Posted on 11/27/2009 8:32:10 AM PST by Irisshlass
The military is throwing the book at three terrorist-hunting Navy SEALs who captured one of the most wanted in Iraq.
It seems one of the commandos may have punched Ahmed Hashim Abed, who intelligence reports said planned the bloody ambush of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah, Iraq, five years ago.
Instead of plaudits, three SEALs face court-martial in January. And conservatives are expressing outrage to HUMAN EVENTS.
Abed, whom the U.S. command designated "Objective Amber," was nabbed in darkness Sept. 3 by a platoon of commandos from SEAL Team 10, based in Norfolk.
The next few hours proved a bit comical. The SEALS took him to an Iraqi police station to enter the country's judicial system. But when the higher-ups were notified, they told the sailors to get him back. He was too valuable. After hours of negotiations, the Iraqis gave him back and Abed ended up in a cell inside the U.S.-secured Green Zone.
Sometime along the way Abed alleged he was punched and showed a bloody lip to prove it.
The military is hypersensitive to any charge of prisoner abuse or any hint of a coverup. A SEAL officer immediately notified the chain of command. Next thing the SEAL platoon knew, they were writing out statements and being investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS).
The SEALs were sent packing back to Norfolk. They will be arraigned next Monday and face separate special courts-martial. The case was first reported Tuesday by FoxNews.com.
Three other SEALs -- two officers and an enlisted man -- in the unit have given statements as witnesses. According to one statement obtained by Fox, the SEAL told investigators he looked in on the detainee and did not see any injuries.
The charges were brought by the commander of the special operations component of U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.
The three SEALs charged:
Matthew McCabe, special operations petty officer second class (SO-2). Offenses: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee; making false official statement; and assault.
Jonathan Keefe, SO-2. Dereliction of performance of duty and making false official statement.
Julio Huertas, SO-1. Dereliction of duty; making false statement and impediment of an investigation.
The March 2004 Fallujah atrocity was a turning point in the war. Insurgents ambushed four Blackwater agents, all former commandoes. They died in a hale of gunfire and grenades. Insurgents then burned the bodies and dragged them through town. Two were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River, for the world media to see.
The gruesome picture was a wake up call to the U.S. military. It now knew it faced a vicious enemy able to spring attacks throughout the country.
Conservative bloggers are ridiculing the military for filing criminal charges against three brave warriors.
"Navy SEALs betrayed by our own government! Who will be next," one blared.
Another website said, "PC rubbish at its worst."
Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and fights against a political corrected armed forces, said she is appalled.
“This prosecution is a disturbing vision of the demoralizing legal entanglements that our soldiers will face in the future if they capture murderous enemies in a war zone," she told HUMAN EVENTS. "Now that the Obama Administration has decided to play along with terrorists who demand an undeserved show-trial in New York City, terrorists know exactly how to exploit for their own benefit military regulations as well as civilian law. The prosecuting authorities’ thoughtless lack of judgment in this case reminds me of the canary in the coal mine, an unmistakable sign of dangers to come."
I think we should all remember ALLEGDLY. The word has been worn out through technical use in the news, but these SEALs deserve all the presumption of innocence. All it would take is a move towards one of the SEALs and it's the legitimate subduing of a dangerous, unruly prisoner.
A thread to read at pleasure when you have the time. :-)
....and as to the question of WHY the military should send these Navy SEALs through a court martial to begin with, given all we DO know about this “detainee”.....you have not answered (at least from what I can gather by your posts).
How do you know that the prisoner was compliant when he was captured? How do you know that he wasn't trying to shout out and warn his fellow terrorists to his capture. Seal teams operate small units. So maybe they gave him a good shot in the mouth to shut him up. Irregardless you were not there and you are going off of information released by the state run media and their hopes are they will fuel enough outrage to call for their heads. The American people are wise to the ways of you commies.
In response to your wishing they would of shot him on sight. That should be the norm when you are fighting a bunch of barbaric animals. But your double standards reflects your political correctness whereas you call for their punishment for a shot in the mouth as oppose to wishing they would of just shot him. Had they shot him, you and your fellow commies would be screaming for the seals to be tried for cold bloodied murder.
What if this was OBL? Do you think a Navy SEAL would be brought up on charges for an alleged busted lip, a punch?
As far as military experience, thank you for your service.
My husband is retired with 24 years (2-Marines and 22 Army).
As for special ops/intel, I know only what I read and heard. There was a lot going on during both Korea and Vietnam. One friend here in AL was intel/sp ops in Korea and was pursued stateside and two attempts made on his life.
