climate,in the command inspiring, leading. as a result, they are able to build back same confidence in de process, within the military, that we must demand of ourselves. for men and women who are serving. women at all ranks -- men and women at all ranks and all fields. i will say before addressing this, i won't repeat other thini will turn toat

foote, who is with us this morning. >> thank you and thank you for the opportunity to speak with this panel. >> i just wonder, are the microphones on? i can hear you but i don't know of anyone in the back can hear you. >> not that. these. you can hear me, put your hand up. i wanted to make sure that everyone could hear you. go ahead, general. on active duty for 30 years as a commissioned the women's army corps 69 -- 1959-19 70.

when they were integrated into the army mainstream over a. of four decades, in retirement, 23 years i have continued to work the issues that concern dysfunctional policies, -- with women in the military and the issues of harassment. i have very low -- reluctantly agreed and come to the conclusion that there is a attemptin continuing to to resolve sexual assault cases within the existing chain of command. senator gil thisnd and to put under the appropriate

authorities external to the chain of command, and let the commanders command. when i commanded a women's army corps company, at fort bell in we had, from 1964-1966, at that time, and old girl network that was very effective. from company commanders to women's staff advisors at army level, to the office of the director and back to the training center. in how we managed and commanded our army women. i only have five women assigned to me. the remainder of the women in to threewere assigned separate commands, the post and the students who were altogether simply because of their gender. i was their commander. in this particular arrangement, i have authority over every one of these women. the system worked pretty well

right there. but the chain of command to which the women really responded was not the chain of command that education -- with ms. behavior with them. 1996, after the aberdeen proving ground scandal broke, i was recalled to active duty but the secretary of the army to serve as the vice chair of the senior review panel on sexual harassment. there had been a tremendous amount of extremely adverse publicity concerning the event at the proving ground, where a number of drill sergeants and officers, and others were sexualted in having relationships with women in training. when this happened, the secretary decided the way to really get into the heart of

what is going on here, was to have the panel go forth into the army and measure its human dimension, worldwide. the next year, our panels, there were 40 of us, went worldwide, to 65 installations, and interviewed with focus groups who were serving over 35,000 troops and family members also. we did a lot of wandering around, wherever we were to find out what was the command climate in which we were operating. 1997, the final report was rendered, and i will tell you, it was documented thoroughly. we had nine behavioral scientists working with us to ensure that our research documents were valid, and that the questions were valid. so in the report came out and was delivered to the secretary, four major findings occurred.

number one, yes, sexual harassment is in the army but sexual discrimination is a larger problem. number two, the equal opportunity program at the department and army levels look beautiful on paper but it did the soldiers did not respect it, they did not trust it, and they felt that if they registered a complaint, of sexual assault or whatever the complaint may be, they would be further victimized by their peers, or superiors for having caused such problems in the unit. number three, we found that most real sergeants were very confident in doing what they did and they did it well, in the training base -- and number four, we found that the major problem was failure in leadership, from the very top to

the very bottom, from the pentagon down to the squad. at post hamden station. that leadership had not created the appropriate alignment -- army wise, to ensure that the men and women assigned were treated with respect and dignity. forward, with a withr of recommendations basic training for one additional week. revamping the selection process for drill sergeants and instructors, changing their training, and other things, including reinserting into the curriculum, training without use and ethics and traditional morality. withe also went forward the intention of filling every vacancy and training base where

there were sergeants who should be there and officers who should be there in the unit for training, they were not there. we were not involved in the vietnam war and that took priority. fast-forward 17 years to the current time, and the same problems that we ate at the five wide are identified, army- now. and there has been no solution offered to ensure that we can handle this under the present mechanism that we are using. it is for this reason that i compelled to stand and say that we need to think out- of-the-box, we need new direction, we need creative thinking, we need not to be so married to the chain of command, which i believe in, i truly believe in, as the mechanism to

command and manage, and administer to the army in war and peace. but when you have a weak link in that chain, then it behooves us to take that weak link out, and come up with a different mechanism for handling the very complex cases of sexual assault, with which we deal. so for that reason i support center jell-o brand -- senator jell-o brand -- senator gillibrand to find a way to ensure the better army of the future. >> thank you very much. and thank you for all of your service. admiral will hear from evans, u.s. navy. >> thank you very much, judge joan. members of the panel, thank you for inviting me to meet with the panel.

