Here is an interesting Washington Post opinion piece about some contractors in Iraq.

THE ALLEGATIONS are sadly familiar by now: The men were picked up by U.S. military forces, locked in tiny cells, deprived of sleep, and subjected to extreme temperatures and loud music. What makes these allegations extraordinary is that the men in question, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, are U.S. citizens who were working in 2006 for an Iraqi security firm, Shield Group Security. According to court documents, Mr. Vance warned Iraqi-based U.S. officials about possible corruption at the firm, including the funneling of weapons to insurgents. After getting the brushoff, Mr. Vance contacted Chicago agents with the FBI on his next visit home. Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel began passing information to the FBI once they were back in Iraq. That ended when the firm became suspicious and took the men hostage; Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel were able to call their FBI contacts, who then alerted the military, which sent soldiers to rescue the men.

Army Times reports:

Attorneys for a disgruntled Army Reserve soldier who fatally shot his supervisor after his vacation was denied say his fasting to meet stringent military weight guidelines left him in a trancelike state. (This courtroom sketch shows Army Reserve Sgt. Rashad Valmont during military hearing Monday, Aug. 30, 2010 at Fort McPherson, Ga. Attorney William Cassara, not shown, said Valmont was dehydrated, exhausted and delirious when he burst into Master Sgt. Pedro Mercado’s office in nearby Fort Gillem in June and shot him six times. (AP Photo/Richard Miller) (Richard Miller – AP))

The Washington Post has this report.

The Smoking Gun reports:

An HIV-positive Air Force sergeant failed to disclose his medical condition before engaging in sexual activity with a “multitude” of partners he met at “swinger” parties and through adult web sites, according to a military investigation, The Smoking Gun has learned. The criminal probe of Sgt. David Gutierrez, a 20-year military veteran, began last month when the Air Force Office of Special Investigations received information that he had “engaged in numerous, unprotected sexual acts…over the course of three years.” According to court records, investigators charge that, due to Gutierrez’s HIV status, these encounters amounted to “aggravated assault against several men and women in and around the Wichita, Kansas area.” The 43-year-old Gutierrez, stationed at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, was “apprehended” on August 9 for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. An HIV-positive Air Force sergeant failed to disclose his medical condition before engaging in sexual activity with a “multitude” of partners he met at “swinger” parties and through adult web sites, according to a military investigation, The Smoking Gun has learned. The criminal probe of Sgt. David Gutierrez, a 20-year military veteran, began last month when the Air Force Office of Special Investigations received information that he had “engaged in numerous, unprotected sexual acts…over the course of three years.” According to court records, investigators charge that, due to Gutierrez’s HIV status, these encounters amounted to “aggravated assault against several men and women in and around the Wichita, Kansas area.” The 43-year-old Gutierrez, stationed at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, was “apprehended” on August 9 for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And:

The Air Force sergeant accused of failing to inform a “multitude” of sex partners of his HIV-positive status has been jailed since his arrest earlier this month and faces a preliminary hearing next month, according to an Air Force spokesperson.

Marine Corps Times has this survey.

Does “drop and give me 20” cut it? Or does he warrant a tougher punishment — maybe standing at parade rest for hours at a time, or spending all night cleaning the barracks? Or would that be considered hazing?

Military.com has this piece which I would put in the collateral damage column.

Two Army psychologists helped perpetrate abuse of detainees at Guantanamo Bay including sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation, according to complaints filed Wednesday by human rights groups trying to have the psychologists’ state licenses revoked.

Legal experts will analyze the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases for decades to come, but presented here are the court opinions themselves, unedited and in their entirety, so that readers can review a court’s reasoning firsthand, unfiltered and without bias. The opinions are in answer to rulings appealed by both the detainees and the U.S. government, as well as other interested parties, from the earliest rulings in 2002 through the end of 2009. While most of the decisions in the collection involve Gitmo detainees directly, other related cases are included for context and to fill out the evolution of how the U.S. courts are handling the laws and policies resulting from the war on terror. Nearly 200 court decisions are included in this extensive collection, covering topics that include terrorism, habeas corpus, al Qaeda, enemy combatants, military tribunals, federal courts, civilian courts, the Supreme Court, court rulings and appeals, lawsuits and trials, the Constitution and constitutional rights, the Geneva Convention, the George W. Bush administration, presidential power, President Barack Obama, the military, the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11.

In the Nov. 10 Journal article, Davis wrote that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s decision to use both federal court and military commissions to try detainees was “a mistake.” “It will establish a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions,” Davis wrote. In a letter to The Post that was published Nov. 11, Davis said former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey was engaged in “fear-mongering worthy of former vice president Dick Cheney” when he raised security concerns about bringing detainees into the United States for prosecution.

As a retired military officer, is there Article 88, UCMJ, jeopardy here?