Cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Next week, special primetime programming on the cspan networks. Monday on cspan, from glasgow, a debate over scottish independence. Then on tuesday, issue spotlight on irs targeting of conservative groups. Wednesday night, the principle of Hartford Connecticut preparatoryme magnet school. Thursday, a House Budget Committee hearing on federalist eight and private antipoverty programs. Friday night, native american history. 2 next week, book tv. On wednesday at 8 00 p. M. , the author of a biography about neil armstrong. Thursday night at 8 00, a tour of the headquarters of Book Publishers simon simon schuster. On friday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, in depth with former talk congressman ron paul. American history tv on cspan3, the reconstruction era civil rights and monday. On tuesday the end of world war ii and the atomic tom. I was in at the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. Thursday, look at how americans attitudes about world war i changed to the course of the war. On friday, a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. Find our Television Schedule one week in advance at cspan. Org. Let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us at 2026 263400. Use the c one to three or email us at comments at cspan. Org. Join disease than conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. The special committee created by congress to investigate the 2012 benghazi consulate attack is planning to hold its first public hearing next month, according to roll call. The committees chair, South Carolina congressman trey gowdy announced friday that retired Lieutenant General dana chipman would be leaving the committees legal team. The threestar general served as u. S. Army judge advocate general for four years before retiring this past fall. Retirement,e chipman spoke at Furman University about some of the legal issues that the military were dealing with at the time. This is about an hour. One of the hallmarks of the American Democratic experiment and one of the hallmarks of our constitutional tradition is that, for centuries, as a republic, we have debated in our Public Policy and in our law fundamental questions that go to the core of our values and our american identity. We debate the meaning of freedom of religion and the establishment of religion. We debate the meaning of freedom of speech. We debate what equality means and how it translates to equality on issues of race, gender, and sexuality. We debate the role of different branches of government, the role of the president as the commander in chief, and as the head of the executive branch. And the roles of congress and the roles of the courts. As much as they are contentious and changing in the general rinas of american life, they arenas of american life, they must in turn be translated and interpreted and applied to our armed forces. While it is sometimes true the political decision, the social policy decision, the legal and constitutional decision that emerges in a civilian arena, is transferred in exactly the same manner to our military. There are times when it is not. There are times when the particular necessities of National Security or the particular intensity of the organization and values and mission of the military require some adjustment. But cannot be adopted in exactly the same way in the context of our military. We are deeply grateful to the armed forces of the United States. Not just for all they have done to preserve our National Security, but for the extraordinary commitment over history, despite many ups and downs, the commitment to our fundamental values, to our commitment to the rule of law, to our conceptions of due process, and to the constitution of the United States itself. We are fortunate to have with us, as the professor has already noted, one of the american leaders who was in one of the most pivotal spots in our democracy, lieutenantgeneral dana chipman. He has had a distinguished career in the service of the United States and as a lawyer. After finishing his commission, in the infantry of the west at west point, he went to the Stanford University law school and got his ph. D. He then went on to receive other academic degrees, including a master of law and military science from the judge advocate general school and a studies degree from the United States a master of strategic studies degree from the United States army war college. He has had an extraordinary career within judge advocate generals corps and has been deployed in a variety of operational and staff positions, some of them among the most important in our recent history. These include the deployment to the First Special forces operational detachment, his deployment to the joint special operations command, United States special operations command, and the United States central command. In 2001 and 2002, he was deployed as a special Legal Adviser to the joint Operations Task force for Operation Enduring freedom in afghanistan. He served as the head of the judge advocate general center law school in charlottesville. And now he has taken the extraordinarily important position as the judge advocate general of the United States, a position that carries with it the rank of Lieutenant General. There is no one Better Qualified that i can imagine to help us understand how the ever evolving conceptions of equality in matters such as race, gender, and such well the are now being applied in the context of the United States military. So please join me in warmly welcoming not only one of the countrys great military and legal leaders, but also, i am proud to say, a parent of a furman student, his daughter. You are allowed to clap on that. [applause] please welcome lieutenantgeneral dana chipman. [applause] thank you for allowing me to come down here to escape the sequestered environment of washington d. C. I will not speak any longer than 30 minutes because i would like a chance for you all to ask questions. You can ask me a question about anything. Please feel free to ask whatever you like. I would like to tell you first how i came here. In 1970. I came here as a 12yearold and lived right across the street from Furman University on chapel road. I was a seventh grader at Duncan Chapel elementary school. Coming from orange county, california, into a recently desegregating environment here. A different time of year i went to Duncan Chapel and we had first through fifth grade and the seventh grade, because the sixth graders were bused elsewhere. I saw firsthand for a kid from orange county, california, i saw a little bit of the different environment as greenville was going through the challenges of racial desegregation. That was my first foray into issues. Issues in the discrimination world. I saw that institution struggle to decide how to accommodate women at a school that was probably all male and where the administration was not all that excited to opening up west point to women. I got to see how that evolved over the years. Then again, a different aspect of litigation in 1992 with bill clinton. One of the things before he took office, he said, i will figure out how to open up our armed forces to homosexuals and lesbians to serve our military. At that time, that ultimately crafted the policy of dont ask, dont tell, which has been overturned now 20 years later. I got a chance to see how these played out in a different area. All of these experiences were informative as i formed my position now. For the last four years in particular, we have gone through extraordinary changes in social policy. It is that time i would like to talk about tonight. If i could have my next slide, please. I will walk around a little bit. I would like to start with calvin and hobbes i think everything important comes from them. This is one of the Great American cartoons. This is what i wanted to and focus on. What i like from the cartoon there are things i may not be able to change, but i will still work hard. There are things that ought to be changed. I will apply the same effort to trying to change those things i cannot get over, i cannot get beyond the next step. Yet they are worthwhile. It is that attitude and focus that underlies some of the work that is done in this area as we seek to change our policy on social issue. I am mindful as i am here with you tonight. I read a middle school book report. It goes Something Like this. Julius caesar lived a long time ago. He was a general. He made many long speeches. They killed him. [laughter] i am mindful of that and hopeful that my end will not be quite like caesars. I will not speak longer than 30 minutes. We will get there. The thing i would like to talk about, four different areas in particular. I want to talk about our religious accommodation policies, and the challenges we had as it applies in the military context. I want to talk about Sexual Assault issues we are facing now. That is one remaining, really fundamental area of inequality we have to address if we are going to fully integrate our ranks to all those individuals who would like to serve the nation. Then i will talk a little bit about some of the other two areas i think we have made some progress on in the last four years in particular. Samesex benefits with the appeal of the dont ask, dont tell. Some of you do not know what the general is. I thought i would at least tell you who they are before i go into my remarks. 1775, George Washington appointed the first judge advocate of the army. He made 6 rate of return annualized since then. I think im underpaid. He was appointed as a tutor in the army and he served. Neither a judge, nor an advocate, nor a general. All three of those roles reflect what we do in our practice. This was the trial of a major, a british spy in the revolutionary war. This is one of our judge advocates employed. We have about 5000 lawyers, your tax dollars at work. Probably the second Largest Law Firm right now. The enterprise is about 10,000 people. You think about that. I am glad you are paying your quarterly tax payments promptly. We have a lot of support out there. That is why there are challenges. Our practice involves Legal Assistance and contracts, fiscal law, operational and international law, we provide contract law, administrative and civil law, and administration. It is a practice i have enjoyed for 27 years now. I think it is richly will boarding and very challenging. Rewarding and very challenging. Here is the first thing id want to talk about. Secretary panettas opening of the combat of women. What is significant . I think what is significant is, do you think we did this out of pure, alter richard altruistic reasons . I do not think so, either. One of the problems we had was, with our operations in afghanistan and iraq, we needed more combat medics. The great signature achievement of this war and conflict has been a better capability for medical care at the point of injury. If you look at what our medical establishment has done over the 12 years, we are saving people with wounds on like any, that we have ever seen. Our medics are women. We had to figure out a way to get that additional talent to the battlefield. What we did was abandoned the combat assignment restrictions that had previously prevented