it is an honor for this retiree to be given this opportunity to testify. in my background i served nearly 30 years in the united states ideasand eight of those were as a commander of the unit in the united states and overseas, ranging from 200 to over 6000 personnel. it included the middle station in san francisco, navy recruiting, the george c martin security studies in germany and the northport graduate school. i convenedthose general courts-martial. the director of the navy standing committee on military and civilian women in the department of the navy. 1992 in the wake of the infamous scandal. us -- to a strategy to change the climate of the marine

corps to value and respect women. we did develop a strategy, 80 specific actions. had a tougher approach to dealing with sexual harassment. changes forstitute the processes. yet here we are, addressing this issue, of leadership and command climate and accountability. also -- i also serve as a presidential appointee on the board of visitors for five years. and the naval academy foundation for five years. i have watched the debate about the military justice system handling sexual assault cases for the past several years. this isg perspective -- our reason, first and foremost, about readiness, equipping and training and organizing and most --ortantly, leading these nations finest men and women to go into harms way supporting the nation's interests.

the number of incidents of criminal conduct -- and a new evermproved approach, since 1992 commanders have said that they get it. but the statistics tell a different story. with the sexual conduct -- misconduct said to have occurred, victims should be confident in supporting each other through the chain of command. -- perpetrators should also feel that they will be treated fairly in the military justice system. as a commanding officer and commander, i appreciate those particular opportunities afforded us in the military justice system, i think they were important for good order and discipline in my command. today i believe those same prerogatives contribute to a culture that promotes a climate free from unwanted sexual

misconduct, and safeguarding the rights of both the accused and the victim. i applaud the most recent changes in the military justice system. in my judgment they represent much-needed progress, with crimes involving unwanted sexual conduct and the epidemic of sexual assault in the military. there is no question that a full-court press is on, but i'm not convinced it does all that is necessary for this crisis -- and senator gillibrand's proposal. with which cases go to trial, i think we experience a conflict of interest that is huge -- two huge amount to climb. reads gut wrenching to allegation of sexual assault by another member of the command, particularly one who was a senior with an excellent performance record. towas more gut wrenching

read about what crimes may not have been reported because they did not believe the command would believe their side of the story. i would accept it if we could welcome a senior official with prosecuting experience making a decision about whether or not to move forward with a court- martial. that would be in the best interest of both the alleged victim and the accused. i don't see how the standards would be undermined, and that she or he would somehow not be able to get the proper command climate to support this mission, if they proceeded to trial based on the strength and weaknesses of evidence. when i was a commander in my first command assignment, i did not have general court-martial authority. the regional commander held that authority. now i happen to refer the most serious cases -- are not in any way less than my charge and ability to lead my officers

effectively. and it does not absolve me of any accountability for good order and discipline, and especially for accomplishing the mission. gillibrandenator comes between supporting victims needs and the rights of the accused. it is more important than ever temperament the changes but also take this traditional measure to enhance the trust and confidence in the military justice system. thank you again, judge jones and the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. >> thank you very much, admiral. now we will hear from admiral robinson, united states navy. >> thank you very much, your honor, and thanks to the entire panel. i have the opportunity to read some of the records from january 8, and what you are dealing with

is amazingly complex and vexing. i know that we are all on the same side. this old, retired chaplain of 36 years, service -- reprieve whatt to i said at the beginning of the january 8 meeting, but to reflect a bit on the remarks that were made in the afternoon session, following our presentation. individual, with unique perspective as a chaplain, not ever in the chain of command, but part of the chain of command. theve been privy to thinking of commanders, i have often been the first to hear of an incident. are firstaplains responders, in many cases, when

