work, coz, you cannot affect the external review of the reform -- to wear yalmukes, you cannot view of theexternal r uniform. when she went to other areas of the pentagon, she would have to remove the hijab. what is the way we're going to deal with these religious accommodations now, grooming and

apparel requests? .hat remains the last frontier this plays out in another area as well. grooming and apparel issues, the idea of the free exercise clause -- if you are a chaplain in the military, with the advent of the same-sex benefit or the demise of don't ask, don't tell, the right to have a sexual orientation of your choosing and to serve openly, what is your role as a military chaplain? we have chaplains from each of our different faith groups across the dod. you might be a rabbi, and yet your chaplin duties require you to take care of the spiritual needs of everyone, not just your own faithful. you've got a requirement to perform counseling to a couple looking for counseling, a same- sex couple, and you're conscious

prohibits you from doing that, what is your role than that? we said look, your duty as a chaplain, -- is a chplain. i have a duty to perform civil law assistance to everybody in the military. i provide the legal assistance needs of everybody. i do not discriminate based on what the nature of the issue is. we're seeing some of these issues play out with the role of chaplains and civil ceremonies. we've said, you do not have to perform a marriage or not -- or a marriage equivalence our money if york ecclesiastical faith does not support that. we're working through those issues and how that will play out. judge advocate's, as far as i'm concerned, will meet the legal needs of everybody who has an issue. that is what we see right now. the last slide please?

this is the last issue i think is particularly fundamental right now. seeing a number of sexual assaults across the fort that are inconsistent with the idea that we have truly made the integration of women our end- state. this was last week. we had a panel of the senate armed services committee chaired by senator jelaboun from new york. new york.and from me becauseesting to the system we have, it was adopted in 1950 following world war ii. those of you who are students of history may know that in world war ii, we had 60 million men and women in uniform.

from that number, we conducted 2 million a court-martial. issues for -- a fair amount of issues to resolve four commanders. the consequence was the passage wethis, this idea that would rain in commander discretion to act in discipline. general dwight eisenhower testified before congress in leadersd other senior talked about what is different about our system, how does this disciplined play out. that is what resulted in ucmj. need- say that there is no for the specialized system of court justice. you're providing too much of the role of commanders in command discretion in how you handle the

conduct. that is what is being fought over and capitol hill. fromllies have gone away the commander-durbin justice system. the european commission on human rights directed that their militaries make that evolution in part because they looked at the commanders as having too much discretion to abuse the right. we're getting the opposite criticism now, that our commanders are not adequately enforcing the rights of victims. narrative, to me, the fundamental issue is, if we are going to achieve full equality for women in our armed forces across ranks, it is clear to be because we have opened up all our assignments to women, we have set the conditions for them to serve in every capability, we have ended the restrictions on sexual orientation as anything to do with your ability to serve professionally.

we have ended sexual harassment in the ranks because we think it is a precursor to sexual assault. have made a culture that deters sexual assault. when we've done those things, we will achieve an environment where all was concerned equally in the force. with that, i thank you for your attention. i will take your questions scripps -- questions. [applause] >> general, will you stand right here? stand wherever it suits you. i invite anybody in the audience to pose a question. a particularly encouraged our students, if you have a question. encourage ourrly students, if you have a question. you talked about same-sex benefits.

[indiscernible] what role do you think public opinion has >> the question is, what role does public opinion play in shifting our approach. i think public opinion plays this role. in 1992, when we had a policy that ended up as don't ask, don't tell, president clinton came in and one of the objectives of the administration colin powell was against. charlie from northwestern. very well respected. he had done the demographic data and research to show why this policy was appropriate and why america had not yet evolved on open service by homosexuals.

i think public opinion reflects on part the change of that perspective. this young regeneration has grown up with the idea that this is not a matter of choice. this is not about any of that. this is about allowing people to be who they are. what we have seen is public opinion both drives that shift and follows the shift to provide greater evidence that we can change the policy. we have not had any change in the legal regime, frankly. if you look at the civil rights act, it still does not provide sexual orientation. it is the pace of change that struck me as significant.

>> yes? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] movie such as "zero dark thirty" [indiscernible] what i am wondering is how the military [indiscernible] >> ok, so the issue here is, what is the uniform military role in response to those conditions that ultimately

enhanced interrogations' techniques, water boarding, whatever you want to call it. one of the reasons i am wearing a third star now is the results of senator gramm's emphasis on allowing generals to have a seat at the table in some of the policy decisions that were made that influenced the action of the administration right up to 9/11. you were saying, wait a minute, war in theood experience in howo geneva convention. that voice was not being heard as stridently as it needed to be within the policy-making apparatus that was considering the changes after 9/11. as a three-star in the pentagon, you have a voice. we have never changed the law of war manual. the law of the land was

published in october of 1956. rules have not changed much. the geneva conventions has been around for awhile. we understand how to apply those. i do not think there was ever a tacit approval by the military establishment of those techniques. it affected us so fundamentally in terms of perception, credibility with the international community. i look at the ongoing challenges we had in guantanamo, we will never be able to get beyond the taint. it is a fundamental problem. the leader general, a wonderful officer, the chief prosecutor. he is doing everything he can to show these are legitimate proceedings, transparent, and follow the rule of law. the commentary we get from anyone who has been involved

