[luke warm]

... don't be *too* aggressive

Quote

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

a busted lip for a mass murderer? self defense i suspect... as macarthur said, "I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!"

from the dreaded fox site

[hrothgar]

Let's be clear about what has happened

A group of Navy SEALs did something very good. They captured Ahmed Hashim Abed

The same group of SEALs has been accused of doing something bad. (Beating a captive)

A trial is being held to ascertain what happened.
Personally, I don't see the problem...

Perhaps Jimmy would care to explain the disconnect?

Should Muslim's be beaten?
Alternatively, does capturing "bad people" give soldiers the right to commit crimes?
Maybe there is something wrong with holding trials...

[Winstonm]

Gee, Richard, you screwed the spin. It was such a better story when it began "Once upon a time"...

[kenberg]

If a guy wants to be a terrorist, I guess that's a career choice he can make. Seems like a bloody lip might be one of the lesser consequences. The sonofabitch is still alive. That shows extraordinary restraint and professionalism.

Where do I send my donation to the SEAL's defense fund?

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on Nov 25 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

If a guy wants to be a terrorist, I guess that's a career choice he can make. Seems like a bloody lip might be one of the lesser consequences. The sonofabitch is still alive. That shows extraordinary restraint and professionalism.

Where do I send my donation to the SEAL's defense fund?

BULLSHIT:

If the suspect ended up suffering a bloody lip while he was being apprehended, that's one thing. However, this is a case where the SEALs are being accused of beating a captive.

In what way is beating captives an exhibition of extraordinary restraint and professionalism?

Its remarkable that we're having one thread discussing whether we create two terrorists each time we kill one. Here we have a second thread saying its OK to beat captives...

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Nov 24 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

BULLSHIT:

If the suspect ended up suffering a bloody lip while he was being apprehended, that's one thing.  However, this is a case where the SEALs are being accused of beating a captive.

To use your own word, BULLSHIT. They were accused (by Abed) of punching him. If three SEALS beat a prisoner, he'd be likely to have a lot more than a bloody lip.

Was there a JAGMAN investigation? What were the findings?

Nobody in this thread has said it's okay to beat captives.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Nov 25 2009, 04:26 AM, said:

Nobody in this thread has said it's okay to beat captives.

Ken specifically said:

Quote

Where do I send my donation to the SEAL's defense fund?

One presumes that Jimmy posted the original article for a reason...

Quote

Was there a JAGMAN investigation? What were the findings?

I don't know whether a "JAGMAN" investigation has been conducted (Indeed, until now I had never even heard the expression JAGMAN).

I do know that the Seals have been charged with abusing a prisoner.
I don't know if a "busted lip" is the extent of the damages. (Unlike Jimmy, I don't put any faith into what comes out of Fox Nws)
I know that the SEALs have requested a formal court martial.
I assume that the appropriate investigations will take place.

I have no problem with any of this...

I have a severe problem with a mindset that that feels that this type of process is wrong and that the SEALs good deeds in some way excuses potential crimes

[mike777]

luke warm, on Nov 24 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

... don't be *too* aggressive

Quote

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

a busted lip for a mass murderer? self defense i suspect... as macarthur said, "I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!"

from the dreaded fox site

Needless to say there must be more to the story.


Simply punching a guy in time of war is not a crime.


Of course two wrongs never make a right but in WWII, the good war, we killed POW's and those who surrendered all the time. During D-day and the battle of Normandy, at times POW's were shot on both sides. Same was true in the Battle in the Pacific.

Of course this does not excuse punching a guy who may or may not have been a POW.


-------


Of course as we discussed in another thread I do not think bombing a building or killing 3000 civilians need be a crime or war crime. I dont know all the facts, but based on what I read in the media, these 5 guys sound like soldiers in a war, a declared war.

I note these guys declared war ahead of time and they attacked a military target, NYC and the Pentagon.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread this just sounds like a Stalinist Show Trial. Even if they are found not guilty we throw them in prison.

[blackshoe]

The accused are entitled to a defense. Although, given the nature of the military justice system, they won't actually have to pay their lawyer (unless they hire a civilian). All Ken was saying, seems to me, is that he wants to ensure they get a decent defense. I note that Ken specifically did not say that he condones beating captives. Nor do I think he does. Nor, I suspect, do you think that.

Quote

One presumes that Jimmy posted the original article for a reason...

I'm not sure I'm willing to stipulate to that.

JAGMAN=Judge Advocate General's Manual, which specifies, among other things, how investigations into such charges as these are to be conducted.

Actually, what the SEALs have done is refused to accept non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the UCMJ — as is their right. If they were guilty of the charges, or even if not guilty, but there was a good chance they'd be convicted anyway, they would have been advised to accept the NJP, and they almost certainly would have taken that advice. So I'd say the odds are pretty good that the charges are bogus.

Quote

I have a severe problem with a mindset that that feels that this type of process is wrong and that the SEALs good deeds in some way excuses potential crimes

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that anyone here feels that way. Certainly I don't.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Nov 25 2009, 05:46 AM, said:

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that anyone here feels that way. Certainly I don't.

So, what's the point of posting the Fox New bitchfest, if not to criticize the decision to prosecute the SEALs?

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that this is echoed across the right wing blogsphere because its a gripping public interest story?

[mike777]

I do think the justice system needs to be very careful in bringing charges against the Seals.

These trials may last years and in up hurting the innocent. These trials may end up making Seals and special forces and Marines much less aggressive out of fear of being put on trial for years and years. Going through a trial, any trial can rip your guts out, even if your are innocent.



That said there must be a line somewhere.

As I noted in 1944-45 that line was in one place. In 2009 that line has moved.




I do applaud POW/s for knowing there is a justice system here in the USA and how to bring Seals to a Court Martial if they get punched in the lip.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Nov 24 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

So, what's the point of posting the Fox New bitchfest, if not to criticize the decision to prosecute the SEALs?

I don't know. Ask Jimmy.

Quote

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that this is echoed across the right wing blogsphere because its a gripping public interest story?

Do you actually expect anyone who can read to believe that I said that, or anything like it?

[mike777]

I assume a courtmartial, if found guilty, will ruin their lives. I assume a long trial and appeal process will result in much pain regardless of the outcome.


Of course if they are guilty this will be a good lesson for future Seals and Marines.

[kenberg]

As with so many things, what actually happened matters. I own up to saying a little more than that the SEALs should get a fair trial. Emotionally, I am on their side. If they did something wrong then yes, there must be consequences. Going into the cell and beating the crap out of him would be illegal and it would be wrong. But my guess, and very much my hope, is that that is not at all what happened.

It's always dangerous to crawl into anyone's quarrels, even if you know the principals. Here I don't know anyone at all. Sight unseen, I choose the SEALs. Just as sight unseen, others are deciding that the SEALs have done something wrong. If it turns out to be that they did wrong, no doubt the prosecutor will show it to be so. Until that happens, I am on their side.

[mike777]

Of course if they are found not guilty the enemy can decide if they inflicted harm or damage worthwhile to do this tactic again.

[blackshoe]

Without knowing the precise charges these guys face, it's hard to say what the punishment would be, but my guess is the most they could get would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a year in Leavenworth.

As to "sight unseen", I'm with Ken - sight unseen, I'm on the side of the SEALs. If they're guilty, I'm sure the court will so find.

[kenrexford]

I must be old. It seems to me that a punch to the face of a person like this is just good old fashioned American spirit. Don't tell me this BS about crimes and beating prisoners and all this. There is a wild difference between torture, abuse, and the like, as opposed to a nice smack to the jaw.

I mean, come on. Grow up. This is so absolutely ridiculous to me. A friggin' bloody lip?!?!?

I don't want to hear garbage like somehow this will invoke more terrorists. This is far from anything like gassing villages. Some asshole got what any of thousands of men get each Saturday night in any of thousands of bars around the world.

I don't want to hear about how this violates some dumb ass treaty. I don't want to hear how this violates some rule of the Marine Corps. Frankly, I'd love to see the picture of this guy and his little boo boo.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Nov 24 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

Without knowing the precise charges these guys face, it's hard to say what the punishment would be, but my guess is the most they could get would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a year in Leavenworth.

As to "sight unseen", I'm with Ken - sight unseen, I'm on the side of the SEALs. If they're guilty, I'm sure the court will so find.

Yes...and if they are not guilty, and they lose years of their lives over this case, so be it.

Let none of us pretend if they are courtmartialed and found not guilt that these Seals will suffer and suffer alot.

[blackshoe]

Pour a little more hydrogen on the fire, Ken.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Nov 24 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 24 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

Without knowing the precise charges these guys face, it's hard to say what the punishment would be, but my guess is the most they could get would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a year in Leavenworth.

As to "sight unseen", I'm with Ken - sight unseen, I'm on the side of the SEALs. If they're guilty, I'm sure the court will so find.

Yes...and if they are not guilty, and they lose years of their lives over this case, so be it.

I'm not sure I see how they'll lose "years of their lives" if they're not guilty.