Well you are aware of course that even in the military the accused get to know who their accusers are? That when he testified the defendents would know him, see him and be aware of who he was?
He merely turned in evidence ,he is NOT an accusor. He did not want his name puplic and had the right to remain anonomous.It had already been agreed upon
Further your own article makes it clear the military was not the problem, it was morons in his home town. Again they would have know who he was as soon as he testified.He never would have had to tesitfy
And it is quite believable that Rumsfield would not know of any agreement to not mention his name made by a local command, since at trial he would become public knowledge. Your unreasoning hatred of all things to do with this administration clouds and perverts everything you see, hear and say.
Even this soldier thinks it was done on purpose
You really need to change your name to Mytruthisallthatmatters. Truthmatters as your name is a joke of huge unbelievable proportions.