I would just remind everyone of what the Supreme Court has also said in the case of somebody who is confined to barracks as a minor punishment:
Even if their liberty is restricted by the conditions attached to their sentence, they are not confined to an institution and they can continue to attend to their normal employment or educational endeavours. They are not deprived of their private life to the same extent. Nor are they subject to a regimented schedule or an institutional diet.
If they're confined to barracks, they have restriction of movement. If they are confined to barracks, sometimes COs can confine them to a ship or barracks for up to 21 days. If that is still the minor punishment that's allowed under the current rule, then you're talking about a penal sentence. A penal sentence requires that people be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be in the wrong.
Again, I think we have to be as fair as possible on this. This is the way we can actually bring in some balance by adding in burden of proof respecting rulings around the military justice system, what minor sanctions are and what we're trying to do in administrative duties, but at the same time, there needs to be some consistency in how we are determining these things from a matter of burden of proof. If we're not going to give them the elective of being tried by a court martial, we definitely need to make sure that the burden of proof is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.