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."
Read this carefully. Get back to me.
I left a message on their discussion forum.
It's a tough one. We are strict on our treatment of prisoners. OTOH, not much damage was done. IF *** BIG IF *** the SEALs acted inappropriately, then you'd think a Captain's Mast would be in order, not a full court martial.
But then we don't know the whole story. Perhaps it started as a Captain's Mast, but the SEALs refused because they know the prisoner is lying, and refusal usually elevates an issue to court martial. Now they get to show their innocence in the court martial.
Read this carefully. Get back to me.
You don't think I missed this the first time, do you? In case you do, let me clear it up. I didn't.
And again, it's in everyone's interest to make sure that these things are public, if it involves charges and/or accusations like this. Hiding things and making them secret, when someone is charged with something is not in anyone's benefit, not in our form of government.
And they also gave strict orders for treatment of EPWs. Would you people please understand the difference between combat and treatment of prisoners!
Well, I think the whole story is not known at this point.
I would think this would be true in this case and in many court cases. All the information that is known and can be brought to trial is not going to be released in public before the trial.
So, I think we can agree on this one.
With no reliable witnesses against them, I don’t see the point of charges against these seals.
Whose going to testify? The captured terrorist?
The alleged victim has no credibility as a witness, upon cross examination he would be impeached as a vermin that would say anything. Of course that’s in a civilian court, perhaps the rules are different in a military court.
That would have been fine with me, and probably fine with the Navy too. But our military has always had policies about what you do to them should you decide to capture them instead of kill them.
And quit tap dancing. It's more than obvious you haven't seen a day of combat in your entire life.
I think my knowledge of the military's rules for treatment of prisoners shows it is more likely that I did than you. Our soldiers don't have to be gentle with prisoners (the takedown procedure upon capture is in no way gentle), but they are not allowed to physically abuse prisoners. In fact, they are bound by law to protect prisoners from physical abuse.
On what planet do you reside...better yet...what kind of dope are you smoking?
They are not required to prove their innocence, numbskull. It's the prosecution's job to show why this terrorist animal puke should be believed beyond a reasonable doubt.
And they shouldn't have been charged criminally--or even at captain's mast--in any event. Even if the charges were true, an oral counseling would have been more than sufficient.
I think I know a helluva a lot more than you do about these things, but I’ll let you play pretend because you have such little credibility on this thread.
“my guess is that the charges will be dropped before then.”
Why do you say that?
Great. Now what do you think about "why" the military might not want to bring Abed to the US to tell his side of the story?
It would be only a guess, of course, but I would think they would be reluctant to have him exposed in any other environment, other than one which they can totally control, so to get the maximum intelligence out of him. I think it would diminish their ability to do that, if he were to be brought into this kind of thing.
As I said, just a guess on my part...
LoL WoW
Not working here.
If someone is being charged, then yes it’s important for it to be public. But, if it’s only an internal investigation, then it does not need to be public (and it shouldn’t be).
If you were in combat as you say you were and you had been captured by these animals how do you think you would of been treated. Would you have been given three hots and a cot? A prayer rug? A nice exercise area? And your Bible to read at will? Would you have been read your Miranda rights and treated with the up most respect? Needless to say you probably would of been shot immediately or used to make the next beheading video for YouTube. Not to say that you probably need a haircut anyway. But besides that you know exactly in your little political correct mind how you would of been treated. So stay in the little fantasy world of the clintons and the gores and the ocommies and see what the view is like in a couple of years.
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.