Aboute all talked victims. , it had squelched that would have [indiscernible] as a commander, you owe that answer to everybody. To the victim and to those that are making the allegations. You cannot squelch it. The responsibility of the command does not allow you to do that. We would not take command so to push it away. We of that answer to everybody. To ensure that, if there is a problem, we take care of it and we make the right decision. Decision might be a significant punishment for the individual, a loss of frank, even imprisonment. That squelching it does absolutely no good. It is detrimental to any organization. You have got to find the right answer, no matter how hard it is. Youve got to find the right answer so that Everybody Knows when the decision is made that the right thing has been done. Some people might disagree along the way. As a commander, you know that you have done that and you have gone into it and poured over the report that is presented to you. You have taken all of the experience you have, the advice from your Legal Advisor, from deputysperate you commander and others, and you know you have made the right decision. Dilma thing i was going to add this is based on what i have for the last few days is that there are so many mechanisms in place that the moment of victim steps forward and says, something bad has happened, that i commander, at great peril to his or her professional career, if they do not report that within hours, than they might use a chance to command that unit. Special victims councils, they track this. They track down to the hour that this is being done. I cannot imagine a scenario in which a commander will say, lets squelch this. It aint going to happen. Do you have anything else . No. Thank you. It is going to build on something you have all got to. One of the other perceptions besides the conflict of interest issue that there is a concern ut the other concern the other reason to give it to the judge advocates and take it fromthe commander the commander is that they are not trained to do this. All of you have left the military, most within the last 24 months. General campbell, you are a bit more removed. You currently work with the chief of staff on the army on development of our general officers. , that was made this morning a comment that was made this morning manners are rarely trained to exercise informed judgment on cases. The problems of been there. We are learning from the past still. Can you comment on the Current Training for our Senior Leaders to make informed judgments, if you believe they can make that, and what are we doing to keep that current . In terms of information that is constantly being developed . I will argue that you are probably correct. The commanders early on did not on ch experience early but i would not say that as a reason to take it away from them. Commanders will come on board a ship, in my case, and being command and start gaining experience having to hold article 15s. They have the legal ability to reach back and get advice. Through that article 15 experience they begin to understand how this process works and what the commander is so important to making sure that fair and consistent judgments are happening for each and every case. Objective was zero article 15s. I was very naive and optimistic. Time i ended my command tour, i had 60 cases. I gained a tremendous amount of experience through that. As you continue to escalate through command, that experience gets broadened. The new becoming convening authority. You are being advised by very professional people who understand and have more experience. What you are not necessarily trained, you are getting training through that experience. How to balance pleabargaining, the charges, with what you want to see come out of that in the best way for the victims in the accused. That is what i would say. In response to your question about training now, we have recognized that there is a need to ensure that. In the navy, we have moved most of our general quarter marshals to the regional commanders so that they can continue to build this body of experience. They do go through training when theres they are assigned regional commanders to make sure theyre ready for that position. Legal is that specific Legal Training on what the man counter . They may encounter . Yes. Trained specifically by our jag core. This is not new. They have probably anywhere between 710 years of experience in this arena. Making sure that new fully understand general courtmartial on what the authority brings. As we go through and become commanders at different levels, at least in the air force, we go through different types of commanding courses. In every one of those, even as a , legal courses or legal advice, legal presentations, are done in every one of those courses. I would venture to say that those are increasing even more and more. In my particular situation, when i took over as commander of the air force in washington and had a courtmartial convening authority over 40,000 airmen located around the world i spent the time and sat down with knewg to ensure that i what it was that i could and could not do, was expected. There were cases i was looking at all the time, including , and everyonees one of those cases and , jack is right there with us. Is right there with us. I believe we are doing way more training today than we have in the past. Said, thereiral needs to be a little bit of time. I know there is not much. Believe that all commanders know that the need to have that guidance because they are not legal experts. The need to stay close when theyre making these tough and difficult decisions that affect peoples lives. I think that all of the services have specific first of all, just officer Development Courses come on your Second Lieutenant all the way up, you get some legal information. As you become commanders, i think all