dmaxx3500
11-24-2009, 10:58 PM
3 navy seals are being charged with assault on an terrorist,this stems from the ''killing'' of 4 ''blackwater'' people being killed and dragged and burned alive by this scum,,now he says he got ''punched'' in the lip by the seals,,now they are charged with assault,,did we all wake up on some 180 degree opposite planet ?,,were is the justice for the 4 people he murdered?,,i'm coming to the conclusion we should have just ''nuked'' iran-iraq-and the whole middle-east on 9/12/2001,,were has my country gone?
dmaxx3500
11-25-2009, 12:17 AM
i heard it on abc news radio today then on 'mark levin' too ,i'll look on the internet now ,i thought someone here would have more info
1.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html?test=latestnews
2.http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/11/UPnavy_seals_charged_112409w/
3.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091124185950AAaJFhM
GTFPDQ
11-25-2009, 10:30 AM
Ridiculous....he has a split lip for fuck sake. Easily done by accident or by himself.
How the fuck do they expect troops (this case SEALS) to operate under this level of scrutiny. Piss and shit man, piss and shit.
ghost
11-25-2009, 05:34 PM
Yeah, this is complete shit. Especially considering the circumstances of the situation. The guy was behind the ambush of the Blackwater contractors in Fallujah. He killed them, and maimed their bodies and strung them up from a bridge. And he's complaining about being punched in the face(if they even did it)? He's lucky they didn't just shoot him.
dmaxx3500
11-26-2009, 01:01 AM
a guy was on ''rush limbaugh'' today[in the 2nd hr of the show] and said he was a retired seal and knew 1 of the 3 seals and this was payback for the seals taking out the somali's that we took out,he said the seal snipers tryed 3 seperate times to take-out the somalis and the ''white house '' said NO,so the captian told the seals only to shot if the skippers life was in danger[so they took it upon themselves] to finish the job
the court martial is to happen on ''dec,7'',,if these guys get railroaded into jail,i think it will be time to break-out our heros and start the 2nd ''american'' revolution,,
bobdina
11-27-2009, 04:55 PM
SEALs accused of assaulting alleged terrorist
By Gidget Fuentes and Andrew Scutro - Staff writers
Posted : Wednesday Nov 25, 2009 19:04:10 EST
Three Navy SEALs are facing court-martial in connection with the alleged assault and mishandling of a detainee they captured in Iraq in early September, military officials said.
The military provided few details of the circumstances, but a source with knowledge of the investigation confirmed for Navy Times that the detainee was Ahmed Hashim Abed, the alleged planner of the March 2004 ambush, killing and mutilation of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah.
“That’s why [the SEALs] went after him,” the source said, who asked not to be named. He noted that the takedown was “kinetic” but there was no gunfire. “[Abed] had a gun. The intel was perfect. No shots were fired.”
The three SEALs — Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe, and SO1 Julio Huertas — will be arraigned Dec. 7 in a military court in Norfolk, Va., said Army Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman with U.S. Special Operations Command Central. All are assigned to SEAL Team 10, based in Little Creek, Va., Navy records show.
McCabe is charged with one count each of assault of the detainee, dereliction of duty and making a false official statement, Silkman said.
Keefe is charged with one count each of dereliction of duty and false official statement; Huertas is accused of dereliction of duty, making a false official statement and impeding an investigation, she said.
Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, SOCCent commander, preferred the charges against the SEALs and will serve as the convening authority as the cases proceed to court-martial, tentatively scheduled for mid-January, Silkman said.
The alleged incident happened in Iraq on or about Sept. 1, Silkman said. None of the SEALs is confined, she added.
The source said the charges stem not from the capture itself — which have a high potential for violence — but from later on, when Abed was under detention.
“If they really wanted to [beat] him that was the time do it,” during the capture, the source said. “That’s why this is so ridiculous.”