women medics to serving at the point of injury. That is one reason we did that. The second reason is, believe it or not, there are not as many folks who are qualified to join our armed forces these days. It is about maximizing talent, having opportunities for military servers, for women, who can complement these skills in a broad range of different areas. Do i think there will be a lot of women who want to serve in the squad . I do not think so i do not want to serve in an industry infantry squad. The idea is we will mac supplies maximize the talent available. You can meet this standard, you serve. This is really about how do we get our share of talent in a global marketplace competing with talent . Secretary panetta and the administration decided we would open up more opportunities for women to serve in combat arms and frontline units. We are studying it right now. In much the same way we had to study the issue of integrating women at west point, we are going through the analysis of, what are the criteria . For example, if you are in an infantry squad, one of the things you might have to do is drag a 200pound person for four seconds over a distance of 20 yards. That is silly. What is that about . If somebody gets hurt or shot, you would want to be able to drag that person to the next point of safety. Three seconds to 5 seconds, 200 pounds. If you can meet that, you can be in the squad. It is innovative in part by a fundamental fairness and that we need to open up opportunities for those most qualified. Frankly, it is a personal effort in a time where there are other opportunities to serve. That effort is underway and by september 2015, we will have made decisions on opening up these additional specialties. There are courses right now that women are pursuing. The school is probably our most elite light infantry. Is not yet open to women, but i suspect it will be shortly. The staffers school, a combat engineering school, already open to women. They have performed magnificent leaps magnificentdly. Magnificently. By january 2016, we have to determine which of our specialties will remain closed. The idea is that those that apply will be genderneutral. If women can meet the standards, they can. It will be an interesting evolution, from my perspective. The israeli force, the idea of women across their ranks and other countries, our allies, have done the same and opened up specialties for women to serve. At the end of the day, i think it is a fundamental decision for america to confront the idea that not only our sons but our daughters will be fighting at the tip of a bayonet knife fight. That is a tough thing for me, as a father, to still think about. You all may approach that differently. Our demographic has changed. This is the reality. You think about what is going on across america at the top of the pyramid. On the army staff, we have got 12 of the threestar generals, the folks who sit around a table and make most of the policy decisions. Of our 12, three are women. We had long times in our history where we did not have a single woman at the threestar level. We have had a fourstar commander who is female who got three stars serving now. It is just showing how much more that ranked is opening up based on power. The largest defense contractors in the washington region right now, the ceos are women. Recognize this has been an explosion of talent across top leadership opportunities. Last week, i had the fortunate opportunity i say fortunate with tongueincheek. On the committee, they are women. Just recognize, again, this has been a significant change and our motivation is to reach the best and brightest, to retain the best Human Capital you can find across the enterprise. Can i have the next slide . Samesex benefits. This is an issue that, frankly, an interesting time. I look at how this issue is playing out in washington. This is showing me what will happen. In the fall of 2011, it was pretty much a nonevent. People said, it will be a significant change. It will be an upheaval of massive social proportion. It has been a nonevent. Many of us knew that. We knew that going in. This is nothing. You all understood this for a long time. It is not about who you are with. Its just about the quality of the person you are. We have seen that play out. It has been an interesting change to see the fallout from that. Notwithstanding, the repeal of the do not ask, do not tell policy, we still have this defense of marriage act issue. Doma. A week from today, the Supreme Court will hear an argument for the case. It will be an extraordinarily significant event. What i am seeing right now will shake out in the washington media. The choices of Supreme Court justices will describe the demographics of our nine justices. Some are married, some have adopted children, some have no children. The defense remaining under the doma is the idea that a marriage between a man and woman is the only vehicle in which you can have procreation, the appropriate role to raise a child. That really is the strongest argument for those who still seek to retain doma. What i see in the post this week is a series of articles designed to strike down the idea that procreation is the only thing worth saving. We have the family choice of nine Supreme Court justices. We have a hold of the views of the citizens on samesex marriage that 81 of those surveyed are in favor of allowing samesex marriage. Profile of the samesex couples at the center of a lawsuit. Another profile of a significant republican congressman who came out and said, i am in favor of gay rights with a child in college. Today, nfl veterans. I am thinking, the