same issues of accountability. i also served as a presidential appointee on the military board for five years. about watched the debate the military justice system and the military panel on the sexual assault cases for the past several years. from my perspective, this has always been, first and foremost, about readiness. recruiting, training, organizing, equipping, and, most importantly, leading america's i missed men and women to be ready to go into harms way supporting the nations interests. the number of incidents and the system of criminal conduct compels a new and improved approach. --recently as 1992, statistics tell a different story.

when incidents of sexual misconduct occur, victims should real confident reporting them. a legend perpetrators should also feel they will be treated fairly in the military justice system. i appreciate those trusting in the military justice system. i believe they were essential to the nation and a good order and discipline in my commands. today, i believe some of those same prerogatives attribute to a a climate freeng from unwanted sexual conduct and safeguarding the rights of both the accused and the victim. i applaud the most recent changes in the military justice system. and my judgment, they represent significant and long needed progress, particularly with regard to crimes involving unwanted sexual conduct and the

seeming epidemic of sexual assault and the military. there is no question once again a full court press is on, yet i am not convinced it is all that is necessary to address the crisis, which is why i support senator jill a brand -- senator gillibrand's proposal. from my own experience, receiving a report of sexual assault by another man, particularly one who was senior and had an excellent performance record, but even more gut wrenching to reflect on what crimes may not have been reported because someone in my command did not believe i would believe their story or they thought there would be retaliation. or even welcome a senior officer with prosecuting

experience weighing the other end and making a fast-paced decision about whether to move forward with a court-martial. it will be in the best interest to both the alleged victim and the accused. i cannot see how a commander's authority would be undermined and that she or he would somehow not be able to set the proper command climate to support the in admission of cases proceeded to trial based on the strengths and weaknesses of evidence. a commander in my first command assignment, i did not have general court-martial convening authority. the regional commander, the one star admiral held that authority. my having to refer the most serious cases to him did not in any way lessen my charge and ability to lead my sailors and officers effectively. certainly, it did not absolve me of any accountability for order and discipline and most especially, for accomplishing the mission. 'sbelieve senator gillibrand

legislation strikes exactly the right balance between military command needs and supporting victims and accused. it is more important than ever to implement the substantive also to takeed but this additional measure to enhance the trust and confidence in the military justice system. giving meagain for the opportunity to speak with you today. >> thank you very much, admiral. now, we will hear from admiral robinson with the u.s. navy. >> thank you very much, your honor, and thanks to the entire .anel i have had an opportunity to read some of the records from january 8, and what you are dealing with is amazingly complex and vexing, and i know we are all on the same side. permit this old retired chaplain reflectars service to

not simply to reprise what i said at the beginning of that january 8 meeting, but to reflect a bit on the remarks that were made in the afternoon session following our presentation. i do so with a unique perspective as a chaplain not yet in the chain of command but part of the chain of command. i have been privy to the inner thinking of commanders. i have been often the first to hear of an incident because respondersre first in many cases when they are trusted and respected. i have been the source of solace and strength, i hope, for some of them, and occasionally witness to the inner struggles of perpetrators who have come for counsel, so something of a

alongside thetive chain of command. i bring that panel, those thoughts, to what was said, as i said, following our presentation. the people that you heard from in the afternoon and the people you will hear from later this day are among the finest human beings and the most distinguished commanders you will ever have an opportunity to hear from. i stand in awe of some of them and to even be addressing you knowing that they are doing so as well amazes me. they are the senior commanders who get it. they understand it, and nothing i am about to say should indicate that no senior commander, no senior leader gets

it and understands it, but they 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 more work, and it becomes .han simply the party line it becomes a whole way of and a perspective that really governs the way 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 -- ormand is not the only the convening authority of the chain of command is not the only

.ool in the commanders' toolkit i can still remember vaguely back when i was a junior officer and working with company commanders in the marine corps. most of my service time was with 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. they could file charges, they 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. they did have -- i can't break out of that apology. >> thank you for that. >> they did have, frequently,

lieutenant colonel's in command of 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 element although i understand 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

is a matter of -- 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. and it is difficult, especially, to do so in public. speaking to other folks including myself, i know that there are many who are on the fence, they are 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. and that is a very difficult thing for any of us, i would remind us that just a couple of years ago, several of the most senior members of leadership in the military, counseled congress in public, in public hearings, the repeal of don't ask don't tell 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.

but when it actually came to it, don't ask don't tell was repealed, did anybody notice? life went on. even in those branches of the 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. so i counsel us that breaking 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. we have heard that the tailhook 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. it is time 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 sense of despair, and just influence i talked about charlie 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. but allowing for a wider range with all civilian felonies that are not military crimes.

let me say that chaplains, at our best, serve each, our god, 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. and we serve them in the most inhumane of all possible circumstances. the demonic domain of war. 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. my name is laurie manning, 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.

