The Right Needs to Step Back from the Navy SEALs Trial
I’ve been chewing on this story of the three Navy SEALs over the weekend and, for the life of me, I don’t understand the furor (and, believe me, there’s furor). I’ve yet to have anyone explain why I should be outraged beyond “those guys shouldn’t be tried for giving a dirtbag killer a fat lip”.
Here’s how I’m reading the story. Three Navy SEALs captured the man who allegedly masterminded the torture killing of four American civilians in Fallujah. At some point, they remanded the Islamist to Iraqi authorities for a period of time, after which the Iraqis gave him back to the SEALs. At some point in that process, Mr. Islamist Dirtbag (MID) got a bloody lip. We don’t know who fattened his lip nor how it happened.
There was at some point an official inquiry which has now resulted in charges against the soldiers. The soldiers have refused a lower-profile hearing and so they will stand before a court martial.
So far, so mind-numbingly common.
Nevertheless, the right has nearly exploded with indignation over the very notion that they are on trial for what happened to MID. That’s what I don’t get. I thought the right in this country supported the rule of law. I thought we sought to preserve good order and discipline in our military. Neither of those is served if we simply ignore the fact that a detainee, even a scumbag piece of filth like MID, may have been injured in contravention of regulations while in our soldiers’ custody.
Obviously, someone in those soldiers’ chain of command has information that they violated at least three regulations. Indeed, there is some indication that all of them lied about what happened, since all three were charged with some variant of making a false statement.
Now let me be crystal clear. I don’t believe we should shed even the faintest hint of a tear that MID got himself tuned up a bit, either by our soldiers or by the Iraqis. I would have done a little happy dance, I’m sure, had I read that he had resisted apprehension and was shot several times. However, we have rules for how our soldiers must treat those they have in custody and we don’t get to choose which rules the military enforces and which it ignores. That way lies ruin for our armed forces. We expect all our soldiers to obey all the regulations that pertain to them all the time with no exceptions and when they violate those rules, we should expect they will be dealt with as the regulations demand.
That appears to be exactly what is happening in this case.
I’m sure someone could make a very good case for why we shouldn’t care if a detainee gets a fat lip and that’s fine. But it doesn’t change the fact that the rule exists right now andwe can’t simply ignore it because we think it’s a bad rule. Right now, all we’re doing is acting like the progressives, who enforce only the rules they like only against the people they dislike. We don’t want to go down that road, do we?
I think we on the right need to step back from this case and let the hearing play out for a while. We may well learn that the case against them is garbage, or that it was politically-motivated, in which case we shold find out why and go after the miscraents with pitchforks and torches. Until then, though, I don’t see anything but a simple case of some soldier who are accused of breaking a rule and are being tried for it.
Other Posts of Interest:
- The Miracle Continues to Unfold in Iraq
- Are We Getting Another “Innocent Victim of Imperialist Aggressors” Line Run on Us Again?
- SCOTUS Says that You and the Islamists are All the Same to the Constitution
Category: Fighting the Islamists, The Long War Here At Home
I haven't found the information saying he was given BACK to the SEALS after being turned over to Iraqi authorities. All accounts that I've read say he was "injured" in the capture process.
So let's suppose he was remanded back to the SEALS. What's going on there? Why are expensive and valuable, rare commodities like Navy SEALS relegated to jailers' status? That opens up another complete line of questions that go up the chain of command.
So the above is where the story breaks down for me at this time. And until proven otherwise I will ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the SEALS.
I'm with you, Rick, in that I give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt. I tend to believe they're innocent in a case like this, until I see otherwise. That doesn't mean we should simply not try them if there's a real allegation of wrongdoing, though.
News of this investigation really bothered me, and one of the primary reasons why was because it came on the heels of the KSM trial in NYC and the "You make a good photo op" stories. I think that people are just fed up with the way members of the military are being treated by our governing class and their journalist counterparts and this just added fuel to the fire.