The charges were first reported by Fox News, which posted a story on its Web site Tuesday. The source confirmed that Abed was known by the military code “Objective Amber,” but could not say if the capture went down in the city of Fallujah or in the outlying area.
The source said the allegations began when a master-at-arms sailor assigned to guard Abed told a SEAL platoon commander that one of the operators had punched Abed in the stomach.
More here- http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/navy_seals_charged_fallujah_112509w/
Punched in the gut? you'd think these guy's had strung him up by his balls. (nothing wrong with that either)
dmaxx3500
11-28-2009, 11:51 PM
heres a newer article ,this goes into the trial more
3 U.S. Navy SEALs charged with assault
November 27, 4:25 AMLexington Military Headlines ExaminerWilliam Parker
According to multiple reports, three United States Navy SEALs have been charged in connection with an alleged assault on a suspected terrorist. The three SEALs have requested trial by court-martial instead of non-judicial punishment (NJP). The difference between the options is that a court-martial is similar in nature and process to a civilian criminal court, guilt must be proven before a ruling is made, while NJP is simply stating both sides of the case to a judge (the commanding officer) who generally delivers a ruling in the same sitting as the case being stated. Court-martial can involve many of the same process requirements as civilian criminal court proceedings, while NJP usually is completed, from presentation to ruling, within the same day.
In NJP, the commanding officer hears the complaint, receives an oral summation of the service member from the chain of command, reviews the service record of the service member, may ask the member for his / her input on the matter, and then either dismisses the case or hands down a "non-judicial punishment." Some examples of NJP are restrictions on personal liberties (confinement to quarters, not allowed to go to certain establishments, not allowed to leave base, etc.), additional work requirements, forfeiture of pay, reduction in pay grade, correctional custody and confinement on bread and water. NJP offers the unit commanders the option of being able to punish unit members for bad behavior while retaining the option for the member to continue his / her career, although frequent NJP will greatly impede progress, it won't result in the member being separated from service or incarcerated.
The choice of the SEALs to pursue a court-martial is based on the limited options for them at NJP. It should be noted that, legally, the defendant still retains certain rights at NJP, but in reality, those rights are often misunderstood and downplayed. NJP hearings are held at the discretion of the unit commanders, who often designate one day a week or a month where they will hear the cases, depending on the size of the unit. Often, there are multiple drug or alcohol cases and occasionally a smattering of other offenses, and most of the time, the evidence is solid and it is a simple matter to resolve the case quickly and move on to the next. However, in a case such as the one the SEALs are being presented with, it is a toss-up with respect to how smart it is to ask for court-martial.
If they are guilty at NJP, they could be demoted, fined, and have their liberty taken for a short period of time, but the most significant part of NJP is that it doesn't go away, it becomes a part of the service record. It stays with the individual for the rest of their career, which may be severely stunted by NJP.
If they are guilty at court-martial, they could be demoted, imprisoned and separated from the military with any of a number of less than honorable discharges, none of which are desirable, and almost all of which create problems for finding a job after any period of incarceration is completed.
As far as the actual case goes, the evidence, if any, witnesses, and statements are still being reported, but most reports seem to indicate that the "victim" was apprehended by the SEALs and turned over to Iraqi law enforcement or military police, to whom the "victim" made the allegations of abuse, and was then returned to U.S. custody. The U.S. military holds itself to a very high standard with regard to treatment of prisoners and detainees, so it is highly likely that any harm brought to the "victim" was incurred during apprehension of the individual, where the fight or flight reflex is triggered for most people, or during transport to a holding facility, during which the "victim" may have attempted to escape.
That is where the objective observations end for this article.