before that, when i was the 2005 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. i won't explain 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. the commander 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. i came to the conclusion that i needed to support it, and i wrote a letter to senator gillibrand telling her i supported that act, here is why. 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. what the 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 legal training, 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. in just this past week, a media 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. their 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. colonel mckale, 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. i have committed three platoons, 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. i support sen. gillibrand's 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. by contrast, they are rarely 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 second belongs -- the second 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 can and 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 the decision to prosecute raises 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 climate, with the commanders on career and thereby justifying the criminal -- some commanders 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.

you are grappling with an incredibly important issue of military justice. i thank you for this opportunity to tell you my thoughts. >> thank you very much. our last panelist is mrs. denise krepp, former coast guard j.a.g. 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. after the last hearing i 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 niece of veterans, and to be told i

was unpatriotic to talk about this issue, this was sad and this was troubling. it was troubling because this is 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. the girls at our academy in 2009 and 2010 did not trust the senior leadership. that 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. i was subsequently told by the 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 written in "esquire" about manning up, i think it is time to 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 force i.t. 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 post that was by the i.g., do 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. like johnson -- the fact that 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 -- if something happened to my 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 of individuals 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. for that, i beg of you, bring it back.

>> thank you very much. i am now going to open the 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? >> thanks to those of you who 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?

do you think that we should take 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 as proposed by sen. gillibrand, 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 judge, or assessor of the fact to make that decision.

i think it should stay within the military system. >> thank you. >> professor, one of the recommendations of the panel, the panel that was convened a few years ago and reported out in 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. i am also 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. i don't think that we -- we try the accused, by their peers or seniors. so it becomes -- one of the things that just amazed me about the case of couple of years ago. the senior commander overthrew -- overturned a conviction, because the conviction was by other people in the same branch of service, serving at the 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 the case that occurs because we haven't done that and haven't been there and can't understand it. or the hundred other situations. >> thank you. it is at the point where the 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 actually see the people at the

command i was at have to go to a court-martial. most of the stuff is routine things, and 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. or allowing 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 of the past abuses, that gave rise to your inquiry. i think taking the step of passing the gillibrand legislation would move this in the right direction. the gillibrand proposal, as you know, goes beyond sexual assault and covers other crimes. and i would first want to give 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 the case 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 prosecutions under the ucmj but 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. >> i support what colonel coleman has just authored and i 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 treasure island, it was totally unsatisfactory as an experience. there was a lack of understanding in the context of the environment, there was a 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 a year in jail must do so, with the advice of a senior legal advisor, whoever that advocate is in the field. the testimony shows that those 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

to investigation, whether they should proceed to a trial or not. on the 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. if the combat environment is at 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 afghanistan and iraq, in the 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. what it was, it was usually that 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: -- article 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 court-martials since then, the 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. in active combat. >> just point for that, my own was a staffwhen i judge advocate, it was during the surge in iraq. we did try cases, and i'm not just agreeing that change is needed. i'm just asking -- would a change of just pulling that input into a commander as it is on the site and then putting it in the rear change the assessment of evidence? i welcome the input. >> i would say one more thing to welcome that point -- when i was a commanding officer, we had no on diego garcia. the problem is not that for the and convening sja authority probably do work well together, but as it is today, the commanding authority does not have to take that lawyer's advice, and that is where i think the distrust comes in.

i think we need to deal with that problem. >> can i suggest, two, you will most -- i said in my earlier remarks, most commanders are beginning to get it. some of them have always gotten -- understood the issue. time,ct that 99% of the that the jag's recommendation is taken by the commander is .elcome but not surprising news my concern is that we permit the , and it existsst in some of the most flagrant situations, and there's no structural response to it, and i won't go through all of the the exist -- the army is coming now to understand, as other branches have already

understood and will understand, that there is a level of toxicity in the leadership for some leaders. not for all. the men and women i served with know,ior level are -- you not only are they the people that would take me to war, but i would go to war willingly with them. i trust them. with my very life and the life of the people i work with. but there are exceptions. we have all seen exceptions, and the fact that those are tolerated by the system -- i would hope that removing this for competing the general court-martial from the chain of command would not necessarily send it back, just as you are able to convene a court-martial. what would make this different?