of the services of a specific school for you for every level of command. Certainly, things like the legal aspects of command probably receive as much or more emphasis than anything else. But you do not like to be a commander in a classroom. Where you learn it i learned from lawyers who were normally half my age because every week we had a session called cops and robbers. You discussed every case going on on the installation. Your Law Enforcement people were there. Osi. The attorneys were there. You got a background on every case and the status of every case. For me, that is where i learned about what was appropriate and what was not appropriate what could and should be done along the way. By the time you are a senior guy or gal, you have had a lot of experience with the legal business. You are not a legal expert. You never run out of the need for an attorney, but you probably spend as much time with your attorney as you do with anyone else. That was my experience. Add theld training a general officer receives is very individualized. Isa young man or woman selected to become a Brigadier General and moving to a command position, they go to our staff judge advocate school in charlottesville. It is not a sitting with power points. It is a oneonone. I talked to a young man who was going through that and how impressed he was at the people took the time to do that for him. At each of our precommands, it is a very important part. The danger is that you would come out saying, i am a pretty smart guy, i know this stuff. One of my golden rules was that if you ever got ready to do something that feels real good, stop and ask your lawyer. [laughter] i cannot say he is a number of times that saved me perhaps from doing something that might not have been smart. I tried to follow that as best i could. I have a pretty stark question. You said that a lot of changes happened in the past 23 years. Takingthe threat the commander out of the process goes away we have heard a lot of testimony that that has gotten a lot of the change moving. Are that threat is gone, all of these changes and trainings and resources that have been put toward this problem going to go away . That always lies in the back of my mind. If this panel reports out that we are going to leave the commander just where he or she is, that then were are going to stop looking at this problem is much as we have been looking at it for the past 23 years. I would say my guess would be that if attention faded from this problem and progress was nominated, i think the services are all well aware that legislation could be introduced nothing hass if happened or it has not improved in five years or gotten worse in five years. Itll would be a short conversation at that point in time. The services are all well aware that any progress made has to be sustained, otherwise this is still an issue, it is still a threat. If the services get what they ask for and dont deliver. I think that is an important question. My answer would be, i certainly hope not. One thing i mentioned in an earlier panel, we really need better data. The services will not force that. They will all do it differently. We really do need some better data. Everybody has their own set of facts. None of them match up. Cid, osi, nciive s come all of the attorneys, commanders they need to collect, force the services to provide the same data, the same answers to the same questions asked in the same way so that we know what were talking about to the degree that we can. There is always going to be a little murkiness because of the nature of the crime and the nature of reporting. But we can deal with a better set of facts if we were a little more standardized and i think that would be an important recommendation for your panel, for something that osd needs to drive, so that we know what we are talking about. I would say that we should not need a threat to fix this problem, for starters. Know that theyt could lose that authority. You see people doing all the right things for all the right reasons because we are better educated and understand the problem better. Themeasures and the focus congress has put on it and the panel is bringing to it they get it, they know we have to get after this. , thei think back integrations of blacks into the army, the integration of women into the army, the dont ask dont tell going out the door, who led those transformations . It was the military and the leaders in the military. We can lead this as well. We need to lead this. We need to be the model for society, for campuses, for industry who have a challenge bigger than ours. We know and understand the issue and now we need to get after it. I believe the chain of command can do that. I do not think so to answer your question because i really dont ever see this problem going away. A case study would be looking at our drug problem. We recognized that drug problem back in the early 1980s. I would say it is likely lula continued to recognize that this problem exists and continue to treat it and do all of the things we have talked about today. Anything further . No. , we are goinganks to adjourn this panel now. I cannot thank you enough for coming. Thank you. We will be in recess for lunch. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] based on all information considered to this point, the Strong Majority of subcommittee members agrees the evidence does not support a conclusion that removing authority from Senior Commanders will reduce the incident of Sexual Assault or increase reporting of Sexual Assault in the armed forces. Nor does the evidence indicate it will improve the quality of investigations and prosecutions or increase the conviction rate in these cases. Further, the evidence does not support a conclusion that removing such authority will increase confidence among victims of Sexual Assault about the fairness of the military Justice System. Will reduce their concerns about possible reprisal for making reports of Sexual Assault. As a result, the subcommittees assessment at this time is that the Authority Vested in Senior Commanders to convene Court Martial for Sexual Assault offenses should not be changed. Now in reaching this conclusion, the subcommittee has made the following findings. First, criticism of the military Justice System often confuses the term commander with the person authorized to convene courtmartial for serious violations of the uniform code of military justice. These are not the same things. Second, under current law and practice, the authority to refer a Sexual Assault allegation for trial by courtmartial is reserved to a level of commander wholl normally be removed from any personal knowledge of the accused or victim. If the convening authority has an interest in a particular case other than an official interest, the convening authority is required to recuse himself or herself. When they convene courtmartial for Sexual Assault offenses allege allegedly committed by members of their command. As with leaders of all organizations, commanders must often make decisions that may negatively impact members of the organization when these decisions are in the best interest of the organization. Fourth, there is no evidence at this time supporting a conclusion that removing Senior Commanders as convening authority will reduce the incidents of Sexual Assault or increase Sexual Assault reporting. Fifth, Sexual Assault victims currently have numerous channels outside the chain of command to report incidents of Sexual Assault and they are not required to report to anyone in their organization or any member of their chain of command. These alternative reporting channels which exist today are well and broadly publicized throughout the military. Military personnel in the United States may always call civilian authorities r, Healthcare Professionals or other civilian agencies to report a Sexual Assault. Sixth, under current law and practice, Sexual Assault allegations must be referred to and investigated by military criminal investigative organizations that are independent of the chain of command. No commander or convening authority may refuse to forward an allegation or impede an investigation. Any attempt to do so would constitute a dereliction of duty or obstruction of justice which would be a violation of the uniform code of military justice. Seventh, under current law and practice, the authority to resolve Sexual Assault allegations is limited to Senior Commanders who must receive advice from judge advocates before determining appropriate resolution. Eighth, none of the military Justice Systems employed by our allies was changed or set up to deal with the problem of Sexual Assault, and the evidence does not indicate that the removal of the commander from the Decision Making process in nonu. S. Military Justice Systems has affected the reporting of Sexual Assaults. In fact, despite fundamental changes to their military Justice Systems, including eliminating the role of the convening authority and placing prosecution decisions with independent military or sometimes civilian entities, our allies still face many of the same issues in preventing and responding to Sexual Assaults as the United States military. Ninth, it is not clear what impact removing convening authorities from senior command commanders would have on the military justice process or what consequences would result to organizational discipline or Operational Capability and effectiveness. 10, congress has reenacted significant reforms addressing Sexual Assault in the military and that the department of defense has implemented numerous changes to policies and programs to improve oversight and response. These reforms and changes have not yet been fully evaluated to assess their impact on Sexual Assault reporting or prosecution. And lastly, prosecution of Sexual Misconduct contributes to the overall effort to address this problem. Commanders must play a central role in preventing Sexual Assault by establishing command climate, making sure subordinates are trained in and embrace their legal and moral obligations and emphasizing their role of accountability at all levels of the organization. The subcommittee heard many perspectives and reviewed considerable information as i mentioned earlier, about the role, the commanders role in the military Justice System as the prosecute tomorrow authority for Sexual Assault allegations. Proponents advocating for system change offered different opinions about what consequences would result from such change. The subcommittee did not find, however, clear evidence of what consequences, positive or negative, would result from substantially changing ucmjs convening authority framework. Accordingly, the subcommittee believes caution is warranted and systemic change may not be advisable if recent and current efforts produce meaningful improvements. The suggestion by some that vesting convening decisions for courtmartial with prosecutors instead of Senior Commanders would better address the problem of Sexual Assault is problematic. A presenter at a september panel Public Meeting observed that it assumes too much that somehow a prosecutor is always going to be better at this than commanders. Civilian jurisdictions face underreporting challenges that are similar to the military and it is not clear that the criminal justice response in civilian jurisdictions where prosecutorial decisions are supervised by appointed lawyers is more effective. A recent white house report notes, across all demographics, rapists and sex offenders are too often not made to pay for their crimes and remain free to assault again. Arrest rates are low and cases are still being dropped. Many times because Law Enforcement officers and prosecutors are not fully trained on the nature of these