I believe, in the committee on a number of the options and alternatives that have been put forward in various bills.

There are few prosecutions. There are fewer convictions.

My question is the key word you used was 'can.' Should that be 'shall'? In other words, should it be an automatic proposition if the JAG officer disagrees that it goes up, not a further discretionary decision?

There are enough specifications in the UCMJ to address it now.

What would you think of the idea of making retaliation itself a punishable offense?

Until you create some objectivity in the process where there is no bias and influence and prejudice against the victim, the lower-ranking individual in the situation, you are not going to solve this problem.

Should retaliation be an offense? If someone retaliates against someone for reporting, should that, in itself, be some kind of punishable offense?

What about a situation where a decision not to prosecute would have to have the written concurrence of the JAG officer associated with that decision?

I would just suggest that this issue of retaliation is significant.

Senator Gillibrand has suggested that we ought to take this out of the chain of command because that is a problem in the prosecution.

I think it is an important one.

I would suggest maybe you want to look at something more specific than tampering with the system.

I would suggest that this might be an area to, again, get the word out that if the word gets back that somebody is being retaliated against in some way--shunned, ostracized, whatever--that that in itself ought to be, in some way…

If the Iranians see that the sanctions cannot be lifted, then they will be only more firmly entrenched in pursuing nuclear weapons.

As a country, there is a broad consensus that we should keep all options open and on the table, but that a negotiated solution is far superior to war.

We have broad consensus in this country that we would prefer a negotiated solution in the Middle East.

I support tough, strong sanctions because I think they are necessary to make the strategy work.

So you are saying that what was happening in New York had nothing to do with it, you were not trying to get in front of anything?