what is interesting about the abu ghraib "prosecutions" is that all plea-bargains have been backward. normally a prosecuter will offer a deal in exchange for tesimony implicating someone higher up on the food chain. prosecuters build their carreers on getting the "BIG FISH" and little fish are tools to trade up, not the end goals of prosecution themselves.
obviously the military prosecuters here have different marching orders, as in each case where a plea was entered into the little fish made statements AS PART OF THEIR PLEAS affirming that they acted as individuals and not on orders that were part of a larger, structural abuse!!!
of course there is a conflict of interest allowing the military to prosecute this. The same military structure that plea bargains designed to get the Big Fish would expose are -- coincidentally!! -- in authority over those prosecuters who would be in the position to make such plea deals.
pfc. englund chose not to take the prosecution's "deal" of falling on her sword; and, believe me, she will pay!