National Football league has to be brought in to justify samesex marriage . We have just about lined up every constituency i can think of in support of this. I see the effort ahead. If i am a betting man, i fully expect doma will be struck down. The issue has been devolved so rapidly and has gained such support across a broad range of constituencies that i predict doma will fall. That will be ok. We will be able to move along from there. Slide, please. The issue i have seen some effort done, and this has been an interesting one to see ball over many years. I came to the army in 1976. I recall soldiers that served and they had turbans. If you know anything about the quality of sikh soldiers, i said, we can live with this. Sometime along the way, we thought, we no longer allow people to have different apparel and different uniform standards. The idea that you could serve as a sikh and honor your faith wearing a turban, that was denied. At some point, there was a Supreme Court case involving a rabbi. The idea was, if you could wear a yarmulke and hide it under normal military head gear, that would be ok. Under that decision, we then had jewish rabbis and others serving openly. That was fine. That was the only accommodation made. Along the way, we start to fight this war over in saudi arabia. Following the gulf war invasion in 2003, the army started saying, if you are a woman serving in saudi arabia, you need to wear, off the base, the long cloak muslim women typically wear in public. The Lieutenant Colonel said, not so fast. I am an officer. I am serving the nation. My male counterparts do not have to wear any accommodation for a uniform. I do not want to wear that. Congress passed in 2003, no more. The statute was passed. They said, you cannot force and encourage and persuade women to wear one if they do not want to. Then i saw that play out. Interestingly, then, we had in 2001 the operation freedom in afghanistan. The first thing every one of those guys did, they grew big bushy beards. I said, wait a minute. The special operators said, we need to blend in. We need to have the beards so we can better serve and get more credibility with the afghans with whom we are dealing so the men wore beards. It has been an interesting thing to see them. In 2009, when i assumed my current position, we had five religious accommodation requests granted. Two were with muslims who wanted to wear beards, two were with Orthodox Jews who also wanted to grow beards. Then we had a woman who wanted to wear the headdress. The air force granted the right for her to wear that. It has been a little bit of a challenge in the sense that, when the Congress Passed the law allowing to wearing of yarmulkes, it could not affect how uniform appear otherwise. The other services became unhappy about this. She was banned to her specific order in the pentagon. When she went to other areas of the pentagon, she had to remove it. We are fighting through now, what is the way we will deal with these religious accommodations and apparel requests. That remains as the last frontier. This plays out in another area, as well. Not only do you have the grooming and apparel issues we have to work through. The idea of a free exercise clause. If you are a chaplain in the military, with the same sex benefit, the demise of dont ask, dont tell, and the right to have a Sexual Orientation of your choosing and serve openly, what is your role as a military chaplain . We have chaplains from each of our different faith groups across the dod. You might be a rabbi and yet you are having chaplain duties requiring you to administer and take care of the needs of everyone in your unit, not just your own faith group. If you have got a requirement to perform council into a couple looking for counseling on samesex couples, and your conscience prohibits you from doing that, what is your role as a military chapel . We said, it is your duty as a chapel and judge advocate. Your duty is you provide the Legal Assistance needs of everyone and you do not discriminate based upon what is the nature of the issue. We are seeing some of these issues play out with the rules of chaplin and Civil Ceremonies chaplain and Civil Ceremonies and what we have said is, you do not have to perform an marriage or a marriage equivalent ceremony with the tenets of your ecclesiastical faith would not support that. We are working through those issues and how they would play out. Judge advocates, as far as i am concerned, they will meet the needs of everyone who has an issue. That is what we see right now. Can i have my last slide, please . This is the last issue i think is particularly fundamental right now. We are seeing a number of Sexual Assaults i think are inconsistent with the idea we have made this is last week. We had a panel of all the judge advocate generals. The senator from new york. They were inquiring about, our Courts Martial system and how we are handling allegations of Sexual Assault. It is interesting to me because, the system we have, it was really a creature adopted in 1950 following world war ii. Those of you who are students of history may know in world war ii, we had 16 million men and women in uniform. From that number, we conducted 2 million courts marshals. A fair amount have been disciplined in the record a fair amount have had issues for commanders to resolve. The consequence of that experience was the idea that we would rein in commanders discretion and handled ax with discipline. Dwight eisenhower testified before congress in 1948, and other Senior Leaders talked about what is different about our system. What is the nature and how does it play out. That is