Personally, I missed the part in initial stories about how this is a military investigation—I think the story I read talked about how they were facing "assault charges," which made me think of charges in the civilian, rather than military, arena. And if other people made that same assumption, that too would add to the indignation. Take all that stuff and THEN add in the fact that this story was condensed and passed along all Thanksgiving weekend as "Navy SEALs caught a terrorist and are facing assault charges for punching him," and it's no wonder people are so upset and inflamed. They're concerned (and mad) that the government seems to be more critical of the men and women serving the country than they are of people who want to harm us, and they don't think that's the right approach to ensuring national security.
Jessica, I agree with you in concept. I do believe the administration is far more interested in how we treat Islamist head-choppers (because they naively believe the world will love us if we give them all hugs and squeezes) than our own soldiers (which they regard as barely-necessary evils).
Still, that doesn't give us permission to go off the other side. We need to be careful in our opposition to this administration, that we don't take positions we'll badly regret later.
You know, it's kind of like the situation w/ the border agents, Ramos and Campean.
This case will end in dismissal. If all three chose not to take an article 15 (which is a slap on the wrist)then unfortunately they probably didn't do it. Honestly, the article 15 framed and displayed prominently that one had beat the crap out of a terrorist would be well worth the 10 days of restriction or $200 bucks they might take away.
In the Navy SEAL handbook it should say:
If you apprehend a terrorist:
1. Punch him in the face
2. Punch him in the face again, await further instructions.
Are you freaking kidding me? These brave soldiers who risk their lives for our safety are being treated like TERRORISTS while the terrorist is being treated like a soldier. What is wrong with this picture. I love how you mockingly call the terrorist in question MID. Bascially, we should give more RIGHTS to a FREAKING TERRORIST than to our own soldiers? This terrorist masterminded the MASSACRE of four innocent people and we are supposed to shed a tear for a said MID because of a fat lip? Give me a break. I understand that there are rules and regulations, but if the SEALs say they didn't do it, I'm siding with the SEALs over a TERRORIST 100% of the time. Have we seriously gotten so far away from 9/11 that we let this kind of thing happen? If this had happened on 9/12 they would have recieved a freaking medal!
I'm not suggesting we give more rights to anyone. I also, very clearly, do not have any sympathy at all for the dirtbag in question.
However, we must enforce the rules that are on the books right now, the rules the soldiers assent to follow, without favor. If you don't like the rule, then lobby to change it. But how on Earth can you suggest that we can selectively enforce military regulations and profess any real affection for our soldiers at all. If we do things the way you want to do them, our soldiers won't have any idea which rules they should or should not follow, because enforcement of those rules would be subject to the caprices of public opinion.
That's madness.
AS I see it, I could care less what happend to the MID, what he did constitutes no justification for him to even be given any rights, As for the seals I applaud them for given him just a little ruffing up is far less than he deserved. He did not care about the men he killed. This is what really ticks me with our country , We live in the best country in the world but we also live in a country with crazy people who seem not to understand when our own freedom is being challenged or when we have the crazy notions that this man among others has rights , the way I see it is when they committed the crimes so brutal to people who did not deserve it they gave up all their rights. Stop wasting the tax payers money on idiots that deserve what ever is coming to them. Let these seals go for if you keep this country keeps it up there will be no one willing to serve in our armed forces.
So, what you're saying is it's okay for our soldiers to break rules you don't like. What about rules you do like? Can they break them, if someone else doesn't like them but you do? Where, exactly, do you draw that line?
[...] New York Terrorist Trials and the Navy Seals Is there a common thread between the New York Terrorist Trials and the Navy Seals facing trial due to an alledged fat lip or are we just showing the rest of the world what our political system is really about? The Right Needs to Step Back from the Navy SEALs Trial [...]
Pretty soon we will not be taking prisoners any longer because our guys will fear these types of witch hunts.
These terrorists can't claim injury if they are not breathing since dead men tell no tales.
Perhaps so. But is it a witch hunt? Do we have enough evidence to say that?
I haven't seen it yet.