i don't know how it would be .mplemented thankfully, i don't have to worry about that. our military is capable of amazing thinking and ingenuity, and to find some way proximate to where it occurred is important. by the way, that also speaks to the earlier question about taking it out of the military structure entirely. how do you send a civilian ?nvestigator back to what i said in a response as well, the command needs to see the adjudication and needs to see the result. i would hope that senator i think, modest recommendation would be accepted and then implemented without it being sent back into some black

hole back in the united states where no one would ever know what really happened. i don't think that's fair to the .ccused or to the survivors >> if i can add, in my role in the administration, i wore many hats. some days, i was chief counsel. some days i was deputy administrator. some days i was administrator. if i was chief counsel, i was advising somebody on legal issues, and that other person had the final say. was i was the deputy or i acting, i took my hat off, and i had somebody else providing me and thatl information, legal information was part of many other considerations that i .ook into account by leaving it with the lawyers, you leave it with the evidence, and you take out other factors that, quite frankly, should not be considered when you are

dealing with this type of issue. there should not be political issues. there should not be, "i know his family.""i know her those types of issues should be taken out. leave it with the evidence. >> i think we have also had a considerable amount of testimony in front of this panel about just the reverse where a lawyer may look at the evidence and one-losse got my record to protect, and i'm not sure how this is going to go." a commander said to the lawyer know, the case needs to go to trial. it's important. it has an impact on good order and discipline. that case needs to go to court. whether ultimately there's a conviction or not, it needs to -- it needsto court to go to court because it is a critical case. it goes both ways. >> i would wonder how many of

that second genre of cases, where the commander said no, it has got to go to court, had to do with this issue. i think this issue may be the blind side of the difficult visions for many of the commanders. commanders on other issues, high level of moral rectitude appropriately wanting people tried an appropriately convicted who just did not get this issue, which, by the way, they might have gotten it as it e-4, toto the e-3 and the very young people in the community, but not understood it atit applied to creditors o5 predator level, which were people they knew

better and were more collegial with. yes, it cuts both ways, but take your best shot after 50 years. everybody, too, that who served has their own experiences with that. certainly, i spent 28 years and five months in the legal field, and there were many cases like that of all sorts, and, certainly, a sexual assault where commanders were. i mean, a good commander is a good commander and is committed to good order and discipline in is sometimes more forceful in terms of pushing >>es and a lawyer might be which was why i was so reluctant. a good commander is a good commander. not just good, but great. the reason people made three and four stars, which is typically

, and they are not just good commanders. they are great commanders. how about all the ones that did not reach that level and the fact that the system did not do ,nything about all the others and that it's taken so -- i note the takes a long time to turn an aircraft carrier. not all my days were as a marine, but you do not need the entire ocean to do it, either. >> can i reorient this a little bit and ask -- why do we have -- i'm assuming from your support of the gillibrand bill -- so much confidence in the results that we are going to get from 6's,, jagged officers, who will become the body of competing authorities, who will be separate from the chain of

command? we had discussed it, and we know we had jagged officers now, who are the staff officer, and explain to the commander what the legal issues are with respect to probable cause, with respect to jurisdiction, etc., and write an actual report, and then we have the commander, the convening authority, i should say, making the decision. what do we think -- do we think that this body of new convening are going to be making different decisions? are they going to have all the information they actually need to make a decision based on the evidence if they are separated from the location and the command that is involved? i just wonder -- where does the combatants come from -- where does the confidence come from that this is going to be a better way to make his decisions?

>> your honor, i'm an old guy. >> i'm an old girl. [laughter] >> this is not the confessional. [laughter] from an era where you go into a situation with overwhelming force, not with the minimal requirement. part of the power doctrine was that you go into a situation force.erwhelming part of what i said two weeks ago was we need something dramatic. we need something that will get the attention of the system at large. this is a dramatic kind of change. is it perfect? probably not, but inhing has shaken the system the 60 years that this has gone

on. we have heard time and again -- >> a short ache in his hearing on sexual assault in the military. will be back to it in a minute as the house is about to hold a brief pro forma session. now back to the house.

and said, if you report this, no one will believe you anyhow. this was going on and that i was part of the group that send someone over to deal with the finally he got nailed there. but the problem was passed on with no action whatsoever.

that really puts a taste in your mind about the efficiency and effectiveness of the system that knows what to do because it does not want to embarrass itself. we have got to have objectivity. who is speaking? i just want you to identify yourself. i have great confidence in the judge advocate court. i think that the advice that i received from them was extremely helpful in making some of the most challenging decisions i had to make.

the region that i support senator gillibrand's legislation is because i think it addresses more than the other changes that have been made, that inherent conflict of interest issue. i can recall having an allegation about a very senior member of my command by quite a junior member. it was one of the most gut wrenching situations that i ever [inaudible]because could possibly have behaved in a way that is totally from thisristic allegation from a junior member whose record was frankly a little bit questionable. i had to try to pull up the

pieces [inaudible] i always thought one of the key , from the statistics, the surveys, the key reason why people do not report is because they believe someone else will be you believed before they are, despite whatever evidence is presented. for that reason, a key piece of shoring up the military justice system is to reduce, eliminate that specific conflict of interest. i do not think they had any [inaudible]udge

that was not in their consciousness. the legislation gives us an opportunity to say that that commander is not going to be able to make decisions based on the personalities, that it will be fact-based and evidence- based. [inaudible] how many times have we heard the victim say the only reason i was prosecuted was because of the environment, the commanders had to do it. i heard from the alleged perpetrators of various crimes oft they, too were victims something other than a fact- based decision process. it is important to put this piece into the puzzle of the

military justice system, which has not been as effective as we had hoped. this is paul mchale. if i can make a brief comment. my confidence in the july grant proposal is that we are much more likely to get an objective and professional assessment of the evidence from the judge advocate as opposed to the commander. it is important to recognize the commander has enormous responsibility to the command going well beyond issues of due process to the accused in a particular case. once the allegations are on the front page of the army times or the front page of the washington post, that commander will be looking not only at the guilt or innocence of the accused but the overall impact of the allegations upon the command climate for which he or she is responsible.

