The latest Navy SEAL trial coverage from NOB

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: pbm
I would try to discourage my children from joining the military for this very reason. The 'rules of engagement' are so strict that our soldiers are handcuffed (and as such endangered).

This has nothing to do with the rules of engagement. It's about treatment of a prisoner of war.
 
Except the captured individual is a murderer, terrorist, and common criminal, and not a prisoner of war. Having been captured on foreign soil, he is neither entitled to protections under the Constitution, or the Geneva Convention. Regardless of your opinion, that is a fact.
 
How come they used the Geneva convention to stop camera crews entering certain holding facilities ?
 
Just because they aren't covered as prisoners of war doesn't mean we don't abide by the Conventions. We are a bunch of softies, having gone softer in the most recent period of time.

That is, unless you are in the crosshairs of a Predator.
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
We are a bunch of softies, having gone softer in the most recent period of time.

No. We grew up and decided to value principles above individual engagements.

What was it you said? "Try to keep up, sir?"
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Except the captured individual is a murderer, terrorist, and common criminal, and not a prisoner of war. Having been captured on foreign soil, he is neither entitled to protections under the Constitution, or the Geneva Convention. Regardless of your opinion, that is a fact.

I may have been incorrect that he was a POW, but you are incorrect that he was a murderer/terrorist/criminal by law. At the time of the alleged abuse, he was still a suspect.

And besides, whatever the detainee's status, what are you saying? That we should be able to treat our detainees however we want? That our commanders should look the other way while our finest soldiers disobey their directives? That public opinion and political pressure should be able to out-vote the rules by which our military personnel operate? I'd be fascinated to hear you flesh out your thoughts a bit. You seem fairly intelligent so I can't imagine you're calling for an exception in this one case without thinking about the implications.
 
Like I said previously, try and keep up, sir. That link was posted on this site hours ago.

Implications? If it was up to me, that "detainee" would have been incapaciated long ago, and fed to a pack of hungry swine.

Thanks for the complement. I wish I could return it. But, in good faith, I can't.
 
You've obviously got inside information about the trial and guilt of the "alleged victim".

Want to share ?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You've obviously got inside information about the trial and guilt of the "alleged victim".

Want to share ?

Evidently:

Trial = getting caught
Guilt = being accused


(You're dealing with someone who has just told us the whole justice system is meaningless. I think you're asking the wrong question.)
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Oh, and by the way, McCabe was just acquitted yesterday. I'm a bit surprised no one has posted this yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/navy-seal-guilty-assaulting-suspected-terrorist/


They beat me to it yesterday. Between my 2yo and fixing the fence for my wifes horse I did not even catch the local coverage. Until the verdict more poeple knew about the case through facebook then national media. That was why I started posting links to the local media coverage.
 
If you like you can read the longer more detailed local story and watch the accompanying video. The stills on fox came from the video, WAVY also provides the local FOX news coverage.

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/military/Navy-SEAL-abuse-trial-winding-down

Quote:
Upon learning of the verdict, Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, the Special court-martial convening authority,issued the following statement:

"I take my responsibility as a commander and convening authority very seriously and did not make the decision to refer these charges to courts-martial lightly. While I had preferred to handle the incident administratively, Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe and Keefe exercised their right to have this matter handled by a court-martial. The evidence presented reasonable grounds to believe that offenses had been committed and that Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe, and Keefe had committed those offenses. In the interests of justice and to maintain good order and discipline, I chose to proceed with the courts-martial.

"I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to the Naval Officers and Sailors who served as members in these cases. They were given a difficult duty and accomplished it in a very professional manner. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to the military trial and defense counsel, as well as to the civilian defense counsel, who handled this case. Their efforts in pursuing the interests of justice and protecting the rights of the Sailors accused in these cases are outstanding examples of their dedication to protecting and defending our Constitution.

"Despite the opinion of some of those who preferred that these charges not proceed, I allowed these charges to go forward because I truly believe that the best process known for uncovering the truth, when the facts are contested, is that process which is found in our adversarial justice system. There is no better way to discover the truth than by presenting evidence to an unbiased panel of members, having witnesses testify under oath, and having that testimony subject to vigorous cross-examination.

