Navy Seals Could Face Year in Prison Over Alleged Punching of Terrorist

CNSNews.com ^ | 12-05-09 | CNS News

[montag813]

The Navy Seals facing court martial for the alleged abuse of a terror suspect arrested for killing four Americans face up to a year in military confinement, discharge for bad conduct, and forfeiture of two-thirds of their pay for a year, if convicted, according to defense attorneys.

[ohioman]

Thanks for clearing up the chain of command for me. I really want to know the lower level turd who started this.

[OldDeckHand]

"Are you saying that a two-star initiated the Article 15 proceedings?"

Without knowing the specifics of the case, it's not possible to tell who initiated the commander's inquiry. It could have been their direct unit commander, or it could have been an officer in the higher in the chain-of-command. But, given the fact that they refused Admiral's Mast, it's quite likely that it was indeed a General or Flag officer that initiated the actual Article 15 proceeding.

The SEALs refused Mast, which is their right, so the Admiral (in this case a US Army MajGen) convened a court-martial.

[OldDeckHand]

"However, I cannot recall anything this idiotic in my 25 years of service."

It sounds like you got out just in time. I just retired this past summer - I've seen plenty of boneheaded decisions, almost as bad as this one, some even worse.

[verity]

Given the ire of some members of Congress, I speculate that a third star for the general may not be within the realm of probability. ;-).

[OldDeckHand]

"Given the ire of some members of Congress, I speculate that a third star for the general may not be within the realm of probability. ;-)."

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate, or contrarian. This guy - the convening authority is in a lose/lose, he can't win either way. The SEALs refused Mast, which could have resulted in nothing more than, well nothing. So, now he's obligated to at least go through the motions because everyone's watching. From a command perspective, it's tough to not call the bluff of someone who refuses Mast.

Of course, this is compounded by the SCOTUS decisions the last three years that - for the first time in the history of the country - has bestowed upon enemy combatants the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Can you imagine if this two-star made this go away, and then some civilian defense attorney got their hands on it? It would jeopardize any possible prosecution of this lowlife. A prosecution, BTW, that thanks to Eric Holder may very well, or even will likely be held in a civilian court.

This case, in a very real way, precisely illustrates what the pitfalls are of Barack Obama/Eric Holder's paradigm shift with respect to enemies captured on the battlefield. We are in dangerous territory - a place from which we will never recover.

[Jackson57]

You make a very good point.

[mort56]

Then screw the Commander!

[verity]

I concur with your entire assessment.

IMHO, a Letter of Reprimand, as was suggested by another poster, would have satisfied the need to take action. As you point out, he is in a "lose/lose" situation.

As a matter of pure speculation, was he poorly advised by his staff; was he pressured by higher authority; or did he unilaterally make a foolish decision?

[OldDeckHand]

"As a matter of pure speculation, was he poorly advised by his staff; was he pressured by higher authority; or did he unilaterally make a foolish decision?"

My opinion, which is absolute speculation, is that he was advised by his Judge Advocate to convene a court-martial upon the refusal of the Article 15 hearing. I'm sure that this was done to protect the future prosecution of whomever this enemy combatant is, from being tainted by an allegation of custodial abuse.

It's not poor advice, and given the actions of the Supreme Court, and especially Eric Holder, it's really the only advise to give.

[DrewsMum]

bookmark