i had not thought about this earlier, but i recommend a rereading of herman melville's billy budd. a question was raised earlier about going to trial but a commander feels there is a need to take the case to trial. that need may be derived from concerns on the part of the commander that go well beyond the evidence, the guilt or innocence of the accused. judgment, no case should go forward to trial in the absence of evidence of criminality. i think the commander should worry about the command climate, leadership tools available to him or her in preparing the command, but you are much more likely to get an objective assessment walking away from the president of billy budd by having a staff judge advocate at

some distance from the surrounding issues looking at the evidence and making a determination from a professional standpoint as to whether or not that evidence .ustifies the prosecution it is difficult for me to hear who is talking. i just wanted to ask a couple of comments to the last few speakers. it is good to remind ourselves that most commanders have a good relationship with their judge advocate. most commanders try their best to do what is right and to make the best call they can, but we are here today because they are having trouble for whatever reason.

the jell-o brand changes are necessary from a , thatder's point of view they are necessary to do a couple of important things. one of them was taking out the equation those inherent pre- existing relationships that commanders have another advocate with each other or with those in command, the accused or accusers. investigations to provide evidence and facts to an independent military council. i think the military council is important. the other piece of this is important, and that is , not only due process the fact, but the perception among women in uniform.

we are dealing with those who have reported. we are talking about the evidence and who is best to weigh evidence and who should decide going forward. but what about all of those who are not reporting because they have seen or they believe that they will not have due process, that they will not be listened to? i think the change is a concrete change, to take it out of the chain of command, addresses all of these issues. is it puts the military where it belongs into a system where it will be perceived as fair and providing due process. way thatassume in any the senior judge advocates that will be hearing this would have to be in the united states or any particular physical location to be able to do their job. i also would not assume that a

commander in the chain would not have any input. i would hope that a good system would include input from those commanders so they can provide information on unique contextances or important for a good decision, whether to go forward or not. is good to well it realize we have a lot of great commanders doing the right name, we are really here today because we have some that are not, and because of the strong perception re our men and women that thei is not due process and there could be retaliation and they would hesitate to report a serious crime. i think our military readiness, our reputation as a profession, really is at stake. >> thank you. admiral? >> [inaudible]

we can say convicted of having been a predator for many years. but in the run-up to the actual trial and during the investigation -- investigative process, the emotions were wild on both sides. on the one side saying, that is a chaplain, the one person that

should -- everybody should know better, but just characterizing the response. this guy has to be made an example of. i heard that. on the other side, it was, he is a good guy even this cannot be right. i cannot believe it. he has been too good to my family. emotion was so wide dependentpairing, so on prior relationships with the chaplain or preconceptions of the role of chaplains and the like, that it was really disparaging for me that we could not bring in some more rational judgment. eventually that was brought in,

played out appropriately. there is no playing out well in this situation. the man is currently serving time in a federal penitentiary. that was finally reached. the sense of a motion is so overwhelming to people, not just with chaplains, but other people . we saw this in the case with italy. he is a great guy, a good pilot, we really need him in the command, because i know him, i know his family. that does not work. or it has not worked. any other comments or questions? i would like to remind

people, as lawyers, we are held to a higher duty. not only are we responsible as military officers but we also have our bar license at risk. that, i believe, adds an extra -- i wouldrovides us not say security, but it helps ensure that we take the right steps. lawyerse are taught as to follow the law. we are also taught that if we do not, if we have problems and we let teams slide, that we can be brought up on charges ourselves. we can be disbarred if we do not act ethically. that is not the same standard sometimes that you can put on commanding officers because most of the time they are not lawyers, but as lawyers we have that responsibility. i would like to go back to one of the issues dealing with evidence and how we can assure,

if the lawyer is in charge, that they will get the evidence. if you are in charge, you get that information. that says this is a lawyer, he is in charge, give him the evidence. me thatre about to tell a commanding officer cannot ensure that a lawyer wanted evidence, how can we ensure that they are getting the evidence that they need now? >> thank you very much. unless there are any further comments or questions -- take a five-we can minute break until the next panel. >> thank you so much. >> we are now going to move to

