Thank you, Chair, and thank you both for your very articulate presentations. I was thinking when I was listening to both of you that there is a golden rule of justice: we should expect for our military the same level of justice that we expect for ourselves.
I've never been to a summary trial, but I'm given to understand that a soldier is literally double-marched in, made to stand for the entire process, and has access only to other members of the chain of command. The soldier has no real counsel, and your 97% or 98% conviction rate would seem to indicate that they really put the summary in summary. It is a system designed to gain convictions rather than to do justice to the individual soldier.
My question is whether the rule should be that it should look as civilian as possible—that is, whether it should be a parallel system. Given that the military is unique and that military culture is unique, what is the justification for no rights of appeal, no rights to counsel, and the casual regard for rules of evidence? You, sir, have been in and around this system for a long time, and I find your argument quite compelling.