Many reactions to this event have been expressions of outrage at the accusations aimed at the SEALs, and some have called for the SEALs to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. While I agree that the SEALs should be rewarded instead of punished, receiving a CMH for the apprehension of this dirtbag would be way off. The CMH is awarded for "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty," not for being told to go to 123 Bravo Street, Dirtville, Iraq and arrest a guy who fits a certain description or looks like a person in a photo or answers to , which is well within the "call of duty" for these guys. I'm not saying the SEALs aren't fierce warriors or that these SEALs in particular are not worthy of respect and admiration for their bravery. I'm just trying to keep their actions in perspective. Too often, ridiculous assertions are countered with equally ridiculous counter-assertions, and in this case, a possible prison sentence is being countered with the CMH.
One writer asked whether three NYPD officers would be held to the same standard, if they were to beat a suspect in custody. There are numerous ways in which these two situations differ, but I will agree on the principle that no individual should be abused by any law enforcement official, nor any person acting as or on the behalf of a law enforcement official or agency.
However, what the public does not know about the apprehension of terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan is that there is usually a significant investment of time and resources used to track a "target." The special operations units are the final link in the "target evaluation and prosecution" chain, as they are the individuals designated to take action to capture or kill the target. The recommendation to capture or kill is based on intelligence estimates about the target's intelligence value (can the target provide info on other targets, etc.), but the final decision rests with the special operations team tasked to action the target. Sometimes a target is harder to apprehend than assessed and it is necessary to kill the target, or to abort the mission.
The comparison to law enforcement, under these circumstances, may seem indistinguishable to a casual observer, but it is necessary to remember that Navy SEALs are not glorified police officers, they are elite warriors, trained to kill as the rule, not the exception. The individual they apprehended was not a U.S. citizen that stole jewelry from someone's house, he was the mastermind of the deaths of four U.S. patriots who were murdered and defiled after death in a public spectacle. While it is certainly possibe that the SEALs simply walked up and knocked on the door and asked the guy to come with them, I'm going to say the apprehension of this person was somewhat more involved, and that quite possibly the individual was struck during his arrest. Much in the same way police officers often have to chase and physically restrain someone, these SEALs probably encountered some amount of disagreeable behavior on the part of the "victim."
I have seen pictures of detainees that had multiple lacerations to the head and face and multiple broken bones, and when asked how the injuries were obtained, the apprehending team leader reported that the individual had jumped through a glass window from the second floor of a building in an attempt to evade capture. So, yes, it's quite possible that this individual slipped while running, or that he spat upon one of the SEALs, eliciting a "butt-stroke" response, where the non-lethal end of rifle is applied directly and severely to the face or head of a person resisting the orders being given.
Personally, I believe the SEALs would have been well within their authority to simply execute this terrorist, and if they had done so, I would not have lost a wink of sleep over it. The only sleep I lose now is caused by thinking the reputations of these brave men may be adversely affected by the ridiculous assertions that a murdering terrorist was slapped in the mouth at some point during his apprehension or detention. Lucky for the terrorist, his proof (a fat lip) can't be self-inflicted...
http://www.examiner.com/x-23473-Lexington-Military-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m11d27-3-US-Navy-SEALs-Charged-with-Assault
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________
It makes one wonder how the West is ever going to win the war against radical Islam.
Fox News reported yesterday that three navy SEALs have been charged for allegedly abusing a terrorist leader they had captured in Iraq last September.
The SEALs’ long-sought target, Ahmed Hashim Abed, is believed to have been the mastermind behind one of the most infamous incidents of the Iraq war: the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater security personnel in Fallujah in 2004. The four men were attacked when transporting supplies and had their bodies burned and dragged through the streets. Two of the corpses were then hung from a Euphrates River bridge.
Abed, the alleged planner of this barbarism, claims the navy’s elite commandos had punched him after his capture and that “he had the bloody lip to prove it.”
According to the Fox story the SEALs, to their credit, all refused non-judicial punishment and have requested a trial by court-martial. The Fox reporter, Rowan Scarborough, did not overlook the bitter irony of the case, pointing out that instead of being lauded for bringing a valuable terrorist suspect to justice for an unspeakable crime, the American servicemen are now facing charges themselves. The three men have also retained lawyers.