crimes or how best to investigate them and prosecute them. The white house report also highlighted how that low prosecution rates in the civilian sector and prosecution decisions that contradicted the desires of Sexual Assault survivors provide often prosecutors base charging decisions on whether physical evidence connecting the suspect to the crime was present, if the suspect had a prior criminal record and if there were no questions about the survivors character or behavior. Other factors outside the intrinsic merits of the case such as budget, staffing or time constraints also may influence charging decisions for prosecutors. In short, arguments about the advantage of prosecutors over commanders with respect to convening authority are not consistent with information from the civilian sector. Congress, as i previously mentioned, has recently enacted significant reforms to address Sexual Assault in the military and the department of defense has implemented numerous changes to both policies and programs to improve oversight and response. Preliminary indicators these reforms and changes have not been fully evaluated to assess their impact on Sexual Assault reporting or prosecution. Irrespective of changes in Senior Commander authority in the military Justice System, commanders and leaders at all levels must continue their focused efforts to prevent incidents of Sexual Assault and respond appropriately to incidents when they occur. Military commanders are essential to creating and enforcing appropriate command climates and Senior Leaders are responsible for ensuring all commanders effectively accomplish this fundamental responsibility. I would only like to add that as i mentioned, and ill say it again, this is our initial assessment. And with respect to the role of the commander committee, there are a number of other issues that we are tasked with looking into and indeed, i am certain that we will hear more information with respect to the retaining the commander as the convening authority. I would like to now ask professor hillman to speak, as she has a separate statement for the consideration of the panel. Thank you, your honor. Set forth my perspective on the issue and ill read the statement that is before you that is attached behind the report of the subcommittee. First, ill note that i wrote it before we heard testimony today and i appreciate the testimony of everybody today and that the subcommittee overall will i will integrate that into the statement that i wrote. Second, i want to thank our staff. I could not have reached a conclusion or written it without the support of the staff im grateful for that. I would also like to mention that the subcommittee had not yet reported to us and i look forward to their reports too. I have Great Respect for the survivors of military Sexual Assault, for the leaders of armed forces and for my colleagues on this panel. We share a goal of improving the militarys response to rape and Sexual Assault. I understand the recommendations to retain discretion in manned stems from their commitment to fight Sexual Assault and preserve the military, legal and command structure that works. I dont share their opinion that this particular part of the military legal and command structure works for this particular problem and that is why i reached a different conclusion from considering the same evidence. I wrote separately to explain why i stand apart from my subcommittee colleagues on the issue of whether convening authorities should be taken prosecute many respected criminal military Justice Systems rely. Trained, experienced prosecutors. For decades, military Sexual Assault scandals have been a regular source of national embarrassment. Haver military officers said it repeatedly and convincingly before our panel and subcommittee to get to the problem. Not to wait until the next incident to respond, but instead, make immediate changes to break the cycle of scandal, apology, response and recurrence. They and many other witnesses asserted that the only way to prevent military Sexual Assault is to attend to the base factors, social, demographic, environmental that allowed it to occur. We heard no evidence that the military Justice System is any worse than civilian jurisdictions at responding to rape and Sexual Assault. We did, however, see proof that rape and Sexual Assault continues to occur at too high a frequency in the armed forces despite elements of military service that should hurt their prevalence. This includes honor and sacrifice. The greater degree of surveillance. The higher ethical standards that Service Members must embrace and the militarys ability to from among those eligible to serve. Rape and Sexual Assault pose distinctive challenges in the u. S. Military. We entrust our military with the legitimate use of force to, support and defend our country and our constitution against all enemies. Drawing on a history of war and military successes in which Sexual Violence has unfortunately been common place. Commanders must overcome this by lead agricultural shift towards greater respect for gender equality and legitimate evidence for sexual expression away from the norm. This shift is no slight change. It is a sea change. If commanders remain focused on implementing this change, they will improve the militarys ability to respond. Survivors and their families and communities will be able to trust they have stellar military records and they will not be protected from legitimate prosecution. They will realize that reprisals from fellow Service Members are not a consequence. All of the members will know that attitudes that desecrate women and gay men will not be tolerated. Because they create conditions in which Sexual Assault is more likely. And because they violate regulations. Although commanders must lead the way, they are neither essential nor wellsuited for their current role in