Bread and water, anyone?

The New York Times has this Christmas Day report on the end of bread and water as a punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Please note that the last two paragraphs (which quote the editor of this blog) are garbled and include errors. I understand they will be fixed.

Postscript: A few hours later The Times modified the online version of the article and posted this correction:

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the Supreme Court review process for disciplinary cases. Reviews to the Supreme Court are handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, not by the military itself.

Translation: unless the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces grants discretionary review, a court-martial appeal cannot be considered by the Supreme Court. Thus, when it declines to grant its own review, CAAF also blocks review by the Supreme Court. Because CAAF grants review in only a small fraction of the cases that are brought to it, the lion's share of courts-martial are ineligible for Supreme Court review . . . unlike state and federal civilian criminal cases and even military commission cases.