the result. That is now under attack because what our critics are saying is there is no longer a need for the specialized system of military justice apart from our legal systems. You are providing too much of a role for commanders and the abuse of discretion and how you handle these. That is being peddled in capitol hill right now. We have largely got away from a commander justice system. Hchr looked at the commanders as having too much discretion to abuse the rights of soldiers. We are getting the opposite, that our commanders are not adequately enforcing the rights of victims. With that narrative, to me, the fundamental issue is, if we are going to achieve full equality for women in our armed forces across the ranks, it would be because we have opened up all of our assignments to women, we have set the conditions for them to serve, and we have ended the restrictions on Sexual Orientation as anything to do with your ability to serve professionally, we have set the conditions to and harassment in the ranks because we think Sexual Assault, we have adequately made a culture that deters it. When we do those four things, we will have achieved an environment where all of us will serve equally in the Armed Services. I thank you for your attention and i will take your questions. [applause] stand wherever it suits you and i invite anyone in the audience to pose a question and i particularly encourage our students. [indiscernible] you talk about samesex citizens what role do you think Public Opinion has played . [indiscernible] the question is, what role does Public Opinion play in shifting our approach. I think Public Opinion plays this role. In 1992, when we had a policy that ended up as dont ask, dont tell, president clinton came in and one of the objectives of the administration colin powell was against. Charlie from northwestern. Very well respected. He had done the Demographic Data and research to show why this policy was appropriate and why america had not yet evolved on open service by homosexuals. I think Public Opinion reflects on part the change of that perspective. This young regeneration has grown up with the idea that this is not a matter of choice. This is not about any of that. This is about allowing people to be who they are. What we have seen is Public Opinion both drives that shift and follows the shift to provide greater evidence that we can change the policy. We have not had any change in the legal regime, frankly. If you look at the civil rights act, it still does not provide Sexual Orientation. It is the pace of change that struck me as significant. Yes . [indiscernible] on how the [indiscernible] insight on how [indiscernible] movie such as zero dark thirty [indiscernible] what i am wondering is how the military [indiscernible] ok, so the issue here is, what is the uniform military role in response to those conditions that ultimately enhanced interrogations techniques, water boarding, whatever you want to call it. One of the reasons i am wearing a third star now is the results of senator gramms emphasis on allowing generals to have a seat at the table in some of the policy decisions that were made that influenced the action of the administration right up to 9 11. You were saying, wait a minute, you have good experience in how to apply law of war in the geneva convention. That voice was not being heard as stridently as it needed to be within the policymaking apparatus that was considering the changes after 9 11. As a threestar in the pentagon, you have a voice. We have never changed the law of war manual. The law of the land was published in october of 1956. Rules have not changed much. The geneva conventions has been around for awhile. We understand how to apply those. I do not think there was ever a tacit approval by the military establishment of those techniques. It affected us so fundamentally in terms of perception, credibility with the international community. I look at the ongoing challenges we had in guantanamo, we will never be able to get beyond the taint. It is a fundamental problem. The leader general, a wonderful officer, the chief prosecutor. He is doing everything he can to show these are legitimate proceedings, transparent, and follow the rule of law. The commentary we get from anyone who has been involved with the issue, you cannot fix it. It is not guantanamo, then where is it . New york city . There has got to be something. I would like to ask you a question about your professional identity. The American Military has always employed people who are professional in other senses. You have ordained clerics, doctors, and lawyers. I am wondering to what extent you have seen your identity as a lawyer with your identity as an army officer. To what extent the values and goals you play and have been trained to play and faithful to your whole life in the Legal Profession, sometimes posed difficult conflicts in the very difficult culture of being a distinguished member of the Armed Services . That is a great question. I am very proud of the fact i am a member of two distinct professions. The law and the army. I take professional pride in both. There are times when i think my role as a Legal Profession was not fully appreciated by my client, the commanders i serve, who say, you lawyers always get in the way. By you just keep saying no . How about helping me do what i can do. That is supposed to be our approach. The idea is, as a Legal Professional, ultimately, i have a loyalty to the client. That client might be bradley manning, and if you have a client, your ethical obligation is a little bit less clear than the Legal Profession, who my client is as an army