criminal prosecution. Mandatory and military justice has already been reduced significantly over time. It will be further limited to changes. Yet they continue to require convening authorities exercise prosecutorial discretion. A specific factual context warrants as in different ways. For example, speaking out assertively, underlining the legitimacy of any later Court Martial. Heightened detentions now directed towards military Sexual Assaults. Convening authorities under pressure demonstrate high rates of conviction. The prosecution will order courtmartial to go forward regardless of the strength of the evidence. Commanders should zero in on the changes of culture for sustainable improvement on Sexual Assault prevention and response. The decision to prosecute is among the heaviest burdens. The ethics of the prosecutor are among the most powerful in the profession. Whether there is evidence to support a criminal prosecution is a question of law and discretion. Senior judge advocates licensed by the same authority as licensed civilian authorities both civilians and military authorities are every bit as capable of exercising that discretion as their civilian counterparts. When some of our allies adopted legal reforms to replace convening authorities with experienced and trained prosecutors and voice concerns about the deterioration of command. And disengagement from the problems of Sexual Assault that were very similar to those raised by u. S. Military leaders. No country with independent prosecutors has reported any such dire consequences. I see no reason to defer to predictions about the impact of this case over the pleas of survivors of Sexual Assaults, many of whom consider an independent Prosecutorial Authority the cornerstone of any Effective Response to military Sexual Assault. There are no fewer safeguards of a partial and independent tribunal with whom they serve. The united kingdom, canada and most other countries have already ended command controlled courtmartial to protect the rights of accused Service Members. That goal is consistent with the procedural barrier that both victims and perpetrators of rape and Sexual Assault deserve from the u. S. Military. Our panels and subcommittees have heard again and again that the Sexual Assault problems in our military has given people reason to pause when young people turn to them about advice of whether they should join the armed services. This is the real threat to u. S. Military assessiveness. Effectiveness at stake in this debate. An impartial and independent military Justice System that operates beyond the grasp of command control would help restore faith that it help remains a viable and honorable choice for all. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, are there any comments before we begin actual deliberations, with respect to the contents of the report or the findings . The majority of the subcommittee and by just to reflect that we heard from both male and female surviving Sexual Assault victims and that we heard from our allied brethren of other military forces in finding number eight on the initial assessment. Not in terms of who we look for and who we considered. Thank you. Any other comments with respect to the substance of the report . All right. Why dont i just begin and i we can go finding by finding as in reach the ultimate conclusions which we can then discuss. The first one is the criticism of military Justice System often confuses the term commander with the person authorized to convene courtmartial for serious violations of the ucmj. These are not the same things. I would just like to throw out the fact that when i first got on this panel, i didnt know what a convening authority was. And learning exactly how the system works within the military, how the Justice System works, has made a big difference. The convening authority, and i think this is a later finding, is almost always not the direct commander of either the accused or the accuser. And i think there is a perception out there that the victim of Sexual Assault ends up having her case determined by her direct commander or his direct commander. And i think that it is important to make that distinction. I guess i should back up and say this is also a Response Systems Panel that is charged with looking for positive responses that will be effective to reducing Sexual Assault in the military. And i have not been persuaded that the removal of a commander is going to have a positive impact. There is no evidence that reporting is going to increase. There is no evidence that prosecutions will be better handled. That investigations, even before prosecutions will be better handled. Which, and i should say that there is a lot of evidence with reforms and also just the training that has been going on for several years, investigations and prosecutions, are being handled in a better fashion than they were with the military reaching out to the best practices of the civilian systems and so im not denigrating those investigations and prosecutions. Im simply saying there is no evidence that removing the convening authority is going to improve any of those parts of the system as they exist now. If i were persuaded that removing the convening authority would encourage victims to report, then this would be a different story. Im not persuaded of that. If you think back on most of the evidence that we have heard, both from victims who have come in to tell us what happened to them, and others, the complaints are about not just commanders, of course, but Sexual Assaults by many members of the military, complaints about ostracism by peers, complaints about lack of services. Complaints about not being listened to or understood. Those are all legit mat complaints. They all speak to the culture of the military and the failure to provide the services that are necessary or the quality of services that are