The latest Navy SEAL trial coverage from NOB

[javacontour]

Of course the General wanted the NJP. The standards are much lower, certainly not the same amount of media attention, etc.

He said he "allowed" the Courts Martial, as if it were his decision. The only way he could have disallowed the Courts Martial, IIRC, is if the charges were dropped.

A Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine when faced with NJP always has the right to ask for a Court Martial. If the general refused the requests for Courts Martial by these SEALs, then the charges had to be dropped.

It's been a while since I was an officer in the Army. However, I'm pretty sure NJP cannot be forced upon a service member. If the accused when offered NJP asks for the Court Martial, then they have to be given it, or have the charges dropped.

This protects the member from a vindictive or otherwise motivated commander who has NJP authority.



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."

 

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
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.




I have a family friend who left the SEALS because he felt that if he had been in a situation like that of his comrades Marcus Lutrell, Michael Murphy, etc..and they killed the goatherder and son...the Navy would have prosecuted him.

I am referring to events that occurred in Afganistan which are told of in the book Lone Survivor by Marcus Lutrell. The recon Seal Team was compromised by father and son goatherders and after much discussion the Seals let them go. The goatherders went immediately to the Taliban and the 5 seals were soon battling over 200 Taliban. 27 year old Lt. Michael Murphy (a fellow NYer) was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor and the others received high comendations also. Only Lutrell survived and he documents that their decision rested on how lawyers (and civilians) would view their actions. If our soldiers had these concerns during WW2 we would now be speaking German and Japanese. What a disgrace......

 

[Mystic]

They need to require that these military lawyers serve duty in combat before they are allowed to serve in courtrooms. That would stop a lot of this nonsense.

I heard of a case in Iraq where tank crewmen had a severely wounded (head wound) enemy soldier on their hands. What exactly are they supposed to do with that enemy soldier lawyers? Do they leave him lay there? Do they put him on their tank and take him with them as they advance? Do they shoot him? We need a legal decision lawyers. By the way, if I remember correctly, they tried to charge those tank crewmen. They shot the enemy soldier and an unmanned recon plane was flying overhead.

There was another case in Iraq where American soldiers were being attacked by enemy soldiers who pretended to be dead. A soldier shot an enemy soldier who appeared to be dead and then started to move. He could have had a gernade under his clothes. They tried to charge that soldier with a war crime. The charges were eventually dropped.

I am not some cold blooded murderer. I consider myself to be a pretty sensitive, decent human being. War is a nasty business very different from working as a police officer or coming across situations in a civilian world. It is time for some logic. Put yourself in the situations of these American soldiers. What would YOU do?

Some people try to make it seem that American soldiers have done things like what happened in the concentration camps in World War II. What nonsense! With only a few exceptions I thing the great majority of American soldiers have done well in recent wars.

 

[pbm]

I believe that lawyers are one of the greatest threats/problems in America today. It saddens me that the majority of our elected officials are lawyers.