Absolute BS. - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dynalow · #61 05-03-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

My prediction. 2 get the charges dropped. The one who threw the punch gets court martialed and is acquitted. Remember, 7 or 8 Marines were charged with crimes and coverup at Haditha. 24 Iraqi civilians killed in that one. All except one had charges dropped and the Sgt. charged with voluntary manslaughter is still waiting trial. 3 years later.

Sober take on the story:

Law Versus Proportion (and Plain Sense)
J. E. Dyer - 11.25.2009 - 2:59 PM
The Special Operations Commander for Central Command (SOCCENT) has a truly distasteful situation to steer through. The man in question, Army Major General Charles Cleveland, has brought charges against three Navy SEALs who seized a notorious Iraqi terrorist in September. The terrorist, Ahmed Hashim Abed, was behind the brutal murder of American civilian security guards in Fallujah in 2004. Producing a “fat lip” as evidence, he complained to Iraqi authorities that he had been roughed up by the SEALs. Military investigation of the incident produced the charges.

The blogosphere is thundering with justifiable indignation over this, and some perspective may be useful. It is, first of all, superficial to characterize the military’s motive for charging the SEALs as “political correctness,” an analysis that implies a self-conscious rejection of common sense and reality to avoid political retribution or to reap political reward. There is a deeper and genuine conflict at work here, between the rule of law, applied with meticulous honesty, and our sense of proportion and decency. This is a recurring conflict in all civilized societies: there are times when no reasonable man thinks the punishment fits the crime, even when there is little disagreement that a crime as defined by law has been committed.

The plain fact is that according to U.S. national policy, enforced by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is a felony-level crime for our soldiers to give detainees bloody lips in the gratuitous manner with which the SEALs are charged. That policy itself may well be an exercise in political correctness, but carrying it out is merely the enforcement of discipline.

The convening authority would not bring charges unless his legal advisers thought there was enough evidence for conviction. Much as I think he would hate to, my guess is that General Cleveland has preferred charges because, by the letter of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the case merits prosecution. We mustn’t dismiss as irrelevant the paramount imperative of discipline in military operations. If the SEALs did beat Abed unnecessarily, the point for the military is not that Abed got a fat lip but that the SEALs breached discipline — and that is even more intolerable in Special Ops than in other branches. Indiscipline gets friendly forces killed and jeopardizes crucial missions.

The SEALs, all enlisted petty officers, have done what they can to obtain a just outcome. They were originally offered “non-judicial punishment,” a summary proceeding in which their commander could have administered, essentially, only a wrist-slap. But in their “zero-defect” community, a wrist-slap ends the hope of promotion. As is their right under the UCMJ, they chose court-martial instead, which will entail airing evidence before a military jury. Their preference here is almost certainly not a calculation but a belief: a belief in the intrinsically just character of their fellows in uniform.

I hope the SEALs are acquitted. That would be the just outcome. For a breach of discipline on the order implied here, the commonsense remedy is for the commander to put his men at attention, yell at them for half an hour, deny them some liberty, and give them some extra duty. But our national policy dictates another, disproportionate approach. I’m not sure how a civilized society avoids such confrontations entirely, but I will say this: juries have rescued the accused from the law before, and if anything will accomplish that for the SEALs, it’s a panel of their comrades in arms.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/j-e-dyer/179981

Well now......

Last SEAL Goes to Trial in Iraq Assault
May 03, 2010
Virginian-Pilot

NORFOLK -- The last of three U.S. Navy SEALs to face court-martial in connection with the alleged abuse of a suspected terrorist in Iraq is scheduled to stand trial this week at Naval Station Norfolk.

Two of the SEALs, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Huertas, were cleared of wrongdoing during military trials in Baghdad last month. Prosecutors argued that they helped cover up the mistreatment of Ahmed Hashim Abed in Fallujah in September. Abed is thought to have masterminded the killing of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

The SEAL who will stand trial beginning today, Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, is the only one who is accused of physically harming Abed. The charges against him include assault for allegedly punching Abed in the midsection; dereliction of duty for not protecting Abed; and making a false statement to an investigator who later interviewed him about the matter.

All three SEALs are assigned to SEAL Team 10, headquartered at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek. They could have accepted administrative punishment but chose instead to fight the charges.

Protesters who oppose the military's decision to try them plan to demonstrate outside Navy base gates throughout today's proceedings, said Dawn West, a real estate agent from Norfolk who helped organize the rally.

West said she expects at least 100 people to attend, including several of McCabe's relatives and contingents of Tea Partiers and military veterans from out of state. She added that organizers already have made arrangements for a posttrial celebration in anticipation of McCabe's acquittal.

"It's just ridiculous what these three boys have had to go through, paid for with our taxpayer dollars," West said. "We're standing by them all the way."

If convicted, McCabe faces as much as a year in the brig, as well as demotion in rank and a bad conduct discharge.

Hatterasguy · #62 05-03-2010, 07:06 PM

I still think its total BS.

TnBob · #63 05-03-2010, 07:45 PM

The REAL answer is pretty obvious.

I bet SEALS wont be bringing in many more prisoners.