[...] fat lip or are we just showing the rest of the world what our political system is really about? The Right Needs to Step Back from the Navy SEALs Trial No, we are just showing that people who post here really have nothing better to do. Now [...]
I proudly served in the U.S. Army for 32 years but now, I would not serve for 32 minutes under the half breed we call Mr. President. Every member of the U.S military should at once lay down their arms and let the politically correct pork barrel pigs fight the war with olive brances and sweet words of understanding and compassion. God Bless the U.S. Military and God damn Obama and the U.S. Congress. I have earned the right to make these statements. What have you done for this country?
A couple thinks, George.
First, speaking freely is not a right you earn. We all have that right thanks to the Constitution. While I am grateful for your service to this country, I'm not grateful for the racist insult agains the President nor for your call for desertion. I know you learned better in the military.
Hey George, have you got an extra olive branch for Jimmie though I doubt he will ever use more than words. I am having a major problem with us having to send military over there and then tell them they have to handle murderers and terrorists with kid gloves after they maim and kill our folks. Are they exempt from retaliation? This is not a "police action".Wars are fought to win IF you can keep Congress out of them.
I, Jack Bauer do not approve of this situation at all. A simple punch is completely insufficient to elicit the information we need from this terrorist. It is my belief that he needs to be shot in both kneecaps and then have his family held at gunpoint until the suspect is of course assassinated by one of his own people an hour later just before he can give up his co conspirators.
On a more serious note, why the heck are we using SEAL teams in a police capacity? They are commandos, I suspect most of them are a spitting image of Major Payne and wouldn't think twice about pistol whipping a suspect if it resulted in a capture. Compared to what guys that are trained to plant C4 with their left while they slit a throat with their right could do, I'd be darned pleased with just a fat lip.
Are you kidding? A court martial or even captains mast for a captured combatant with a fat lip. He is luck I did not capture him, he would have looked like he fell down the steps of the Empire state building from top to bottom, if he did not perish in the fire fight, whether there was one or not……Wake Up!
You've missed the entire point. You do not get to decide which rules we enforce in the military and which we do not. There is a rule. They are accused of breaking it. Now there's a trial. That is exactly what is supposed to happen.
We should award the dirtbag the same courtesies he awarded the US civilians……no more, no less.
Again, I don't really disagree, but that's not the point.
Jimmie, I do understand you argument. But it is time we shed the "holier-than-thou" attitude and join the real world….or remove ourselves from it. Clearly, if we're going to compete, we all have to be playing by the same rules.
In the real world, there are rules. You may not like the rules and you may want the rules to be different, but that doesn't change what they are right now. The SEALs area accused of violating the real world rules and they're being tried for it. That's what should happen, what we conservatives should want to happen. The system, which works very well for our soldiers, is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
Now, if you don't like the rules that exist in reality, lobby to change them. I'd be behind that. I'm not behind the attitude that we can ignore rules we don't like which is what I've been overwhelmingly seeing from conservatives thus far. That's not how we roll and we ought to remember that.
A bit of a late post but, being a former military officer, I can tell you why they opted for the less common court-martial. Because what happens is you end up getting the "common" slap on the wrist that everyone thinks is no big deal. It's called an Article 15. Lose a little pay, maybe scrub latrines for a couple of weeks at the HQ at night. BUT, it's a permanent blemish on your record and come time for the Promotion Boards you're going to get passed over. The Navy is very unforgiving. These guys are standing strong on their convictions that they did nothing wrong. By going for the full trial they can be completely exonerated. No blemish on their records. And SEALs aren't known for their quitting ability. They're fighters and they won't stand for PC crap when push comes to shove, or their careers are on the line for doing their job, or for not doing what they're accused of.
Late reply, but overwhelming investigations such as these are exactly the reason I am getting out of the Army. I was formally investigated 8 times during my 06-08 tour to Iraq for things ranging from abuse to theft to murder. I was never found guilty of the charges nor did I commit them, but I did endure a ton of unnecessary stress in an already stressful time.