they are trusted and respected. i have been the source of solace and strength for some of them, and occasionally witness to the inner struggles and perpetrators who have come for counsel. so something of a unique respective. alongside the chain of command. i bring that panel -- those thoughts to what was said, following our presentation. the people that you heard from in the afternoon, the people you will hear from later this day, are among the finest human beings and the most distinguished commanders you'll ever have the opportunity to hear from. of some of them, and even to be addressing you,

knowing that they are doing so as well, amazes me. commanders, senior who get it. they understand it. nothing i'm about to say should indicate that no senior commander, no senior leader gets it and understands it. but they have also lived for 30 or more years, with the chain of command being an article of faith. as a chaplain, i know something about how faith and articles of faith work, and it becomes more than simply the party line, it becomes a whole way of thinking that reallyive, governs the way that you see virtually every issue in your life. that is what faith is at its best, and sometimes, at its worst.

however, one sees that the chain of command is not the only convening authority of the chain of command -- it is not the only tool in the commander's toolkit. vaguely,ll remember, back when i was a junior officer, working with company commanders in the marine corps. most of my service time was with the marines. the company commanders never had convening authority, but there were still held accountable and responsible for all aspects, everything that went on in their company. charges, theye could fill out the charge sheet and someone else decided what would happen to that sheet, they did, by the way have article 15. god bless you.

have -- i can't break out of that apology. >> thank you for that. frequently,have, lieutenant colonel's in command --battalions did not have they did not have general court- martial authority. but they had many tools and they were responsible for maintaining good order and discipline, the command climate, mission accomplishment, all the other aspects that we hold the command responsible for. without this specific convening authority, which is what we are discussing today, convening authority, i would argue that convening authority -- this is not a necessary -- especially when we deal with nonmilitary crimes, with crimes that are felonies, part of the larger

legal system outside of the military, the convening authority is not a necessary i understandugh the folks you are hearing from have operated all of their life with it, and it is very hard to break out of that thinking pattern. i will also say that since this something more-- than the party line, it is a matter of faith that commanders must have all of this authority, it becomes difficult, it becomes difficult for me, to break with the predominant thinking of the senior leaders, that i have marveled at, over the years. that is a very difficult thing to do. especially,fficult, to do so in public. speaking to other folks including myself, i know that there are many who are on the

ambivalent, they are not ready to break with the party line, they are not ready to do so publicly. it was just a moment ago, general foote said that she does so both reluctantly went feeling compelled by the circumstances to do so. difficults a very thing for any of us, i would remind us that just a couple of most ago, several of the senior members of leadership in the military, counseled congress in public, in public hearings, the repeal of don't ask don't would be a significant burden for their branch of the armed forces.

i say it that way because not every chief of staff said that. but several did, that this would be a significant issue in this would be a -- a disturbance in the force, but -- but their branch would do it. it,when it actually came to don't ask don't tell was repealed, did anybody notice? life went on. the in those branches of service that thought they would be most challenged it was like watching a predicted train wreck that all of a sudden did not have any noise or sound, it was a silent movie. it just didn't happen. that breakings out of what we have always known, his frightening and difficult but perhaps necessary.

the census made in the afternoon sessions last time, that we ought to wait for the changes that have been made over the last several years take effect so that we can calibrate and not just to pile on when you don't know what the results of the most recent changes will be. that would be find in a kind of -- fine in a kind of academic setting. when thousands of lives are being impacted, each year, thousands, tens of thousands of lives are being terribly, horrifically impacted. i think it is time to fire for effect. the tailhook that and aberdeen, and the litany is

endless, and we could talk for hours about the number of times we have been told that this was changing. to throw everything that we have added, as reluctantly as i have said to come to that decision, which i called a draconian response, in my testimony two weeks ago. one that i came to have the same and justdespair, about charlielked brown and lucy and the football. eventually you have to say to lucy, somebody else is going to hold the football. it is time for somebody else to hold the football. and i believe more than just sexual assault cases, but in all

felonies, it would be civilian crimes. so that we are not creating courts that are unique to this issue. rangelowing for a wider with all civilian felonies that .re not military crimes let me say that chaplains, at god,est, serve each, our but care for the humanity of the service members that we encounter. that is our ultimate and most precious charge, the humanity of the people we serve with. in the most them inhumane of all possible circumstances. the doma -- demonic domain of war.