the second panel of the morning, which are the respective's of ,etired senior commanders additional senior commanders from those we just heard. i would like to begin with dunwitty, u.s. army. >> [inaudible] i want to thank all of you for committing your time and energy dealing with the business at hand. i retired from the army in october 2012 after serving nearly 38 years. 16 of those years as a commander at every level in the army. i have seen a lot, learned a great deal, and i hope my thoughts merit your consideration as you finalize .our recommendations

i know my comments today. i know my comments today will put me at odds with many of my friends and many folks whose opinion i respect and admire, but i am here today because i have spent my life trying to do the right aim for the right reasons, not the popular thing, the right thing. i have also spent a career in the army with outstanding military leaders who also spend their lives trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. reasons, not the popular thing, theleaders who live the warrior ito's, the soldier's creed, and leaders who believe in this profession of selfless service. read very disturbing to the headlines and allegations about leaders in our profession not living up to the standards of the profession. what you do not read about, because it is not newsworthy, is about the thousands of professionals who live the everyday and make incredible sacrifices every day because they believe in what they are doing and they believe in this institution. i came in the army right after the end of the vietnam war. our country was war weary and our congress was looking for a

piece division. so resources for military training were seriously lacking. there were significant drug and alcohol problems, racial .ensions running high we still had draftees who hated being in the army and we had undereducated non-high school graduates who would not qualify for service today. looking back, that post-vietnam army, we now refer to it as the broken or hollow army. it was not a fun time to start an army career, but it ended up being an exciting and professionally rewarding experience. we transition to an all voluntary force when people said , transition women into the regular army when people said we shouldn't, and we rebuilt the army almost from from hard work and complete believe and trust in the chain of command. we did not wring our hands, we are rolled up our sleeves, and

we got after it. i grew up in the army where the chain of command was a trusted chain of command. the chain of command was responsible for creating positive climate, providing good order and discipline for all men and women and their families, and rewarding good behavior while disciplining bad behavior. i believe only the chain of command can fix this problem. only the chain of command can lead us out of this problem and restore faith. in the army, we expect commanders to be accountable for doing what is right. i have seen a list of reasons why commanders need to be taken out of the loop, they cannot be fair, they cannot see through conflicts of interest, they are not confident on legal matters. these commanders are hand-picked or board selected because they are standout leaders. i do not know how we can expect and trust our commanders to toin our sons and daughters

fight and win our nation's war and yet not trust them to provide and establish command climate that provides each and every soldier a safe working environment, working together as comrades. during my almost four decades of service in the army, i have seen the military overcome many adversities, but it had never been done by divesting its leadership responsibility. it is done by holding the leadership accountable. let's hold the commanders responsible to lead us out of this crisis. the easier thing to do is take them out of the food chain. what will that do, cover of weaker leaders that cannot make the tough choices? i do not believe taking the commander out of the loop will do anything except create greater distrust between the leader and the lead. the great work done by senators gillibrand and mccaskill, as evidenced by the 30 additions to the recent legislation governing

sexual assault, is historic in and of itself. the checks and balances these additions bring will certainly eliminate a lot of the challenges we are facing today. i know the army is fully supportive of these initiatives, thefrankly, included in drafting of this legislation. i truly believe our leaders get it, and i believe we are seeing the positive effects. i believe senator mccaskill's position on this issue. we can either trust our commanders and leaders to do the right thing or not. like most issues, sexual assault is more than a military issue. it is an issue on our campuses as well as in our business and industry. i urge you to let the military chain of command lead us out of this crisis as they have any other crisis through history. thank you. i look forward to your questions

. >> thank you. general brady, u.s. air force. >> thank you for the opportunity. thank you even more importantly for your focus on this issue. i would certainly echo all of the comments that dy gave you, a colleague that i was proud to served with a number of years ago. i, butmuch younger than i retired in february 2011, as a commander of u.s. air force europe. after 41 years. like ann, i served in vietnam. i saw race riots in a few places. had coming tolems we

grips with the reality of race, and we workedity, ourselves through that, and we educated ourselves along the way. i was a commander in the air force and in the joint arena. years seen a lot in those . as the director of arsenal for 2004-s. air force, in the 2008 period, we went through yet , what seemed to be a surge in sexual assault activity . i was responsible for the air force's response to that. that is when we first began the training that i am sure is much improved now from what we did.

