Very well put, Peter.

If she has a good lawyer, she can probably get a 'neutral' discharge out of this.

But keep an eye open for the dirty pictures she and Graner took of themselves. According to what I have read, that is where this whole thing started.

And if Ms. England were blond and blue-eyed, the left would hate her even more.

This is an interesting difference between civilian and military justice.

The real problem, Peter, isn't she was a woman in a place where women shouldn't have been.

The real problem is that she was a moron in a place where morons shouldn't have been.

From what I've seen, she and Garner could barely qualify as primates, much less full-fledged Military Policemen.

Just give her a discharge and boot her out.

I thought being an idiot was a qualification for being an MP, it's certainly true for law enforcement in suburbia. That and cowardice.

It is virtually impossible for an American serviceman or woman to commit a war crime, and it is even less possible to commit a war crime against a terrorist, so what are we bringing this dimwit up on charges for?

I doubt you have 20 people, who aren't contributors to MoveOn or who aren't Muslim, in the whole country who think she should spend a second in the hoosegow.

Perhaps I might help us understand what happened. This was not a "mistrial." Actually it was nothing like a mistrial, as it took place during a failed attempt to plead guilty. Here the Accused's plea of guilty was rejected as "improvident," on the grounds that the Accused adduced evidince inconsistent with the state of mind necessary to establish guilt.
\
"Blowing providency, " as this is called deprives the Accused of the protection of the negotiated plea agreement theretofore arrived at. In military practice, the plea agreememt is between the Accused and the Convening Authority--the commander who sent the case to court--and not between the defendant ant the court.

Defense counsel commonly make the best deal they can with the CA and then go members for sentencing in an attempt to beat the Plea Agreement, i.e. get a lighter sentence out of the members.

Blowing providency is a disaster for the defense and is usually the result of incompetence and faulty preparation--not spotting issues. It is usually a real bush-leage play. I cannot say that this DC screwed this up without knowing a lot more, but I can say that it never happened to me in hundreds of cases as DC, IMC and IC. Remember, the Accused merely has to recognize the illegality of his or her acts and explain or be ready to explain why possible defenses raised by the colloquy to not apply.

We'll probably have to wait for the book to know what took place. The press still thinks what was happened was a "mistrial." I'd rather read about the case of the Worthy Oriental Gentleman who fragged the officers--now there was a CM!

H.D.

Yes, that too. But the point is that the sexual taunting/degradation/humiliation was seen by almost everyone as a form of torture, even though it is absurd to consider it so.