-- the demonic domain of four. i placed the in unity of sexual abuse -- it affects everyone who is engaged by it. we cannot put an end to war. we have tried. it has been part of the message from isaiah and amos until today. but we might be able to put an end to sexual abuse and harassment of our men and women in the armed forces. i hope that you will succeed in making that dream real. thank you. >> thank you very much. captain manning, u.s. navy. >> thank you. good morning and thank you for the opportunity to take place in this discussion. g, name is laurie mannin retired navy and for the last 15

years i have been the director of the women's military education institute where i am now a senior fellow. and since our last gathering, earlier this month, i have acquired another senior fellow, i am now the senior policy fellow at the service women's action network. was the 2005when i navy commander i served as the commanding officer in the british indian ocean territory, which had a 24/7 mission and a crew of 350 sailors and four soldiers. why i had four soldiers. but i did. >> what did they do to get the order? >> they wondered that, too. i had nontraditional punishment authority for summaries and

special court-martial. officer, diego garcia, a senior navy captain held the court-martial authority for the island's personal -- property personnel. i am familiar with the authority the commander needs to execute. to the that he or she has four good order and discipline while meeting a demanding command mission. this, like all of my fellow military people who have been convening authorities, i spent a long time thinking about the military and justice improvement act. icame to the conclusion that needed to support it, and i wrote a letter to senator gillibrand telling her i is why.d that act, here first, the military justice improvement act does not

infringe on or in any way diminish a commander's responsibility for good order and discipline. for the means and authority a commander has to carry out that responsibility. it keeps nontraditional punishment and convening authority for summaries and special court-martial level crimes for the commander, and general court-martial convening authority for felony level ella terry crimes such as desertion, or mutiny, all in the chain of command. i am convinced that under the provision of the military justice improvement act, the commander retains all the tools to execute his full responsibility to the command of good order and discipline. military justice improvement act does is restructure the commander's role in the handling of nonmilitary specific felonies by placing

three decisions requiring legal expertise that are today completely in the hands of commanders with little to no into the hands of professional military lawyers. these decisions are whether or not to convene a general court- martial or a felony crime. to the selection of the jurors, if any, and three, the authority of first reviewer, post court- martial, to unilaterally overturn a conviction or reduce or eliminate punishment. this restructuring, in no way diminishes the commanders authority or his or her responsibilities for good order and discipline. i am repeating that like a broken record. i keep hearing in media reports that it does.

when 90% of men and women sexually assaulted do not report the crime because they are convinced that not only will justice not be done, they face it -- they worry they will face serious retaliation, the chain of command and the military justice system is broken. we have tinkered around this for the last 30 years, with the scandal in 1992 and it has gotten no better. week, a mediaast report stated that neither those who have been sexually assaulted nor, i might add, those who have been accused of sexually assaulting others are confident that the system as it is can render justice. unease rests on the unilateral role of the commander, to determine if they will be court-martialed, to

select the jury, and to overturn convictions, and we know communities do that. it has been in the news. the military justice improvement act has the best chance of restoring the confidence of our troops in the military justice system, while keeping the authority and the tools to maintain good order and justice and discipline in the commander's hands. i become more convinced every time i think about this. this is the only way that we can go. >> thank you very much, captain. , are you on the telephone? >> i am. and good morning to you and the members of the panel. >> good morning. please go ahead with your remarks.