sexual assault response coordinators, and began that. it was a challenging time. i can remember very specifically briefing the air force senior stars,hip council, three all the four stars, and it was, as you would expect, a group of 55-year-old white males. i showed a film we made that depicted a sexual assault. i thought i would be thrown out of the room. there were those who did not believe it. there were those who could not believe that airmen would do this sort of thing and did not like the idea of seeing and airmen in uniform doing that .ort of thing i know that we have come a long

way, just in my personal .xperience with that i served as a senior member of the court shall panel who took a very senior colonel to court on a sexual assault in 1995, we really didn't know what sexual assault was here in the ended up convicting this individual. it was the right decision probably for maybe the wrong reasons because we really didn't know what sexual assault was. i know now that it was sexual assault and we did send him to jail. inherently, we knew something really bad had happened. and the evidence supports that. we have made great progress in this. have we made enough? no. we are appalled by, as you are appalled by, as senator gillibrand and senator mccaskill

and all decent people are appalled by this in our force. the question is what is the solution to it? authority and the command environment is a difficult thing sometimes to describe. it order and discipline are difficult to describe and particularly so to those who perhaps have not had the opportunity to be a part of it. .ut i want to make two comments i listened to the former panel a few moments ago. there were two things that were said that struck me. all, someone said we are here today because a few commanders don't do the right thing. and that is absolutely true. there are a few. but i would also say there is nothing -- there is no process in our society that is easier to

execute than removing a commander. that person's superior only has i've lost confidence in your ability to command this organization. that's it. that is 100% of the due process. and we need to exercise that where it is appropriate. another comment that is made sometimes is that this is such an emotionally charged event when it happens, and it is, believe me, particularly when you have a formally trusted individual who is accused of this sort of thing. it is a very emotional thing. it is very emotional. but it's not that difficult. commanders are not just technicians. if commanders cannot make that really nothey are commanders. that is a commanders do. there are captains -- i had

captains working for me who were better technicians than i was. i was there for gray hair and judgment. if i didn'tldn't -- have that kind of judgment, that i wasn't qualified to be a commander. because command is about judgment more than anything else. the point is being made occasionally also that lawyers have responsibility -- our lawyers, our attorneys -- have responsibilities as military officers in all of the ethos and values that go with that. plus, there is also the courts. therefore, as this line, as this narrative goes, they are better technically prepared to make those kinds of judgments. my response would be that is exactly right and those are the people who work for us here in -- for us. and are giving us the advice, the tech the -- the technical

advice. lawyers are just one of them. out and toe that move that independent body i think would have tw oh -- to give -- two results. confidence for the people in the chain of command who are responsible not just for mission a compliment but for every aspect of their well-being. second, it would not get the result that we all want. this is not a situation. this is not a contest of advocates and their attorneys against the chain of command and their attorneys. this is about what is the right thing to do for the people who serve. and i fully believe that the chain of command, flawed as some of us are, is the best

opportunity to ensure that we continue to have mission success, to make sure that we take care of people, who are brings, and that we justice to the perpetrators. thank you very much. >> thank you, general. attali -- admiral vitale , you are on the phone. go ahead. i can, thank you. >> thank you very much for this opportunity. it is a pleasure to join you from hawaii. [laughter] in february of 2012 after serving three years as commander of navy installations command which is responsible for of the base operations 70 navy bases worldwide. so i had the opportunity to be involved in many improvements

and focus that the navy has put forexual assault prevention the last five years. i have heard a lot of the testimony going on so i won't spend a lot of time other than to say that we put -- given the fact that we have done a tremendous amount and while i appreciate and understand that there is a lot of good intentions here with this new legislation, i believe that it is premature. andlieve that many changes improvements and services in particular in the navy have been somethinglace before as seriously as affecting the chain of command to execute good order and discipline and be responsible for the condition of his command. and await i will pass your questions. >> thank you. general campbell.

>> good morning. my name is jim campbell and i think i might be the old timer here. in march 2008 after having had the honor to serve our country as a soldier for nearly 37 years. themmanded the company, battalion, the brigade, the division and the army level and i fulfilled my responsibilities as a summary special and general court-martial convening authority along the way. starting with my preconditioning and as i progressed through the ranks and took on greater responsibility, i was trained on the uniform code of military justice and the legal tools that were available to me to ensure good order and discipline. on and employined the tools to meet the needs of theims while employed also

rights of the accused. finally, i was also blessed to serve side-by-side by a truly talented and professional staff and judge advocates. these men and women not only knew their stuff inside out, but they provided me the very best legal advice, sometimes when that advice ran counter what i was thinking at the time. i would like to thank each of yourn this panel for service and commitment and your willingness to tackle the very tough issue facing our military. i also thank you for taking the time to listen to those of us who are fortunate enough to lead america's most treasured resource and that is our sons and daughters in uniform. passion and the general concern of all members of congress and the defense examinent to thoroughly prosecution,tion,

and the adjudication of sexual assault cases and placed the highest possible priority on eliminating it from our ranks. sexual assault is really an insider threat that undermines the readiness of a unit and, as general or dno said, betrays a sacred trust at a number of different levels. soldiers trust in one another. trust in their leaders. and trust between our army and the american public. a commander is responsible and accountable for all his or her unit does or fails to do. men and women within that command look to their commander and their chain of command to train them, to care for them, and to maintain a command climate in which they can grow personally and professionally. good order and discipline in a unit is nonnegotiable.

