While I am sure it is not lost on our readers that CAAFlog has been OOC most of the week while doing Reserve duty, it has been a particularly slow news week.  I haven’t seen  a published CCA case all week and my Google alerts have given me little more than repeated updates from Bangladesh that the military “has decided to fast-track the trial of border guards accused of killing dozens of senior army officers during a mutiny in February” after the country’s Supreme Court said the military couldn’t court-martial the entire 3,500 person border guard unit, story here—moral of that story, don’t mess with the Bangladesh. 

Thus, the Fab Four now returns this blog to its regularly scheduled programming of CAAFlog insight, updates, and rants–and irregular comments from the rest of us.

14 Responses to “Slow News Week”

  1. Phil Cave says:


    This USCG case came out recently.

    And Lynndie England’s case was decided recently by ACCA.http://courtmartial.typepad.com/mljucmj/2009/09/lynndie-england-acca-decision.html

  2. Look, Man says:

    I suggest that someone just poke at Cossio- he will stir things up.

  3. Bridget says:

    Phil. How did you find the England decision?

  4. Phil Cave says:

    It’s on ACCA’s website under Memorandum Opinions – by date.

    That’s the benefit of my little plug-in to Firefox. Here’s the link. It’s a great little tool. You really can hit the Get My Coffee icon and while you get your coffee it loads up all your news papers, sites you like to check daily.


  5. No Man says:

    Thanks Phil. The England decision looks interesting. I am always amazed at what the CCAs view as publishable opinions.

  6. Bill C says:

    Coffee? I thought it would be high tea!

  7. Phil Cave says:


  8. Bill C says:

    Interestingly, an opinion just came out on the NMCCA web site. It says “Opinion of the Court” in bold letters and then says “As an unpublished opinion this does not serve as precedent.” Hmmm.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I will keep mum on my thoughts on the England decision

    but another interesting side note/case out of the civilian world:


    Judge sleeping with prosecutor during a death penalty trial? Completely fine since they hid it and you didn’t raise it on appeal because they didn’t reveal it until it was too late for you to raise it.

  10. Anonymous says:

    England opinion is spot on.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Well, that’s AN opinion on the England decision. :)

  12. Phil Cave says:

    Right on Anon 1958.
    There was nothing earth shattering from a legal precedent perspective in the England decision.
    The fact that it is a notorious case does not mean the appellate courts need treat it so.
    Cheers all.

  13. Anonymous says:

    not quite what I meant. It isn’t an Earth shattering issue or notorious but the opinion being “spot on” is an opinion not shared by all, and it is an interesting issue that CAAF may look at depending on how Diaz falls out concerning the limits, if any, in rejecting a guilty plea.

    At any rate, no it isn’t a huge thing.

  14. Phil Cave says:

    Concur the potential impact of Diaz.
    Without Alford pleas where do we go?
    What is the state “rule” on Alford, can the judge refuse to accept?