I'd make a couple of observations. First of all, with regard to what Mr. Drapeau said, it was rhetorically excessive and I think almost entirely without foundation.
Having regard to what Mr. Tinsley said, as I said earlier, I think that unfortunately he has misinterpreted the intent of that provision. It's clear that investigative independence for military police is extraordinarily important. It's important for the credibility of the system and it's important for the functioning of the system. It's important for the sake of justice being done. If you don't have a good police investigation as the foundation, you don't really have much that is solid to work with after that. The thought that somehow it's a retrograde step or intended to be a retrograde step simply doesn't accord with what the policy intent is here.