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."
LOL, Star Traveler. I’ve never been worried about appearing “stupid” when it comes to giving our accused military the benefit of the doubt, especially for something this trivial. I see a pattern. I call it as I see it.
If I get “upset”, fret, worry about how our accused military (on the ground) are treated, whether they can get a fair trial without spending a fortune, whether the deck is stacked against them because of the mindset of NCIS, the prosecutorial branch, and the military brass........it’s because I’ve seen a pattern.
LOL, Star Traveler. I’ve never been worried about appearing “stupid” when it comes to giving our accused military the benefit of the doubt, especially for something this trivial. I see a pattern.
Well, if you're giving the military the benefit of the doubt, remember, it's the military that is carrying out this case...
Well, if you noticed in my post, I specifically wrote giving the benefit of the doubt to our accused military.....the ones who have been charged, the ones who do the dirty business of combat, picking up the terrorists, the ones who have to follow whatever ROE's or detainee rules that are imposed for that day or operation.
The military consists of people who have been in many different conflicts over the years and they all know what is going on in that regard. And the entire military infrastructure consists of those kinds of people -- so they, also, know what is going on.
Thus, I would give the benefit of the doubt to both, the men being accused and the people who handle making sure that they keep control and order and that all of our military follows orders and does what they are supposed to do, while in the line of duty.
So, I'll simply wait to see what is "proven" by this case. That's the prudent thing to do.
Maybe by tomorrow some on this thread who doen't seem to be getting the concept of Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat will conteplate a horror that comes raining down, never to completely leave, when one is accused, knows their accuser put little thought and even less care if they're right, and flat proves it by their conduct.
Where can the Navy prove they followed basic procedures (in order) such as;
1) Take a report of suspicion or accusation of a criminal act
2) Investigation of the alleged crime - find witnesses and evidence, determine if the alleged crime ever happened, all the accounts by the accuser match those of witnesses and evidence, coroboraton.
3) Interview possible perps to the alleged crime, see if it "makes sense"
4) Redo #2 on the defendant, see if it still makes sense.
This one went straight from an accusation from a known terrorist to charges against 3 Navy Seals....actually, from what I've skimmed over, it appears they were 1st asked to give up their rights and plead guilty to a crime they hadn't yet been charged for, skipping another, and rather substantial step, especially in the minds of the Seals, Americans, and Earthlings in general.
There was No Investigation.
Just Criminal Charges.
It's the legal equivalent of a Summary Execution, and there just ain't nothing legal about that.
I hope you had a Great American Thanksgiving, Girl.
Even if I agreed with you and I don’t, it is a matter of national security that it be handled under the table out of the sight of the enemy. I will say that a legally hamstrung military cannot win a war. It simply can’t be done. It gives the enemy the upper hand. Tell lies, hide in mosques and schools, inflitrate, accuse. We have not only been fighting a 6 month war for 9 years because of these idiotic rules of engagement, but it has also cost us 2-3,000 American lives. Other than that I think you have a savvy point.
Combat is not our society. Military secrets have to stay that way. They always have been kept that way. Loose lips sink ships, right. Those dummies in the 40’s who saw things the exact opposite as you do sort of had the obvious figured out and saved the world at a cost of 600,000 American lives. Most never even went to College until it was over. Go figure!
They do, but not in the JAG, which is a collection of litigating bureaucrats with 12 weeks of basic and then courses in military procedure. They are easily manipulated by politicians and this is just another case when the CO says run with it. The regular/frequent prosecutions of our best young men in the Iraq conflict is a 9 year event. How else could the war even LAST that long; coddling the enemy and tying the hands of our young men.
Guys have already been tried for murder on the perjured testimony of the enemy, from the most disgraceful (Iraq) nation of ingrates in human history, a nation where dishonesty is part of their culture.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
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.