But the American servicemen’s situation is more than just ironic but rather constitutes a gross injustice. Most right-thinking people would feel that, in the middle of a war, three such brave and highly-skilled warfare specialists, whose expensive training the American taxpayer has funded, should not be facing a demoralizing criminal trial over such a relatively minor matter that may not even have happened.
As far as legality is concerned, terrorists like Abed are lucky to be left among the living after their capture. As conservative columnist Thomas Sowell rightly points out, Islamic terrorists have never followed the Geneva Convention regarding the rules of warfare, as can be easily discerned in the case of the Blackwater security guards alone. More importantly, however, the terrorists themselves are not covered by the Convention’s provisions.
“Neither the Constitution of the United states nor the Geneva Convention gives rights to terrorists who operate outside the law,” writes Sowell.
Legally, under the Convention’s terms, the American military in wartime has the right to shoot any captured enemy not in uniform. Sowell states, “There was a time when everyone understood this” and cites World War Two’s Battle of the Bulge as an example. German troops caught in American uniforms during that battle were shot almost immediately and without trial. Their executions were even filmed and shown years later on American television with no fuss ever made regarding legality.
But in the charges against the three Navy SEALs, one can detect the liberal media’s invisible hand. After the media-induced hysteria about the Abu Ghraib scandal, where American service personnel were rightly punished for subjecting detainees to abuse, some of it no worse than frat party pranks, the American military is supersensitive about the treatment of detainees. It knows the liberal media would love another prisoner mistreatment scandal that can sell papers or earn networks higher ratings as well as simultaneously be used as a stick to beat an American institution it has never liked.
And it is not as if liberals in the media have ever actually cared about Iraqi prisoners. Just the opposite. For 24 years they hypocritically ignored the real suffering of the thousands of people who were tortured and murdered under Saddam Hussein in Abu Ghraib. But that did not stop them from blowing up the scandal involving the American military into something that appeared to merit a second Nuremburg Trials.
This need for scandal that can be turned into a headline, however, has been of greater service to the Islamists in Afghanistan. There, the controversy about civilian deaths caused by American and NATO troops led to a change in their Rules of Engagement (ROE) this year. It is now much more difficult for western forces to drop smart bombs or missiles on targets where civilians may be present. One report states lawyers now have to be consulted and a casualty analysis made before every smart bomb or missile attack.
One military analyst claims the ROE change occurred due to the Taliban’s ability to manipulate the media and western journalists’ “enthusiasm for jumping on real, or imagined, civilian deaths”, since dead civilians are considered news. In other words, the Taliban successfully turned civilian deaths into a “powerful propaganda weapon” that the western media ran with.
The controversy about civilian deaths caused Defense Secretary Robert Gates to assess civilian killings as “one of our strategic vulnerabilities.” Gates probably would not have uttered such a statement if the media had correctly and constantly reported that civilian casualties in Afghanistan have been low when compared to Iraq and other wars. But that is uninteresting news.
Just as uninteresting to the media is the fact the Taliban have killed far more civilians than western forces, four times as many according to one report. But that does not make for headlines. You will also probably not often see a quote like the following from an Afghan father whose son lost his leg to a Taliban roadside bomb.
“I do not mind if I am killed, provided that the Americans get rid of the Taliban. Those tyrants have taken my son’s leg. They laid mines on the road. Don’t they see these roads are also used by civilians?”
Due to the ROE change, one military publication states the Taliban are making greater use of human shields. Taliban fighters spend time in villages or compounds where civilians are present and also bring civilians, whether willing or unwilling, with them as human shields when they go on operations. This has led to their avoiding attacks, in which they earlier would have been killed.
And with the fight becoming more difficult and dangerous for American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, this can only spell bad news.
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/26/navy-seals-charged-over-alleged-abuse-of-terrorist-mastermind-by-stephen-brown/