I posted this because it sets out some of the procedures in military law. Maybe this will help someone who is at this stage to understand the process.

*****************


FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - Pfc. Lynndie England on Tuesday surrendered her right to challenge the seven charges she faces in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, moving her one step closer to a new military trial. (By 'surrendering her rights' she has waived her right to an Article 32 hearing...essentially asking that the trial go forward without a preliminary determination that there is a basis in fact for the charges.)

Her defense attorney, Capt. Jonathan Crisp, would not provide details as to why he decided not to go forward with the Article 32 hearing - the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding. He said only that it was part of an "evolving trial strategy."

Now the decision on England's charges goes to Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, Fort Hood's commanding general. He'll decide whether she'll face any or all of the charges.

Crisp said the waiver was not part of a deal with prosecutors. He said he did not think the sides would reach another plea agreement after England's initial guilty plea was rejected by a judge this month.

Prosecution spokeswoman Maj. Rose Bleam said that if Metz orders a trial it could start as soon as next month.

England could face up to 11 years in prison. She faces two counts of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, four counts of maltreatment and one count of committing an indecent act.

Many of the acts were captured in photographs. In one, the 22-year-old reservist held a leash looped around the neck of a hooded, naked prisoner. Another showed her next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid, while a third depicted England pointing at a prisoner's genitals as a cigarette dangled from her lips.

Crisp said earlier that his client has been emotionally drained by her long legal fight, particularly after her guilty plea was abruptly thrown out on May 4.

"She was real upset the first week or two," Crisp said. "She's still in the same position she was before (the deal) and she wants to move on with the next stage of her life."

In March, Metz referred nine counts against England for a general court-martial; two were later dropped as part of the aborted plea deal.

But a military judge threw out her guilty plea when testimony during sentencing contradicted her claim that the photos were taken solely to amuse the U.S. guards. Pvt. Charles Graner, serving 10 years for his mistreatment of Iraqi detainees, testified that the pictures were meant to be used as a training aid for other guards.

Under military law, the judge could accept the guilty plea only if he were convinced that she knew at the time that her actions were illegal. (This is another step in the "plea soliloquoy" the judge must cover before accepting the plea. Rules of Procedure set out that the judge must determine that the defendant understands the charges, knows of all available defenses, is knowingly, voluntary and intelligently entering the plea, and admits to the facts as they are alleged. Any misstep on the part of the judge at this phase can be a sound basis for appeal)

Graner had been named as a possible defense witness at the Article 32 hearing, which had been scheduled to start Tuesday.

How come we hear about what the soliders did, but what about the ones that are above them? I mean these soliders did not just up and decide one day hey we are going to take pictures. So what about the higher ups. well they anything be done to them?

One Reserve Brigadier General is being demoted in Rank to Colonel, but the rest, because they kept their mouths shut are not having any sort of punishment. She wouldn't have either if she had just kept quiet but she kept mouthing off and talking to the press. This is like everything since Viet Nam and Lt Calley and before -- the higher ups will never be punished.