Really Scott, you mean the military did this to you? Or was it George Bush? You know he was the president in the years (06-08) you were investigated. The other posts here say that this administration, this president, the liberals, etc are prosecuting the Seals. Now, seriously, who really is prosecuting the Seals? Right, the military.
You are a fool. As a lawyer and former armed forces member I see their point. I would ask for a Court Marshall as well. These guys, God bless them, work on missions that you my friend could hardly fathom. Also, when we start hauling up civilian charges (i.e. murder, assault, battery, false imprisonment, to name a few) we make a mocker of the civilian justice system as well. Painly put, you cannot put civilian standards on soldiers or Court Marshalls such as these would be in permanent session during war time (take the Breaker Morant case during the Boer War for instance.) Go back to school on this, I think the Right has every right to question this farce. By the way – I am a registered Independent – politically speaking.
They are not civilian standards. They are military standards right out of the UCMJ.
Like I have said many times before: if you don't like the rules, change the rules. Ignoring them is what progressives do. Is that what you are?
They did NOT hit Abed. They chose courts martial to prove that. Matthew Mc Cabe has passed a polygraph. Most of the charges have been dropped. The Master at Arms has changed his story FIVE times. The witnesses had to be granted immunity to testify so they wouldn't get drug into this because of threats of being charged also. There has been ZERO effort to bring Abed here. THAT sir, is also a law the government is choosing to break, they are supposed to make EVERY effort to get him here because the SEALs have a right BY LAW (you know that thing you keep harping on) to face their accuser. However 2 of them are being forced to go to IRAQ on THEIR dollar. This case is so full of holes it's not even Swiss cheese. I highly recommend you read and investigate further and then discuss the RULES that are being broken by WHOM….When terrorists are given more rights than than the American troops, you bet your butt people are going to go ballistic…and you could not be more wrong that it's just the "conservatives." Please be more informed before you jump to assumptions….
I grant that everything you say is true, Debbie. nevertheless, you do not get to choose which laws we break. The SEALs will get the trial the military regulations allow them to have and, if you are correct in all your details, they will be found not guilty and will go on to have long and illustrious careers. Maybe they'll all write books and become fabulously wealthy. I hope they do, actually.
What I do not hope is that we break the longstanding regulations by which all members of the military must adhere just because you think we should.
When you are in the service and on a mission you do not dot the i's and cross the t's or you will be lost. Case in point the Navy lost a ship to the North Koreans during the Carter administration because the captain could not make a fast decision. You cannot be politically correct and fight a war and win.
Then get the military to change the rules. Don't just decide not to enforce some rules because you don't like them. That's what liberals do. You want to be like that, do you?
Jimmie.. First, I am delighted to read that two of the three Seals on trial have been acquitted. These are, regardless of the charges leveled, true American heroes.
You have hit the proper nail squarely, Jimmie! Unfortunately, military law and "rules" have been established for decades if not centuries. Secondly, the military are by nature "traditionalists". Thirdly, our UCMJ/military law has not been modofied to adequately deal with the changes in wartfare tactics employed by our common enemies. We Americans, whether liberal or conservative, have this "traditionalist" view of our image in the world. We have always been above the sort of tactics currently in use against us. We will march our collective stubborn chins and expanded chests right into complete annihilation before considering lowering our selfrighteous standards to the level of our enimies. We have, collectively, assigned our way of life to destruction.
You cannot win a War unless you are willing to go beyond any standards set by your enemy to achieve victory. There is no integrity, no righteous image, no gentlemanly honor in War. There is only victory or defeat.
Would that no man had ever lifted the angry hand against his brother, neighbor or fellow worldy inhabitant, but that is not the case.
We fight to win the victory, or we lose the American way of life. If America loses, the world loses.
That is the way I see it.
William S. Hood
Thanks, sir.
I'm very glad two of the Marines have been acquitted also. I'm also glad the Marines adhered to their rules and regulations. See, it doesn't bother me if we change our standards so that Marines can deliver a little smack-down of captured killers, so long as we stick to whatever standards we have.