it is the foundation of the unit. been thatnces have each time our army has faced a huge problem, a huge challenge, it has been the commander and the chain of command who have not only been answerable to a solution but are in the lead each step in the process to resolve the problem. opposedrefore strongly to the proposed legislation that would remove the commander from making the decisions to try sexual assault cases and other major criminal cases. commander's responsibility to maintain good order and discipline is quite frankly a full-time proposition. it cannot be addressed like an on off switch in which the commander is fully engaged and focused on certain areas to maintain order and discipline but is forced to be sidelined in

other areas. it will not work. every soldier in that unit must know and have confidence in he or sheander, that is calling the shots and not standing on the sidelines, particularly when it comes to sexual assault cases. to take the commander out of that road -- out of that role will erode his authority and credibility with subordinate leaders and soldiers during -- soldiers. the most dramatically reduced sexual assault is by holding the chain of command more accountable, not removing them from this process and forcing them to the sidelines. ,hey must be front and center fully engaged and demonstrate in every deed and word that we will not stand for this behavior. once again for including me today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general campbell.

jonas -- general jodice. >> thank you. this is a very important discussion. places, i got stuck at an air force base in alabama in the snow. [indiscernible] i had the honor and privilege to serve and lead our nation's treasured sons and daughters and partners and friends as a

commander at different times. levels were at squadron, at group level, the commander for the european [indiscernible] in 13training program different nations. as commander of the air force district of washington, i held court-martial convening's. time, i did have to remove a commander cared not for sexual assault reason. in the last three and a half years was as a nato commander at .ato's allied air command during that time period, eyes and seven months -- i spent

seven months [indiscernible] during those three commands in , a international setting fourth position was in beijing china. so there are stark differences and commanders in different companies and how they were allowed to take care of their mission and their peeper -- their people. states military system for accountability, responsibility, and as a model to follow. commander conducting an investigation about an .nappropriate relationship

me, wemes he said to don't put in the amount of effort, the amount of time to conduct the investigation. in international environments, they continue to describe how the military is just like the united states. , alll levels of command commanders take it very seriously the responsibility for every issue and every aspect of the unit. as a commander, i believe in serving leadership. a commander works for the people. a commander has three important

responsibilities. first, to provide direction. guide them in what to do. let them figure out the how part. .wo, to force standards in the united states air force, we have air force instructions for just about everything. [indiscernible] zero tolerance for sexual assaults. there can never be double standards in the united states military. everyone has to be held accountable and i believe that commanders do that and can do that and continue to do that because they can enforce all the standards. and third, commanders need to make difficult decisions. responsibility to

preside at every issue. and continue to seek counsel from their legal advisors, maybe an operations officer, a deputy commander, their command chief, and probably trusted others to help at times. in the end, it is the commander who makes the difficult decisions. [indiscernible] i believe you take away two of the three items i just mentioned. i believe you take away their authority to enforce standards and i believe you take away their ability to make difficult decisions. he or she no longer has that responsibility to serve his or her people. they no longer serve as leader.

if they are not taking care of their people, the victims will be negatively affected. they have to do the right thing. they have to do the right things right. and they have to do those right things right and for the right reasons. >> thank you, general. admiralwe will turn to baumgartner, u.s. coast guard. >> good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. i have recently retired after 33 years in the united states coast guard. towas my distinct privilege wear my uniform in active duty in an informal session before the same panel. in a lot of ways, there was a lot of symmetry to that. i entered the coast guard with the first class of women. things viarved many

classmates from the academy. i found that many years later on things that happen to them early on in their career, many of the difficulties that they went through. lot of othere a informal experiences and information from any other women who went through difficulties, sexual assault, rates, and so forth that took many different paths to deal with those particular situations throughout their lifetimes. uniquea little bit background than everyone else in this panel. i started out on ships. i commanded a couple of ships and then went to law school and made a career. i did not stay in the legal program. but i have been a defense counsel in sexual assault cases, trial counsel, judge advocate, commander judge advocate general dealing with assault cases. the whole range of the process.

from my viewpoint and in my experience, first, i would say that i agree with much of what my panel members have said about the importance of the chain of command, the integrity of commanders and their ability and their responsibility to do the right things the right way for -- the right way at the right times and for the right reasons. i will add something that i think is very important and, from my point of view, is very easily lost but is perhaps most important than most of the things that are talked about. when we look at the arcos of sexual -- the purpose of sexual assault response systems, at the trial of an accused sexual assault her, we have to remember that -- assaulter, we have to remember that it is not just that individual case that is important. our overall objective as united states military and the united states society is that women

feel safe in their community. if they are attacked, they need to know that their community and their environment will rally around them, where they know they have opportunities to advance, where they know this particular issue will not be a potential stumbling block for them. friendly, in my experience, i have seen it be a tremendous stumbling block and i have seen women have two deal with the issue. do i report? what are the indications if i go forward? if i get a conviction, what then happens? how does my unit react to me as an accuser? what does that mean for my long- term career? frankly, early on in this business, i saw most women that came forward. their careers did not survive the process and much of that had to do with the environment in the units and how people identified either with them or with their accuser. -- in the last five

