Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy Seals Could Face Year in Prison Over Alleged Punching of Terrorist
CNSNews.com ^ | 12-05-09 | CNS News

Posted on 12/05/2009 8:16:48 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: bhodod; blackwater; courtsmartial; fallujah; seals; supporttheseals; terrorism; usnavy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last
To: montag813

I’d do a year in the can in exchange for punching the sonofabitch.


81 posted on 12/05/2009 11:26:59 AM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBA
I also heard this same person, a soldier, call in to a Chicago talk show...it was either on Mark Levin's Show, or Rush, and say that obama was incensed at how the pirates situation was handled...obama felt the soldiers went over the “Supreme Commander's” head in making their move against the pirates...and obama now wants it to be made known to the world that HE is in charge, and that HE will punish those who disobey him. This man is a demented meglomaniac and must be removed.
82 posted on 12/05/2009 11:30:40 AM PST by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

If this were Brooklyn Criminal Court, the case would be ACD’d (Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal), and forgotten.


83 posted on 12/05/2009 11:30:40 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (www.publishedauthors.net/benmaxwell/index.html, http://sites.google.com/site/thevuzvuz/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

...any other President, would have awarded the Navy Seals a medal for their actions


84 posted on 12/05/2009 11:33:27 AM PST by profit_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: verity
"I have yet to find a source for the info [underlined above]. Do you have any details?"

Someone else named him above, Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, SOCCent commander. Like all combatant commands, it's a mixed service command, which explains why he's an Army General. He's the final uniformed commander in the SEALs chain-of-command, before the SECDEF.

The SEALs were offered Admiral's Mast - which is non judicial punishment, also known as Article 15. They exercised their rights under the UCMJ to refuse the Article 15 hearing, and demand trial by court-martial - special court-martial in this instance. Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland is the convening authority for this proceeding.

85 posted on 12/05/2009 11:43:27 AM PST by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

And does anyone know which general officer (general coward these days) has convening authority over this matter?

I hope to God it is not that coward of a litle man—gen casey.


86 posted on 12/05/2009 11:47:56 AM PST by petertare (--.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
"It's curious to me that the convening officer isn't their former SEAL team leader or CO of the team unit"

For whatever reason, their unit commander felt that the charges merited punishment that could only be non-judicially provided by Admiral's Mast (in this instance, a US Army MajGen). Since, they refused Mast, it's appropriate that their unified combatant commander act as convening authority for the special court-martial.

I don't agree with the charges, but the "mechanics" of how this has played out, are accurate.

87 posted on 12/05/2009 11:48:36 AM PST by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad
At least some are aware they are SEALS not seals.

"I'm upset to hear that."

88 posted on 12/05/2009 11:49:36 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: petertare
"And does anyone know which general officer (general coward these days) has convening authority over this matter?"

Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, SOCCent commander.

89 posted on 12/05/2009 11:49:37 AM PST by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

In the Navy, non-judicial punishment proceedings (ie in
house non-court proceedings) are referred to as Captains mast. Any “accused” can refuse and thereby the issue gets forwarded to the “convening authority” for possible prosecution. An art 32 investigation is then done to determine if there is merit to the charges. If so then a courts martial can proceed... if not dismissed by the convening authority (usually a general or admiral)

That is the extent of my military legal (UCMJ knowledge. Non-lawyer prior service shmuck—me.


90 posted on 12/05/2009 11:54:17 AM PST by petertare (--.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

I f memory serves me an Article 32 is only mandatory for a general court-martial. For Summary and Special I’m not certain it is a requirement. In this case I’m assuming that they are in process for a Special as a summary can be waived similar to NJP since it is judge only and does not have a jury. I might be off a bit (cobwebs), but pretty sure.


91 posted on 12/05/2009 12:04:37 PM PST by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I don't agree with the charges, but the "mechanics" of how this has played out, are accurate.

And thanks for explaining succinctly.....but there's the little matter of charges brought nearly five years after the alleged incident.