Txjake · #64 05-04-2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TnBob

The REAL answer is pretty obvious.

I bet SEALS wont be bringing in many more prisoners.

maybe so, too bad, since the intel they can provide is valuable. what really needs to happen is we need to remove all of the PC pusses from the military and let it get back to doing the business at hand without all the second guesiing and timidity....

t walgamuth · #65 05-04-2010, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

maybe so, too bad, since the intel they can provide is valuable. what really needs to happen is we need to remove all of the PC pusses from the military and let it get back to doing the business at hand without all the second guesiing and timidity....

No, I disagree.

What we need to do is give them clear guidelines and then stick to them. Our political leaders (some of them) decided that they disagreed with the law and instead of working to change the law issued guidelines with the intention of people doing things which skirted the law.

Clear, legal guidelines will help our men in uniform.

If pols disagree with the law let them do their job and change the law if they can.

732002 · #66 05-04-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

maybe so, too bad, since the intel they can provide is valuable. what really needs to happen is we need to remove all of the PC pusses from the military and let it get back to doing the business at hand without all the second guesiing and timidity....

The military does not make policy on the treatment or mistreatment of prisoners.

Chain of command: 1. President of the United States 2. Secretary of defense 3. Secretaries of the Military Departments 4. Joint Chiefs of staff......................

t walgamuth · #67 05-04-2010, 10:42 PM

Jake needs to do a little study on the concept of civilian control of the military, one of the pillars of our democratic republic.

Txjake · #68 05-05-2010, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Jake needs to do a little study on the concept of civilian control of the military, one of the pillars of our democratic republic.

uh, after 20 plus years in the military as an officer, I think i have got it....not speaking of autonomous military behavior extra civilian control: speaking of a sea change in our entire policy of how we unleash the force of our military and what is percieved by many as numbing control of the people on the sharp end.....

t walgamuth · #69 05-05-2010, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

uh, after 20 plus years in the military as an officer, I think i have got it....not speaking of autonomous military behavior extra civilian control: speaking of a sea change in our entire policy of how we unleash the force of our military and what is percieved by many as numbing control of the people on the sharp end.....

Not knowing your life history I can only go by what you say here.

Micromanaging is never good in any organization. Clear and consistant rules are necessary.

Txjake · #70 05-05-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Not knowing your life history I can only go by what you say here.

Micromanaging is never good in any organization. Clear and consistant rules are necessary.

true, and what is being done on the battlefield now days is micromanagement and scrutiny of such a nature that the operator in the field second guess themself on a regular basis. I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think that you can find one place where I advocated the military directly disobeying the orders of the NCA. Simply put, what needs to occur is that the tempo and engagement rules need to be reviewed and changed. It is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of many still in and others....

732002 · #71 05-05-2010, 11:13 AM

Occupying a county long term is complicated, not the best use of our forces and expensive. We never should have started this war, now we don't know how to get out gracefully.

dynalow · #72 05-05-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

Occupying a county long term is complicated, not the best use of our forces and expensive. We never should have started this war, now we don't know how to get out gracefully.

We are getting out.....and by certain metrics, things have improve for many Iraqis.
Those living, of course.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1bBjr_tTTXaVRXckza_PUyGPfEwD9FFGG8G0

strelnik · #73 05-05-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

Law Versus Proportion (and Plain Sense)
J. E. Dyer - 11.25.2009 - 2:59 PM
The Special Operations Commander for Central Command (SOCCENT) has a truly distasteful situation to steer through...

The plain fact is that according to U.S. national policy, enforced by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is a felony-level crime for our soldiers to give detainees bloody lips in the gratuitous manner with which the SEALs are charged. That policy itself may well be an exercise in political correctness, but carrying it out is merely the enforcement of discipline.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/j-e-dyer/179981

This article is factually WRONG.

1. "National policy" cannot make an act "a felony-level crime" whatever that is. Something can be a felony of classes A-D. That's it. Four choices. Naming somethings as a felony requires an act of a legislative body. In the case of the military, the issue then becomes one of reciprocity, i.e. if something is a cruime in one state only, then the issue becomes whether it has standing (status) in a Federal or a military court. Or not.

2. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does NOT"enforce" anything. It describes offenses which require investigation under Article 32 of the UCMJ, and potentially, against Article 15, in the case of the latter, the punishment meted out after a confession and admission of guilt for conduct unbecoming a soldier (Article 92 of the UCMJ) is non-judicial punishment ,.i.e. administered by the soldier's command without authorization required by a court-martial, because every true unit commander has US Title 10 authority allowing him to do this by US statute. Again, it's back to Congress, not "policy."

My reference for these is the US Army Manual of Courts Martial and the UCMJ.

I truly get annoyed by sloppy "authoritative writing." I've done investigations as a commissioned officer. There are procedures and limits.
I defy anyone to tell me where the above is not factually correct.

"National policy" and political correctness have nothing to do with these things.

buffa98 · #74 05-06-2010, 06:43 PM

AQUITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hatterasguy · #75 05-06-2010, 11:11 PM

Total waste of time. Next time cap the SOB's.