What is your take on these Seals, then?
vaudine
You sure you have the right guy, I think I said to kill them.
Maybe. You'll notice our troops acted professionally in the capture of Saddam. I understand emotions will run high and the desire to give him a smack would be great, but that's why we're supposed to have discipline.
I don't know, but that must be the claim if charges are being made.
Had they shot him, you and your fellow commies would be screaming for the seals to be tried for cold bloodied murder.
No need to get nasty. There would be no question had they shot him during an engagement instead of capturing him. One more dead insurgent, yippie. They would be in very serious trouble had they shot him while in custody.
I'll state it simply: Rules of engagement no longer apply once an enemy is captured. After that, long-standing regulations concerning the handling of enemy prisoners go into effect. Those regulations state, as I've shown, that prisoners are to be protected from harm. The regulations are unambiguous, and they do not make allowance for personal feelings of anger over what the enemy's done.
Right there tells me you have not been to Iraq or Afghan in combat...because they are questioned after engagement.
No, I inlcuded you and blackbart because I agree with of you (I dropped out of the thread to hit the rack, being in Germany).
Like our mailroom clerk who started showing up with stuff in his room, only to find out those were things other soldiers had sent to them through the mail. He was stealing mail. Another one in another unit was stealing government travel cards and using them. Another one claimed his ATM card had been stolen and fraudulently used. He had all the charges reversed, only to be caught having used it himself one of those times. Another one beat up a hooker he knew, almost killed her (he was one of the Leavenworth guys).
The escalated case was the most stupid. An NCO had committed an infraction that's, let's say, not in the good order and discipline of the unit. We all knew he did it, we knew exactly what happened. It wasn't that big of a deal. He was going to get a company-grade Article 15 consisting of a small fine and a short confinement to barracks with extra duty (cleaning, etc.). It was a slap on the wrist common for misbehavior in the unit. It was common enough that almost every CQ runner duty I had there included watching someone doing his extra duty. I remember because that meant the CQ runner didn't have to do the cleaning that night.
Anyway, he refused, it eventually went to special court martial, and he went to Mannheim.
How do you question a dead terrorist?
Oh, you meant the questioning of the soldiers? I meant the propriety of killing someone in combat wouldn't be questioned, as opposed to a soldier killing someone in custody. There are always AARs.
Like I said you have not been in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan...move on.
bttt
....and as to the question of WHY the military should send these Navy SEALs through a court martial to begin with, given all we DO know about this “detainee”.....you have not answered
Well, as everyone is aware, not all information is released about what happens in these things until a trial actually happens. That's when we get the full story. Until then all we do is guess and speculate.
We can state what has been reported, but at the same time, I think everyone is aware that we don't have the full story. We never do until a trial is completed.
An obvious statement is that the people around those people who were charged thought that something needed to be reported (at least from a news report that I read, and of course that would be obvious, otherwise, there would be no charges). And then, past that, (that is..., past the fact that someone, or several, thought something needed to be reported), the ones in command also thought that charges needed to be brought. Again, this is stating the obvious, otherwise, there would be "no case" here.
That much we do know, "by the obvious"...
Now, to get the "full story" we have to wait until we hear about the proceeding from the trial and then we'll know. And past that, we also wait to see if the charges can be proven or not, and if they are found guilty or not.
If they are not guilty, you'll hear about that. I'm sure the people who will be hearing the case will take their responsibility very seriously and will bring it to final resolution with a full hearing and an inpartial decision based on the facts that they are presented with.
And that is our system, be it military or civilian.
The full answer to your question will have to wait until the final resolution of the case. Prior that that final resolution, either you or I or others simply don't know and don't have all the facts.
This is what I got from your reply. We don't know all the facts, something must have happened to have the charges preferred, we'll know once the Article 32 or court martial is over.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I wouldn't be trying to get upset over things that no one fully knows or understands yet. That's jumping the gun on the matter.
It's different when you know that an Administration is pushing something like "Obamacare" in which you know what the situation is, that is being promoted. In this case, there's a lot that we don't know yet.
What you and I don't know can make us look stupid if we get upset over something and facts come out later that make it clear that we were wrong. That's the problem that one encounters with these kinds of things.
Sure, I would like to get in there and know all the details and facts, and then I wouldn't be "in the dark" about it, but it's not going to work that way.
AND so, people here can speculate and discuss things, but just don't get upset over something you don't know for sure. There are a lot of other things that we do know about this administration that is documented absolutely without doubt. I would caution about getting upset about this until all is known about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.