necessary. In my mind, they do not have anything to do with a convening authority, who makes the decision on whether or not to prosecute. I think that when you have a problem, as we do, you look at it, you try to figure out what the elements of it are, you look for causes. And then you look for how to cure it. I just dont see a result coming out of removing the convening authority that is going to make a difference, but what i do say will make a difference, is they welcome the commanders and leadership of the commanders and i agree with a lot of statements today, they are under a lot of pressure to get it right, if you want to call it that, this time, that is going to change culture and i just dont see the efficacy of removing the commander as convening authority. I have spoken for a long time. Maybe others would like to comment. Could i add something . I think one of the other things that we have seen is a big divide in understanding the way the system works between those who are young in age, maybe also young in terms of service, and although i know we are discussing the role of the commander, in our larger capacity as a panel i think that is where our future discussions on training and Victim Services and education so that individuals know where to go and where to turn when something happens, is much more of an issue than as you said, who at a high level far removed on the incident makes a decision. May respond . I agree that there is no proof of what differences would make. There is no comparable jurisdiction to the u. S. Military. Foreign military jurisdictions are not directly comparable. Civilian jurisdictions which are all over the place in size and demographics and complexity of cases and all things that ship responses, they are all over the place. We cant look to a system and say, this is one where we can understand what happens. I just dont see proof of the negative affects of it either. That goes to this first point about the commander and the convening authority. I dont think the soldier on the ground knows who the convening authority is. If the soldier on the ground doesnt know, then what difference would it make to move it to an independent military prosecutor who is potentially removed . If we dont already have that conflict embedded and that is why the Service Number would trust that it will be handled appropriately because that commander is someone who has the trust of that servicemember that is not the person making the decision. Why would it harm their confidence in the system . I agree that i dont think many or most soldiers do know what or who the convening authority is. But i think that also means that making that change actually has little value in the daytoday reactions of our soldiers who may be potential a Sexual Assault victims. We have heard so much testimony from commanders about how integral they view the uniform code, their authority, to be to their ability to maintain good order and discipline in the command. If i take what professor hillman just said while we change it, it is not going to impact the soldiers that much because it is so far removed i dont think you make a change that large without a really good reason to make it. From my perspective, we dont have the evidence to show that making the change will have the impact. I am also concerned that this change wont have an impact. It will be made but if it is made wont have an impact. And then, when it would have been an Effective Response, but i also worry about the reaction of Sexual Assault victims then. There is a perception that this change is going to make everything all right. I think somebody today said it was the last thing we need. I dont view it that way. I think if youre going to make a change that is going to be a large systemic change in the way the uniform code of military Justice Works and how the command system works, the convening Authority System works, you have to have some confidence that there is going to be a positive result in responding to Sexual Assaults. That is why i dont believe that we are necessarily going to see that. I have no proof of it. Moreover, i dont see where switching out a commander who is advised by a judge advocate, a general and his staff, is going to come out with any different, less informed decisions than a different body of jags who will be somewhere else. I dont think the victims are going to know they are going to see military lawyers. If they see them making these convening decisions. I dont know how different they are going to look from the decisions they are getting now. My concern is i cannot say as i sit here that i think there will be incredibly negative results to the command if this convening authority is taken away. I dont know and that is something that we are continuing to look at. We dont have any clear evidence of what the impact would be one way or the other. What i also dont have any proof of is that this is going to make a difference in terms of how Sexual Assaults are dealt with. How they are dealt with by investigators or prosecutors. I think the results that need to be achieved here is more reporting, better investigating, better services, medical, mental health, all of those. Better prosecution and adjudication, and i think those are the kinds of results that are going to make a difference in victims confidence, not the change of a convening authority far distant from the command where the event occurred and the abuse. Madam chair, i find myself in a kind of unusual position here. I feel i have heard the testimony of the survivors and it is very powerful and very disturbing as an american and as a woman. Obviously i think everybody in this committee wants to do whatever we can to try to make a difference so that this kind of experience doesnt happen to anybody else. I have spent a good deal of my professional life involved in fighting Sexual Assault as a member