Hoping that's considered and questioned during the Article 32.
92 posted on 12/05/2009 12:12:37 PM PST by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ohioman

OK a couple of notes on things I’ve seen floating:

Admirals mast vs captains mast....depending on the charge it often goes to the next higher in the chain of command due to 1) lower level commanders are more limited in punishments they can place based on their rank (so a LCDR can’t punish as much as a CDR or an Admiral). I’m assuming that the admiral/lt gen was notified of the charges either because the CO was directly involved or because the CO did not have the punishment authority that the original charge presenter felt was adequate

In any case the LT GEN/CO is REQUIRED to investigate. Which means witnesses, testimony, etc. Often they have to convene a mast or trial to prevent the appearance that they are “taking care of their own” and not properly executing the discipline of their command - which can lead to dismissal. In my opinion the LT GEN or CO probably counseled them to take the court-martial due to the jury presence, and application of rules of evidence. Which is just looking out for their own in a different way. The person I would like to know is who actually put forth the charges - it could either be that the terrorist crapper did this - forcing the investigation OR someone who is either gunning for someone OR someone playing political games for a promotion. The convening authority is required to investigate and follow through, so it may not be their fault.

Last thing - independent of if they are convicted at courts-martial or not civil suit is still a potential as it falls outside the purvue of double-jeopardy. Similar to the way OJ went to court on the murder charge (found innocent - spit) and then went to civil court and was found responsible. Civil suits are not prevented just because you aren’t found criminally guilty.

OK - that was too much cobweb cleaning.

Just an ole ex collateral duty ship’s legal officer


93 posted on 12/05/2009 12:21:23 PM PST by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
"And thanks for explaining succinctly.....but there's the little matter of charges brought nearly five years after the alleged incident."

A little confusion here...The terrorist killed the Blackwater operators back in 2004. But, the terrorist himself wasn't captured until last summer, and the alleged incident in question took place on September 1, of this year.

These are "fresh" charges.

94 posted on 12/05/2009 12:23:10 PM PST by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Are you saying that a two-star initiated the Article 15 proceedings? If so, every commander in the chain between him and the seals did not make an issue of the incident... unless the results of the investigation went directly to Cleveland.

I have been retired for a long time. However, I cannot recall anything this idiotic in my 25 years of service.

Thanks for your response.

95 posted on 12/05/2009 12:40:20 PM PST by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

bookmarked


96 posted on 12/05/2009 12:41:37 PM PST by Freedom2specul8 (Vote conservative....Please pray for our Troops, our Vets, our Country, Families and Friends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

They better be. I imagine the military are getting pretty pissed at this dork & administration. I would be.

The left/enemy may be using our money to bribe money hungry scum and fight against America, but it can go on just so long.

This is like giving Iran another day, and another day, until it’s too late. IMHO


97 posted on 12/05/2009 12:42:46 PM PST by TribalPrincess2U (demonicRATS... taxes, pain and slow death. Is this what you want?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: paul51
identify the people responsible for pushing this prosecution forward and remove them from any post or office of responsibility or power immediately. They have shown themselves to be totally unfit.

The "people responsible for pushing this prosecution forward" are the 68 million Americans who voted for this on Nov 8 2008.

98 posted on 12/05/2009 12:48:03 PM PST by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57
This has the possibility of very dangerous ramifications. First, recruitment will drop. Secondly, fewer people will try to get into elite units. Thirdly ... and MOST dangerous, our military members will hesitate before taking action, which will get them and others in their units killed.

We have an Administration that doesn't like the military and considers the existence of the military and the mentality of its veterans a threat to its social and political goals.

Viewed in light of those facts, the items you list are not considered by dangerous ramifications by the Administration - they are intended results.

99 posted on 12/05/2009 12:49:47 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("If you cannot pick it up and run with it, you don't really own it." -- Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57

As my husband says “dead men don’t talk”


100 posted on 12/05/2009 12:53:14 PM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson