Angus King

There are few prosecutions. There are fewer convictions.

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.

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

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?

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…

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

It just seems to me that one of the most important things is for you all to mean it. To mean it.

I think it is an important one.

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

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?

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 would just suggest that this issue of retaliation is significant.

I have made a proposal with some co-authors about setting up an administrative process inside the executive branch that would notify Congress about what groups are actually our enemies.

I do not believe that terminating the AUMF is a good idea.

It sure would give me a lot more comfort to feel like where he is sent, whether I agree with the policy or not, that he is being sent wherever in harm's way only if both Congress and the executive branch agree and have seriously thought…

How do we breathe life into the principle of Congress having the power to declare war and the President having the power to prosecute it in this kind of new set of circumstances?

I feel very strongly that every 12 years or so, it is time to engage and figure out whether you agree with the scope of the----

Congress is given not only the power to declare war but a wide range of associated powers.

I would be joining Senator Inhofe as to who would be first in line to object to an abuse of this authority.

I just do not like the idea of reading a 12-year-old document so broadly that it renders the congressional authority and the importance of congressional authority for using military force abroad of no force and effect.

The President has authority to put boots-on-the-ground in Yemen or the Congo under this Act.

I am just concerned that reading essentially vitiates the congressional power to declare war.

I guess the definition proves too much because it basically is unlimited.

Senator McCain was absolutely right. It refers to the people who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11.