officer. It is very clear under my professional responsibility that my ultimate loyalty is to the department of the army, and not any individual. The commanders i advise sometimes do not like that. They will say is, i thought you were my lawyer. My response is, i am not your lawyer. My client is the department. The only oath i took is to the constitution. That is one thing i see. That is a great answer. Other questions . One over here and one over there. We will take both. Thank you again for being here. [indiscernible] Sexual Assault and military. I was wondering if you thought military culture has influenced Sexual Assault within the ranks and to help prevent that now and in the future. There are two fundamental issues that we will fail if we do not salt. Sexual assault is the first one. The second one is suicide. I will not talk about suicide. To answer your question, here is what i see as part of the challenge. When you come into the military, we try to have you abandon a personal identity so you can adopt the sense of being part of a larger identity that is more important than the individual. In many cases, the Sexual Assaults are occurring in the first 90 days of service. You see it with the 18 to 25yearold crowd. That is the common pattern in so many of these cases. I came into this army thinking i was joining a team, a team that would take care of me and look out for me. Now i have a conflict in reporting a fellow teammate is reporting me. They have a hesitation to notify the chain of command that is trying to bring you into the values we think our program to the military service. We have got to get beyond hesitation. This is an act of an assault. I cannot be any more plain than that. There were 19,000 a year estimated assaults. 3000 were reported. 80 of those assaults were never reported. How do we change the culture so that people understand it is my duty to report it . The criminal in the ranks as not does not share the values i does not share the values i uphold. We have to be able to change the culture to ensure we can address the problem. Thank you. I saw a hand over here . Could you tell me what the major differences are between the civilian law and the military law . Ok. We have under the uniform code a series of specified there is a criminal code. We have a series of procedural rules the same way every jurisdiction has them. We follow the federal rules of evidence. We call them the military rules of evidence, but they are the same. They evolved to keep pace with the federal rules of evidence. That is not a change. What is different is we have a role of commander. There is no role for the a mayor or governor, or the president , there is no role for an elected official to exercise military justice procedure. It in our system, i would take a case and we would have a pretrial investigation. I would take that case to the commander to say, commander, this case deserves a general courtmartial and the commander could look at me and say, judge, i disagree. I do not think there is evidence that would support that. I have not had that happen in my professional career. It did happen here about two weeks ago in italy. We are paying a pretty significant price for that decision by a commander who ignored the ruling of the judge who said this trial was properly conducted. That commander set the verdict aside and released an officer serving a sentence. It is a case where we think the trained lawyers should be making the decision. I have visited our allies in the u. K. And australia and canada. All of whom have got away from the system we have. None of those countries deployed 300,000 men and women, where there is a need for justice that can be proposed swiftly. Our system has to be portable so we can ensure forces are deployed. We have to have that commander, from my view, remain in the system. We just have to guide their discretion appropriately. One of the things i think we will change here, and congress will help us, the idea that the commander can overturn the judges verdict. One question in the back, i see. Someone politely deferring to someone in front of her. How civilized. I noticed in your discussion, one of the previous questions, you made a lot of talk on how to increase reports of sexual harassment. [indiscernible] advocate 19,000 [indiscernible] there are two parts to the problem here there is the problem of prevention and the problem of response. So far, much of the interest has been on the response part. Many of our critics say, what you have to do is prosecute your way out of the problem. If you prosecuted a number of cases, this problem will go away. I do not think we can prosecute out of the problem. So we have to change the idea of prevention. From the moment a new recruit arrives for training, we say, these are the values of an army soldier, these are the methods you have to report inappropriate advances and conduct. We assign bodies and have a buddy system. We have to make the dormitories a safe environment for the men and women. You know when there is a predator, you know when you are setting up somebody for a situation in which a predator can take advantage. It is the tension between the roles of the chain of command can take to change the environment, and that we are all adults and we can make choices. We are having a hard time with that balance. We have to reduce the number of overall incidents. I do not know. I think some of the problem is on college campuses, as well. We are transparent and we have a challenge of getting some numbers comparable period 18 to 25yearold is a different demographic. Our time draws short. I will take advantage of your