to 10 years, i have seen changes there. when we look at how we deal with court-martials, i can tell you that, from my experience, people identify. they identify with the victim. they identify with the accused. to make anbest tools impact on this issue is to change the environment in our units and to make sure that the men and women in error units identified with the victim, not with the accused. the current system we have, we have a great tool if we do it right and i think we are on the role -- the road to doing it right to reinforce that. the people in our unit, small, medium, large, whatever, look to their commanders to leave them through mortally dangerous situations, through stormy seas, through a host of other things. they place great implicit trust

in them. they also will place trust in thatif they are the ones are convening and leading the judicial process against accused , i guess the people that are assaulting. if we remove and we have a different convening authority, then there is no longer that part of the command, no longer the part of the people that they trust their lives with, but something outside of that that is driving this process. i believe that one of the results you are going to have is that, inside those units, they will start to identify more with the assaulter then with the victim. because now the organization is supporting the victim, some outside entity, not part of the chain of command, not the people that they trust with their lives on every other situation. it's something else. i've seen this happen in other contracts. the more you have outside entities coming in and driving net, the more people identify with the accused. in my experience, we have

civilian authorities prosecute sexual assault against a military member, you are much more likely to find the unit identify with the accused. fact, they almost always identify with the accused because it is an outside entity. they don't know them. they don't know who it is. but they note the accused -- but they know the accused, especially if the victim is not part of that same unit. it is a tremendous challenge for us. i have even seen it in cases where we went through the process and could not move to a trial step because of one reason or another and it was moved over to the civilian authorities and you find a vastly different result. to put this again in context, our best way to make sure that todaymen in the military can be safe, secure, have great careers is to ruin the environment in our military for potential assaulters. the best way to do that is

maintaining convening authority responsibility with the chain of command. we need to support that. we need to be fed up. some of the recent changes that require extra diligence in reviewing these cases is what we need. we need more training. but we need an opportunity -- but we have an opportunity in the military that we don't have in the outside society. we control most of the aspects of the lives of the men and women in our units. that is not the case on a college campus. if you did studies, you will find that college campuses are much worse right now than in the military. and they have a much bigger challenge on college campuses to change the empire meant. they don't control most of the aspects of those students. that most men and up identifying more with the accuser than the victim in those situations on a college campus. i can't say for sure.

i haven't done the research. that is my speculation from associates, my contacts, and so forth. what we do have that unique opportunity in the military to really change the total environment. as we look at what we are going to do with prosecutions, i believe that should be front and center in everything we think about. yes, we can make an individual prosecution better by bringing in some other system. but what will that do to everything else? what does that do to that woman's career as she goes forward even if there is a conviction? what does that due to the viewpoint of those people in the unit? if we are not careful here, we can actually undermine many of the other programs that we are doing in the military right now to change attitudes towards sexual assault. i would be happy to take questions about this later on, and i do think it is vital for us to look at it this way. think about the psychology of units with unit cohesion. how outside influences and how

those are perceived and how they'll respond to those particular aspects. thank you very much. >> thank you, admiral here and i would like to -- thank you, admiral. i would like to open up for questions. jim. >> good morning and thank you for being here with us. issue was broached in the previous panel and we had several distinguished retired officers and i wanted to explore with you all a little bit more. issue is the commander's ability to make an objective decision. sometimes, through the course of our panel discussions, it requires a sort of informal conflict of interest. , theems to manifest itself concern, in two different ways. the first being that the commander cannot make an objective decision about people whom he or she knows.

if a commander has personal knowledge of the life and has the alleged to victim or the alleged accused, a commander cannot make an objective decision and the decision process will be flawed. that is part one. part two is different but it's also considered to be a conflict of interest by some, which is that, if you are a commander today and you are charged with maintaining a good and healthy command climate, you have a conflict of interest if you then raise charges against a member of your command. in other words, you have an incentive to not do that because it will reflect poorly on you if you make this kind of referral decision about an allegation. so for those two reasons, either you know the people to well or

it will reflect badly on you and your command and your leadership if you call out a problem and refer charges. there is a conflict of interest. can i invite any of you to speak to either of those two? the first one seems to get a little bit more attention, but i think they are both out there and i would ask any of you to speak to that. this is jodice on the phone or if i could tackle that one first. >> please. the commander in washington, i had to remove a commander. without revealing all the details, i will say that it was not for a sexual assault reason. it had to do with leadership. i knew that commander very well. we had been together for nearly

a year -- actually, for over a year. and when the information first came to me via an anonymous followed threeas or four days later by a second complaint. i took those very seriously. n investigation. many were interviewed for that investigation. processthrough the where the report was presented that it will tell you