>> as a former congressman and member of the house armed services committee, and the marines, my involvement with the nation's military spans almost 42 years. platoons,mitted three and served as more than the -- for more than a year as the commander of the fort greene commission. a former board member at the war college, and professor at the army war college. i cannot convey the respect and abdication -- admiration i have had for our men in uniform. i have served in the marine corps for 43 years as the assistant secretary of defense for six more. rand'sort sen. gillib initiatives and here are my reasons. the focus is on the attention on the war fighting responsibilities. our commanders are superbly

trained and specially chosen to fulfill this duty. rarelyrast, they are trained or prepared for the weight of evidence impending criminal matters. they're prepared to change -- train their troops for battle. they train them to be combat leaders with military lawyers who weigh evidence of potential criminality. -- the secondongs is due process, with relationships with members of the command. when two members of the command are placed in an adversarial relationship of accused and accuser, it is difficult for the commander to be truly impartial. a strong and worthy commander should exercise objective judgment under these circumstances, but commanders are human beings and there will always be a lindo wing -- lingering doubt of impartiality

regarding well-known subordinates. and finally, what i consider to be the showstopper. interesting the commander with raisesision to prosecute an inherent conflict of interest. they are rightly held accountable for their office and each referral may be seen by some as proof of a poor command the commanders on career and thereby justifying commandersl -- some may be pursuing unwarranted investigations to ensure punishment of the accused marines, and angry regimental commander ordered me to complete a very complex criminal

investigation within 24 hours. in either case, the commander's decision is dictated by a lack of impartiality and perhaps, even likely, self-interest. with angrappling incredibly important issue of military justice. i thank you for this opportunity to tell you my thoughts. >> thank you very much. mrs. deniseelist is j.a.g.former coast guard and for the u.s. maritime administration. >> thank you for inviting me to testify. and thank you for having this meeting in public. it is my hope that all future meetings are also in public because this is a very important topic. iter the last hearing

received an e-mail from an individual who told me that i was unpatriotic because i testified. i was flabbergasted. i am a coast guard guy who is married to a navy vet, i am the granddaughter and i am the and to beeterans, told i was unpatriotic to talk about this issue, this was sad and this was troubling. this isroubling because not something that people should be hiding. as chief counselor of the maritime administration we face a lot of problems. the chief counselor of the maritime administration, i was responsible for the u.s. merchant marine academy. it is essential for the institution and its graduates either go on active duty or on the reserves, but they do have a military requirement. academy in 2009

and 2010 did not trust the senior leadership. is reflected in a report that came out in 2011. they came in, the first and second years, trusting and by the third year they would only trust the priest and the rabbis. there was no trust. i knew about these problems because i had jurisdiction. a whistleblower came forward in the summer of 2011. the whistleblower made allegations based off of information i knew was going on at kings point, that likely was true. i asked for an investigation. my boys and girls are going into the military in an environment i already knew. 24 hours into the investigation i was put in a room, on

speakerphone, and told by secretary ray lahood that i should not have asked for the investigation. that i needed more supervision and how dare i do this -- but i did that. i did this because there were problems, i did this because these children who were there could have been my daughters. by theubsequently told then deputy secretary a few months later, that the secretary had lost confidence in my ability to be chief counselor. and that was directly related to the investigation i had asked for. i was very proud of what i did in 2011, and i would do the same thing in 2014. the men and women who go into our academy have to go into an environment that they can trust.

not only do they have to go into that kind of environment, they have to go into a military that they can trust. what was very disturbing to me this week is to read in the "washington post," we have all danced around this but let me tell you. something about general slights or -- general sweitzer. that was a sitting member of congress who has a husband and a son, he said, i quote, he apologized for his delay, saying he had masturbated three times after the meeting with a congressman, who had just said, wow, she is hot. wow. so the graduating students from the academy in environments that are good, putting them into a military where they have colonels, he was a colonel at the time, who are allowed to say this in a government e-mail, but

not only that, they let him become a general and put him up for promotion. not only did they put him up, but the senate confirmed him for two stars. when you ask whether or not there is a problem with the command climate, where problem with the current command, my answer is, yes. i saw this firsthand at kings point, and now i am reading about it in the "washington post." that does not engender -- engender trust or say to the victims to come forward. what this says is that people who do this, they are going to be protected and we can't do that. we cannot do that. too many of us served honorably in the military, members of a family tradition of serving honorably. this is not honorable. it cannot continue.

there was a blog that was " about in "esquire manning up, i think it is time .o man up and woman up as a mother, i can imagine the conversation that the representative had with her son. you know that his classmates read the same thing, to say that you're going to go to school the next day and you will get some comments. i cannot imagine that. i just can't. and the other thing i can't imagine, opening up the air force times and looking at the facebook account by the air lamented about the resignation of another general. if you are a victim and you have been assaulted, and you read the air force times and see that the dot that was by the i.g.,

you think you will trust them? you are not going to trust them. we have to change the culture and we have to change the structure and we have to open cases that have been closed. thatjohnson -- the fact the military made her parents (it's so they could see why she died, it was not suicide. if you tell her parents of this to mysomething happened daughter and i was told i had to avoid the records, i cannot imagine that. i would go crazy. but we are doing that to parents. and then we are making them read the "washington post." we have to change the system. again, focus on the honor of the system. the honor is at stake. if the committee, if the group

have the ability to bring honor back, we are losing it. we can't tell our young people to go and if there is no honor. i beg of you, bring it back. >> thank you very much. open thegoing to discussions up to the panel, are there any comments or questions that anyone would like to make. >> judge jones, i have a question. >> professor hellman? you whos to those of returned to us from the previous subcommittee meeting and on the phone as well. i am grateful for your willingness to come back and step forward on this issue that we are wrestling with. i have a question for you about some other proposals that have been floated. your conviction that this change

should be made, to remove the convening authority from the military justice process, shifting to a military prosecutor, are you convinced that this goes far enough? should take that we this out of the military justice system altogether given the problems that you just are that with how the military has handled this in the past? general foote? >> in my impression and my feeling, is that if we do this gillibrand,by sen. we will create the environment where a trained military lawyer will be in charge of this particular incident, and i do not think we should remove it further from the military system, at this time i don't think that would be warranted.

we have to give this a chance. i think this has a great chance of working. when you create an independent of the factsessor to make that decision. i think it should stay within the military system. >> thank you. professor, one of the of the panel,s the panel that was convened a few years ago and reported out 2012, was that the command itself needed to hear the adjudication of cases. it was not enough to be fairly adjudicated, the command needed to see that worked out in public. i'm afraid that if you take it entirely out of the military

system, that would be missing. concerned, we have a sense of trial by jury of one's peers. i am not convinced that the civilian population can function as peers, for those of us who are serving in the military, it is such a different environment. to preserve the sense of fairness, for the accused. think that we -- we try or accused, by their peers seniors. so it becomes -- one of the things that just amazed me about the case of couple of years ago.

overthrew commander -- overturned a conviction, because the conviction was by other people in the same branch at theice, serving perpetrators levels or senior. so that the sense of fair play is provided for the perpetrator, as well. i just don't think that is matched -- as much as i love the folks back in massachusetts i am not sure they are ready to take because weat occurs haven't done that and haven't been there and can't understand it. or the hundred other situations. >> thank you. where thehe point legal expertise is required, to

make a decision. that the break should come. when we're dealing with a crime that is not military, i spent many years at remote communication stations all over the world and never once did i people at thehe command i was at have to go to a court-martial. most of the stuff is routine again, not all that often, the summary of the special court-martial that could handle it. it is like keeping the children's discipline in the family. them to send someone home because they don't feel good. it is at the point to use the medical analogy, where you need the doctor, a professional, to diagnose appendicitis. you go from, should they go home with the flu, to having the --

the medical people make the decision. the point where you really need the expertise to properly handle a crime, it should shift to the legal system. >> is there anyone else on the telephone? >> this is paul mckale. i had a little difficulty hearing the other speakers. i think we had challenges with the acoustics. i would say that i think the gillibrand legislation would be an enormously important and effective step four a correction abuses, that gave rise to your inquiry. i think taking the step of dassing the gillibran legislation would move this in the right direction. proposal, as you know, goes beyond sexual assault