being here to ask you one of the questions that always most intrigued me. It is the stuff of famous movies and novels and plays. Though, rarely actual occurrences in actual trials. Can you describe the acute dilemma that occurs, morally and legally, when a subordinate is ordered to do something by a superior that is manifestly illegal, sometimes in a dramatic circumstance with a prisoner or someone else . Explain a bit about the moral and legal conflict that can exist when you are issued an illegal order. What is your responsibility, what is your role in terms of executing an order that is clearly illegal . Sometimes, you exercise it at your peril. You better be sure the order you were given is in fact illegal. Each of us has an obligation to follow the orders of the officers and those appointed over us. When i get an order from a commander, initially, my presumption should be, that is a lawful order that was properly considered and executed and issued and i should do that. Having said that, there are orders where you know they are clearly illegal. Some of the prosecution we have seen over the last few years involved violations where, for example, in one case, there was a detention where a Commission Officer came back and said, i told you, no prisoners. What did you not understand . That is a clearly illegal order. You have to be able to take a prisoner if somebody is wounded and out of combat. They have to be able to have a detainee. What is my role as a soldier . First, i go back to the individual to say, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, can you tell me again what the order was . I want to be clear in my own mind that i understand what the officer expects me to do. If i am satisfied it is illegal, i have the obligation to go above that individual and say, i received an illegal order. It does not have to be just the commander. It could be the inspector general, the judge advocate, somebody else, a different commander. You have an obligation to go forth and report that illegal order. You do not get to say, the boss gave me that order so i am ok. As a superior, we have a standard where we should have known it is illegal. I have a duty to clarify that. Thank you for your service to our country and thank you for the wonderful presentation this evening. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you, everyone. Enjoy the evening. On the next washington journal, a discussion of race in america following the shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown and the protest and unrest in ferguson, missouri. Our Panel Includes daily beast correspondent eleanor clift, radio and tv talkshow host and columnist Armstrong Williams and georgetown University Law professor paul butler. He is the author of lets get free, hiphop theory of justice. As always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Washington journal, live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. On newsmakers, indiana governor mike pence talks politics and issues facing indiana and other states and governors. Governor pence is frequently mentioned as a potential president ial candidate in 2016. Heres a portion of his remarks. I think it would be a mistake for our party to continue to look to washington dc as the place where we will solve many of the intractable problems facing our country. I think it is less about where that leadership emerges from than it is about the focus. I really think to some extent our party in the last quarter century has become, as washington centric as the democratic party. In my short tenure here as governor of the state of indiana and as i have served other republican governors around the country and the results they produce, my message to our party, my message is policy a is all, and regain the white house in 2016, it will not be enough simply to cut Government Spending in washington. I think it is incumbent on our party to promote policies that will permanently reduce the size and scope of the federal government and restore to the states the resources and flexibility to solve problems for the people of their own jurisdiction. Do you think that local Police Departments, that it is excessive for local Police Departments to have some of these military like pieces of equipment . I think is important that Law Enforcement officers have the ability to protect themselves while they are protecting our families and our communities. I know theres been a lot of focus in the media on the optics of that. Again, i dont want to pass judgment on the decisions that were made by the local law or inement in ferguson that county, or in the city missouri. I think it is important that all of us keep this family at all of the affected families in prayer and that we allow the system of justice to do its work. That andery confidence whate what is wired is required in this case. This month, cspan presents debates on what makes america great, evolution, and kinetically modified foods. Issues spotlight with indepth look at Veterans Health care, higher veterans oversight, Student Loan Debt and campus. New perspectives on issues including global warming, voting rights, fighting Infectious Disease and food safety. And our history tour, showing sights and sounds from americas historic places. Find our tv schedule one week in advance at the span. Org. The us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Thirds at 2026 263400 join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. A in a family and from the annual new york ideas festival, cancer biologist Andrew Hessel on how Dna Technology may help cure cancer
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.