[mike777]

blackshoe, on Nov 24 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

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.

let none of us pretend that going through a court case does not cause pain and suffering and that this case, going on already how long,? could go on for more than 12 months. Also keep in mind even if the criminal case is not guilty, we get a second bite at the apple in a civil case. Of course they may also lose in the civil case but at least they get to sue you and drag you into another court case.

----------


Again that bloody lip did not happen out of thin air.....I understand those who want the case to run its course no matter how long justice takes.

[blackshoe]

I doubt Mr. Abed will have the chutzpah to bring a civil suit. But maybe he will. If I were the SEALs, I'd worry about that when it happens.

I have no idea when this alleged incident happened, or when the accusation was made, or when the charges were brought. I do not know for certain, but my impression after 20 years in the military is that the long delays typical of trials in the civilian courts are not typical of trials in courts martial. Based on that, and assuming the charges were recent, I would be very surprised if the trial drags on for as much as six months, much less a year.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Nov 24 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

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...

we only have the info we have... during the course of arresting a known murderer, he was injured... this should never have come to this if we are indeed at war... and why would you attempt to poison the well with your muslim comment? he's a terrorist, a murderer... they come in all flavors

Winstonm, on Nov 24 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

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

what spin?

[Codo]

Some of these responses make me shiver. I 100% agree with Richard. I think everybody who claims that taking this to court is wrong or that hit prisoners is right is completly nuts and has no understanding of civil rights.

[kenberg]

From the original post:

"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."

The description leaves a lot of room for people to fill in gaps in the account.


I ran a scene through in my mind. I am chosen for a jury pool and go through voit dire or whatever it is called to see if I can be an unbiased juror. I would answer honestly. If the SEALs, after he was jailed, entered his cell and beat him, if the evidence shows that that happened, I could vote quilty. Because I am who I am, I would be saddened doing it, but I would do it. If we are discussing something such as "The prisoner was told to proceed to the cellblock he refused, we attempted to coerce him, he resisted, in the struggle we bloodied his lip" then if the prosecutor wants a conviction he had better get a different juror.

If this makes me nuts or unappreciative of civil liberties then you had better build a very large nuthouse because I think I will have lots of company.

PS Happyn Thanksgiving to all. You may have to get along without my wisdom for a bit, we have company tomorrow and I expect to be recruited for various duties this afternoon.

[luke warm]

ditto

[Winstonm]

Quote

we only have the info we have... during the course of arresting a known murderer, he was injured... he's a terrorist, a murderer... they come in all flavors
QUOTE
(Winstonm @ Nov 24 2009, 06:43 PM)
Gee, Richard, you screwed the spin.  It was such a better story when it began "Once upon a time"...

what spin?

Pretty much like the spin you just put on yourself above. ....during the course of arresting... What you posted is the a wanted terrorist was captured and beaten by his captors - to have been beaten by captors he would have to already be IN captivity. And then...known murderer I see, and now we have already had his trial and he has been convicted of murder - so how was this convicted murdered, who had to be in custody to have been tried and found guilty, injured during his arrest?

Quote

So I'd say the odds are pretty good that the charges are bogus.

Seeing that it was Fox News, I'd say odds are pretty good the entire story is bogus.

[Winstonm]

Codo, on Nov 25 2009, 06:53 AM, said:

Some of these responses make me shiver. I 100% agree with Richard. I think everybody who claims that taking this to court is wrong or that hit prisoners is right is completly nuts and has no understanding of civil rights.

If we use Guantanemo as the example, the U.S. tends to run around a 14% accuracy rate for arresting the right guys when it comes to terrorist suspects. But so many are blinded by vengeance and the concept of American Exceptionalism that simply uttering the claim "terrorist" is enough to invalidate the very laws that made us exceptional in the first place.

A country that lives by the rule of law must be brave enough to allow some bad guys to go free if the law cannot convict them. It is the only sure way for all to stay free.

Of course, those who fear the rule of law...well....they are the real chickens according to Glenn Greenwald:

Quote

John Bolton is the prototypical right-wing pseudo-tough-guy:  cheering on every war he can find without ever getting near any of them.  And as usual for this strain of play-acting, chest-beating warrior, all of the belligerence and craving of vicarious power masks a deep and pitiful cowardice.  That is often the principal purpose of warmongering from a distance.  Yesterday, Bolton -- on "Washington Times Radio" -- revealed that he is so petrified of Terrorists that he would not feel safe in New York City during the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and would not even allow his family there

Typical of the warmongers.