A Little Rock Air Force Base airman lost his stripes Friday and was ordered to jail for a month after being found guilty of assault for whipping his stepdaughter with a belt and an extension cord, but the military court stopped short of kicking him out of the service.

KWCH News 12 reports:

The Air Force will convene a general court martial in the case against Tech. Sgt. David Gutierrez. A court martial date of Jan. 10, 2011, has been set by the docketing office in Washington, D.C. The charges are based on allegations Sergeant Gutierrez engaged in unprotected sexual relations with multiple people in and around Wichita. The military says Gutierrez did not tell them he is HIV positive.

Military.com also reports this Whiteman AFB court-martial as pending.

In United States v. Medina, CGCCA reduces two months (of a served sentence) for post-trial delay in accordance with United States v. Tardiff, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002).

The Guardian (UK) has a short report on Wikileaks:

Britain’s role in the alleged torture and unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians may be the subject of legal action following the publication of nearly 400,000 leaked military documents by the website WikiLeaks. British lawyers said the classified US army field reports embroiled British as well as American forces in an alleged culture of abuse and extrajudicial killings in Iraq. Solicitor Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, appearing alongside WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a press conference in London today, said some of the deaths documented in the reports may have involved British forces and could now go through the UK courts.

Before this court, Appellant has assigned two errors: (1) This court should consider the unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay in determining the sentence that should be approved under Article 66(c); and (2) the promulgating order contains three errors. We grant sentence relief for post-trial delay and otherwise affirm. . . . Notable delays in post-trial processing are found in the fifty-nine days apparently taken by the military judge to authenticate the record, the seventy-seven days taken after receipt of the authenticated record to produce the SJAR and send it to defense counsel, and the twenty-eight days between Convening Authority action and sending the record to Headquarters. The Memorandum forwarding the record gives no meaningful explanation for these delays, attributing them only to “administrative processing.”

Note to defense counsel.

Appellant did assert the right to timely review twice before the Convening Authority. On both occasions, the Government took its next step within three days of Appellant’s assertion of right. The appearance is that Convening Authority action might have occurred far later but for Appellant’s reminders to the Government.

The court found no prejudice.

We turn now to Appellant’s argument: that we should grant sentence relief under United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002), which held that we may grant relief for excessive post-trial delay without a showing of prejudice. Id. at 224. Upon finding unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay, this Court may consider such delay, along with all the other facts and circumstances, in exercising its responsibilities under Article 66(c), UCMJ. Id. We have granted such relief in several cases, most recently in United States v. Beaber (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 15 April 2010) (unpub.), and before that in United States v. Greene, 64 M.J. 625 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2007).