with the issue, you cannot fix it. it is not guantanamo, then where is it? new york city? there has got to be something. >> i would like to ask you a question about your professional identity. the american military has always deployed people professional in other senses. you have ordained clerics, doctors, and lawyers. i am wondering to what extent you have seen your identity as a lawyer with your identity as an army officer. to what extent the values and goals you play and have been trained to play and faithful to your whole life in the legal profession, sometimes posed difficult conflicts in the very difficult culture of being a distinguished member of the armed services? >> that is a great question. i am very proud of the fact i am a member of two distinct

professions. the law and the army. i take professional pride in both. there are times when i think my role as a legal profession was not fully appreciated by my client, the commanders i serve, who say, you lawyers always get in the way. by you just keep saying no? how about helping me do what i can do. that is supposed to be our approach. the idea is, as a legal professional, ultimately, i have a loyalty to the client. that client might be bradley manning, and if you have a client, your ethical obligation is a little bit less clear than the legal profession, who my client is as an army officer. it is very clear under my professional responsibility that my ultimate loyalty is to the

department of the army, and not any individual. the commanders i advise sometimes do not like that. they will say is, i thought you were my lawyer. my response is, i am not your lawyer. my client is the department. the only oath i took is to the constitution. that is one thing i see. >> that is a great answer. other questions? one over here and one over there. we will take both. >> thank you again for being here. [indiscernible] sexual assault and military. i was wondering if you thought culture has influence sexual assault within the ranks and to

help prevent that now and in the future. >> there are two fundamental issues that we will fail if we do not salt. sexual assault is the first one. the second one is suicide. i will not talk about suicide. to answer your question, here is what i see as part of the challenge. when you come into the military, we tried to have you abandon a personal identity so you can adopt the sense of being part of a larger identity that is more important than the individual. in many cases, the sexual assaults are occurring in the first 90 days of service. you see it with the 18 to 25- year-old crowd. that is the common pattern in so many of these cases. i came into this army thinking i was joining a team, a team that would take care of me and look out for me. now i have a conflict in reporting a fellow teammate is reporting me.

they have a hesitation to notify the chain of command that is trying to bring you into the values we think our program to the military service. we have got to get beyond hesitation. this is an act of an assault. i cannot be any more plain than that. there were 19,000 a year estimated assaults. 3000 were reported. 80% of those assaults were never reported. how do we change the culture so that people understand it is my duty to report it? the criminal in the ranks as not share the values i employed. we have to be able to change the culture to ensure we can address the problem. >> thank you. >> i saw a hand over here?

>> could you tell me what the major differences are between the civilian law and the regiment law? >> ok. we have under the uniform code a series of specified -- there is a criminal code. we have a series of procedural rules the same way every jurisdiction has them. we follow the federal rules of evidence. we called on the military rules of evidence, but they are the same. they evolved to keep pace with the federal rules of evidence. that is not a change. what is different is we have a role of commander. there is no role for the a governor, or the president, there is no role for an elected official to exercise military justice procedure.

it in our system, i would take a case and we would have a pretrial investigation. i would take that case to the commander to say, commander, this case deserves a general court-martial and the commander could look at me and say, judge, i disagree. i do not think there is evidence that would support that. i have not had that happen in my professional career. it did happen here about two weeks ago in italy. we are paying a pretty significant price for that decision by a commander who ignored the ruling of the judge who said this trial was properly conducted. that commander set the verdict aside and released an officer serving a sentence. it is a case where we think the

trained lawyers should be making the decision. i have visited our allies in the u.k. and australia and canada. all of whom have got away from the system we have. none of those countries deployed it is a case where we think the trained lawyers should be making the decision. i have visited our allies in the u.k. and australia and canada. all of whom have got away from the system we have. none of those countries deployed 300,000 men and women, where there is a need for justice that can be proposed swiftly. our system has to be portable so we can ensure forces are deployed.

we have to have that commander, from my view, remain in the system. we just have to guide their discretion appropriately. one of the things i think we will change here, and congress will help us, the idea that the commander can overturn the judge's verdict. >> one question in the back, i see. someone politely deferring to someone in front of her. how civilized. >> i noticed in your discussion, one of the previous questions, you made a lot of talk on how to increase reports of sexual harassment. which are obviously underreported at the moment. [mic going in and out]

>> there are two parts to the problem here there is the problem of prevention and the problem of response. so far, much of the interest has been on the response part. many of our critics say, what you have to do is prosecute your way out of the problem. if you prosecuted a number of cases, this problem will go away. i do not think we can prosecute out of the problem. so we have to change the idea of prevention. from the moment the crew of arrives for training, we say, these are the values of an army soldier, these are the methods you have to report inappropriate advances and conduct. we assign bodies and have a buddy system. we have to make the dormitories a safe environment for the men and women. you know when there is a predator, you know when you are setting up somebody for a situation in which a predator