"Incidents such as the ones alleged in this case carry strategic implications for U.S. forces and U.S. National Security and ultimately cost the lives of Americans. I will continue to take allegations such as this seriously, investigating them whenever they are brought to my attention, and acting on them when the evidence so dictates. I look forward to SO1 (SEAL) Huertas, SO2(SEAL) McCabe, and SO2(SEAL) Keefe returning to their Team and continuing their duties in defending our great Nation."

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokesman for Special Operations Command Central, added, "General Cleveland is satisfied that the military justice process has been executed fairly and that thorough due process was carried out during the course of these three trial proceedings, consistent with the rule of law and the values of U.S. military justice that we fight to preserve as members of the U.S. military and as American citizens."
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: pbm
I would try to discourage my children from joining the military for this very reason. The 'rules of engagement' are so strict that our soldiers are handcuffed (and as such endangered).

This has nothing to do with the rules of engagement. It's about treatment of a prisoner of war.


I never said this had anything to do with 'rules of engagement' but that I would discourage my children from joining because of them.
When many of your countrymen and women care more about the rights of terrorist than your safety, they don't deserve your service,IMO.
 
Well, let's just say that most of the ideals that we believe in in some self image tend to be proclaimed from afar but lived out by those involved in the distribution and dispensing of those same American-esque ideals. We're promoted as a just and fair people, which we mostly are. We are not, however, told just how being so is possible under all circumstances at all times. Those bearing the burden of maintaining this image are always those who find themselves between that rock and a hard place. Just and fair tends to be a costly ideal in places where life comes cheap.
 
Originally Posted By: pbm
When many of your countrymen and women care more about the rights of terrorist than your safety, they don't deserve your service,IMO.


Wow! Nicely put. It's a good thing those countrymen and women are far outnumbered by the less vocal majority. Too bad those brave souls serving on active duty have to defend those who aren't worthy of their efforts in addition to the ones worth defending.

I still can't figure out how we ascribe Constitutional and other rights that are not based in law to our enemies. If you look at our history, it is replete with examples where we provide minimal rights to those involved in armed conflict against us.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
I think that what every real American here is saying is that even if the SEALs did do the actions attributed to them, it's an absurdity to put them on trial for it. Try to keep up, sir.

I'm keeping up just fine. But thanks for your concern.

If you consider yourself a real American, you should care about the truth here, and you should be upholding the principles that separate us from our enemies, including our aspirations to fairness and impartiality in our justice system. You should also have more regard for our mission abroad than to want to exonerate our troops without regard to whether they did anything wrong.

Here's the irony: There's a very real possibility that the SEALs are innocent. But this trial has generated so much publicity that if they are found innocent, there will always be reasonable doubt that they were exonerated due to public opinion and political pressure. We have turned this situation from a tough one into a bona fide catch-22.

If you cut down the law to punish the devil, you have nowhere to run when he turns around to face you.



BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
 
Originally Posted By: pbm
I never said this had anything to do with 'rules of engagement' but that I would discourage my children from joining because of them.

Then why did you say "for this very reason"...?

But either way, if this is what you meant, then I withdraw the criticism.


Originally Posted By: pbm
When many of your countrymen and women care more about the rights of terrorist than your safety, they don't deserve your service,IMO.

I agree with the spirit if not the letter of what you are saying. But again, what does this have to do with treatment of a prisoner?
 
I am glad that these brave Navy Seals were found not guilty.

War is a different thing than law enforcement in a civilian world. I do not accept murder and mistreatment of prisoners in war, but a logical human being knows that war is a very different situation compared to peacetime.

It is complex. Let me give an example. Suppose a patrol has a badly wounded enemy soldier. They are behind enemy lines. They can't take the prisoner with them. If they leave the prisoner he may be eaten alive by rats or if he lives he may tell other enemy soldiers about the patrol. What would you do?

Think about all of the complex situations that may exist in combat. Sure there are things done that are obviously wrong, such as what happened in that prison in Iraq. But there are a lot of situations where ordinary human beings have to make difficult decisions, sometimes very quickly. In a courtroom the people in the courtroom have all the time they need to make decisions. They were not in a combat situation with all of the tension, fear, noise, death, and everything else.

Punish those who deserve to be punished. But don't expect human beings to have supernatural powers and wisdom beyond all reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top