and covers other crimes. give would first want to the gillibrand proposal the opportunity for full implementation before i would look at removing other crimes, including sexual assault from the ucmj. it is important to note that some of these other things could occur in a combat environment, which is inherently brutal. it is not the place to apply standards and due process and secondly, it would inevitably be if we had lawful killings in the combat environment, to oversight by civilian courts. and so i think we need to recognize the character and brutality of the combat environment, and retain these cmj buttions under the u

bring the objectivity to the convening authority by removing that assignment from the commander, and placing it in the hands of a judge advocate who understands the brutality of war but also understands far better than a commander, how to weigh evidence. what colonel ileman has just authored and think that with the changes that come from the recent passage as well as the changes from the last couple of years, the passage of the gillibrand legislation, when it happens, it really shores of the military justice system. that might be the experience -- when i was in san francisco, having to refer cases that involved civilians, and on

it was totally, unsatisfactory as an experience. there was a lack of understanding in the context of there was aent, lack of substantial instances in prosecuting the case, by the u.s. attorney, and san francisco. i have had that experience, which convinces me that with the recent changes and the additional changes to this legislation -- it provides the best opportunities for a military justice system that really does support the command requirements and mission accomplishments. >> are there other questions? colonel cooke?

>> thank you for coming here today. you have all served and been in this environment. and you continue -- continue your services for their well- being -- one thing i know you all support, senator gillibrand's proposal. right now, the way the system worked, the commander who has the authority of being a convening authority. we have not taken them out of command but we take away that piece of what they do. we have heard testimony from a lot of panels and a lot of people and the way it worked right now is the commander who tends to the case, the general court-martial which is more than so, with jail must do the advice of a senior legal advisor, whoever that advocate is in the field. thosestimony shows that decisions are made together, in

95% of the case. the last time you read the testimony provided back in january, the officers there could not think of a case where they disagreed with the senior lawyer weighing the evidence with what cannot in the article whether theyion, should proceed to a trial or not. table it takes the convening authority away from there, this is back in the united states, someplace, obviously. those decisions changed. it is based on the evidence of the senior judge advocate review, coming to one conclusion, i am not sure if this decision will change but it is based on the evidence of someplace else. my bigger concern having served in the military for almost 43 years, being an advocate in both bosnia and baghdad, my concern

is not the command authority as much as the military judges effectiveness. when you do have the legal advisor, to understand everything that is there, what happens quickly as you have access to the witnesses. is at combat environment a stage where the case can proceed, it does. i can't think of a case where we had a new division rotate in, brandishing the weapon they are carrying, that case happened on a friday night. by monday, there was a judge from germany who flew into bosnia, timeliness and things like that and the case was resolved and the message that we send to everyone else was, good discipline. that can happen in this kind of procedure. this proposal moves it to somewhere in the united states. and now, somebody who needs

access to the witnesses, needs the evidence and the delays and the effectiveness is what my concerns become at that point. i am not sure if this became a different with the judge advocate as a key role as it is now. i would like your insight in that particular piece. >> i would recommend to anyone -- the article by frank rosenblatt, called "military justice in a deployed environment. what he does is look at the statistics of what went on in , in thetan and iraq first four or five years. that is where he could get the data from. what he found most often for the reasons you mentioned, witnesses, the evidence, nothing was done. nothing. because the commanders just didn't have the time, even locally with the authority to

gather up the evidence, witnesses came and went. so for most of the things that happened in the first four or five years, the crime nature, no action was taken. usually thatit was the witnesses were sent back to the united states. whether they were actually handled. they try to have a nice, leisurely court-martial. we had not been holding these court-martials in iraq or afghanistan. >> another army lawyer marta: responded to major rosenblatt. major rosenblatt, showing that there are cases there, having served in baghdad and bosnia, the judge advocate for the combat divisions, i know that they do have that. initially if the conditions don't allow it, that is not the place for it and you send it to

the rear detachment. >> looking for the first three to four years, there have been thet-martials since then, actual combat in those three or four years -- i think that is something we need to look at, whether we can actually have the military justice system as it functions today.