of congress, as a District Attorney, and so if the evidence were before me that removing the commander as convening authority and putting it in the hands of prosecutorial bureaucracy would make the difference in conviction, the quality of prosecution, the willingness to report, the willingness to cooperate, i would be saying we cant have the present system. That we havent seen any evidence of that. As the chair pointed out and professor hillman pointed out, this is such an abstract issue, the convening authority. Nobody even knows what it is. Very few people. I came also to this panel, i had no idea what the convening authority was. I had no idea how the military justice is to work. I am here as somebody who started out with a view that senator gillibrand is a very bright and intelligent and committed person for whom i have great amount of respect. I thought her proposal sounded right. I have changed my mind. Because i was just listening to what we heard. I started out that way, thinking, why not change it . Now i am saying, why change it . I do think that some of what we have heard here gives me pause in terms of what would happen to the present system i do believe that when a commander makes a decision, the convening authority which is military personnel, says that this conduct warrants referral for prosecution, that makes a statement to the whole military that this conduct is unacceptable. That doesnt mean this person did it or that it actually happened but that this conduct is not tolerated. I think that kind of statement is really important. If we junk this idea of the commander, high up commander, as the convening authority, meaning having the decision about whether to prosecute and what charges to bring, who are we leaving it up to . It is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. What are we jumping from and what are we jumping to . I am worried about the to. What we are picking out is an alternative. It sounds wonderful. Lets turn this over to train prosecutors. I can tell you right now, i was District Attorney in brooklyn there is a Major Investigation about trained prosecutors going on right now. In that county. The question is whether trained prosecutors follow the law, the constitution with regard to requirements to turn over evidence to defendants. These are trained prosecutors. There are other issues with regard to trained prosecutors. When i became District Attorney, i care a lot about the prosecution of sexual offenses, and i made those changes in priority. I wouldnt say that the prosecution of sexual offenses but the cap priority when i came there. If the kids were closed, they might decide not to bring it. I made a change in that because i said, as some commanders or convening authorities might say, it is more important to send a message if the facts warranted and the law warrants it to try to achieve conviction. Just turning it over to a prosecutor doesnt mean youre going to get the result you are looking for. A prosecutor what this provision would do would take all felony cases, burglaries, theft, assault and other kinds of similar murder, and take them to this Prosecutorial Authority, whatever it is. Who is going to decide in this Prosecutorial Authority that sex crimes are a priority . Maybe they will think that burglary is a priority or maybe they will think that auto theft at a felony level is a priority. Maybe they will think regular assault is a priority. Who is going to be setting those priorities . We dont know. Here we have a command structure where we know who is owing to be held accountable. We know the person who has made the charging decision. When it is turned over to a faceless nameless organization, who is making the charging decision . Whom do i complain to . Whom do i hold accountable . These are very serious questions. While it sounds very good to turn over to trained and experienced prosecutors, i have been there. I had an office of 400 trained prosecutors and i would not say that without a leader setting the priorities and setting the charging direction, that turning it over would produce a result that anyone of us wouldve supported. Each decision might be fine on its own that i have this big caseload and i am worried about my promotion so i am not going to take the stuff he said she said. If i lose that, that is a demerit for me. Dont think that prosecutors wont have this. There also human beings. Before we jump from what i dont consider to be a frying pan i dont want to jump into a fire. I need to know where we are going if we are going to make this change and we dont have that clear. I think also that if we dont have the evidence, then we need to have to make the change at all, i just also want to point out that that the decision now, because of the focused attention on the problem, the decision by the convening authority has been very narrow so that if the judge advocate, the Legal Advisor and the convening authority dont agree on what should be done, then the whole matter automatically goes up. So, the decision no commander is going to have a final decision to say no. Unless that is reviewed. That is pretty serious. That means that that decision to say no is going to be really carefully scrutinized. That is what i think is one of the problems here. That i raised with the members of the military. It is the fear that if you leave this with any commanders, somehow they will try to push this under the rug. By not deciding to prosecute or interfering with investigations. They cant interfere with investigations but they cant push this under the rug either. A no decision is going to be reviewed on a higher level. How this works in practice is something we have to see. These are new changes. It seems to me that the changes that have been made will protect the concern that the commander, the convening authority is making a serious judgment. The decision is made with