Navy SEALs Charged

[Sequimite]

I'm only a Canadian, so I may not know much :rolleyes: , but what exactly are these "orders" that were disobeyed. Does anyone know for a fact exactly what these men were ordered to do/not do? I understand they were sent to capture someone, presumably to be brought back alive, but were they ordered to pamper him as well? Is everyone just going to assume this guy went in without a fight after 5 yrs on the run?

I suggest everyone reread the article as most of these posts have nothing to do with the particular events in question.

[The Mastiff]

Noddy, from a different thread, you stated about me:

Good grief. What an arrogant man.

BTW, Joe is fine. The real "mastiff" is finn, my dog. The handsome guy in my avatar. He got his good looks from his mother I guess. :)

[stoneman]

I suggest everyone reread the article as most of these posts have nothing to do with the particular events in question.

I read the quoted text from the original post and every other post since. Am I missing something here? I'm not sure how my questions seem out of place. You said they disobeyed orders, I'm asking if you know what their orders were. Were they specifically ordered to not touch the man? Were they given the okay to use whatever force they deemed necessary to bring him in?

[Sequimite]

I read the quoted text from the original post and every other post since. Am I missing something here? I'm not sure how my questions seem out of place. You said they disobeyed orders, I'm asking if you know what their orders were. Were they specifically ordered to not touch the man? Were they given the okay to use whatever force they deemed necessary to bring him in?

The article makes it clear that the incident was unconnected to the apprehension. It happened well after the prisoner was safely in a cell. so speculation about the use of force in apprehension is irrelevant.

They are general orders that cover every aspect of military conduct. Regardless of whether one uses the terminology, "military law", "rules and regulations", the principal is the same. All three Seals are accused of lying to superior officers conducting an investigation. That is a prohibited action the violation of which requires some level of punishment. There are other charges that are not leveled against all three. It is not necessary to issue specific orders to not beat each prisoner that is apprehended because the prohibition is already a standing order that they were aware of and chose to violate.

[Jimd]

The article makes it clear that the incident was unconnected to the apprehension. It happened well after the prisoner was safely in a cell. so speculation about the use of force in apprehension is irrelevant.

They are general orders that cover every aspect of military conduct. Regardless of whether one uses the terminology, "military law", "rules and regulations", the principal is the same. All three Seals are accused of lying to superior officers conducting an investigation. That is a prohibited action the violation of which requires some level of punishment. There are other charges that are not leveled against all three. It is not necessary to issue specific orders to not beat each prisoner that is apprehended because the prohibition is already a standing order that they were aware of and chose to violate.

Oh my, so now you're the judge (ready to pass sentence), and the jury (already found them guilty).

I find it odd that, even here in the US, criminals are innocent until proven guilty. Seems as though you've skipped that little step here with the SEALs who are protecting our freedoms by putting their own lives on the line.

Of course, I'm sure the SEALs involved weren't under any stress or anything, operating in hostile territory with their lives on the line. When people are shooting at you and trying to detonate bombs so that you blow up, punching someone in the mouth seems...well, rather tame.

If you've ever served under combat conditions, you'd be aware of stress and its effects on people and their behavior. Sometimes it puts people on edge, just a little bit. These guys do things daily that you couldn't even imagine having to do, and yet you sit on your Throne of Righteousness and judge them. What a laugh.

People that share your attitude are the reason this country's safety is being eroded.

[Jimd]

It's a shame that some are willing to hang these men out to dry. Men who have given up their free lives so that you can have yours. All for the sake of a murderer with a bloody lip. I've been in fights in primary school and took/gave more damage than this dog received. None of us went to trial for it.

Sadly, this is the attitude that's already developed by some in this country. They send soldiers out to do a job while standing over them with the regulation book opened and ready, poised to penalize our guys if all the I's aren't dotted and the T's crossed. It's pathetic beyond words. Repugnant.

What I'm wondering is...What about the rights of the four contractors that were murdered? When do they get their due process? Oh, that's right - they can't because they were murdered. But that's okay, I guess.

And lest anyone believe that the Canadians have no stake in this game, I just finished reading some accounts of their actions in Iraq & Afghanistan. They are serving admirably with our forces.

One Canadian sniper team scored a kill on a Taliban fighter using a Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle. The range, if I remember correctly, was in excess of 2,700 yards. It's the longest recorded sniper kill in world history, breaking Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock's record shot from Viet Nam of 2,500 yards.

OH MY GOD, I JUST REALIZED - THE SNIPERS DIDN'T READ THE TALIBAN FIGHTER HIS RIGHTS!!!! And I believe he got more than a fat lip! These guys are in big trouble!

[Sequimite]

Oh my, so now you're the judge (ready to pass sentence), and the jury (already found them guilty).

I find it odd that, even here in the US, criminals are innocent until proven guilty. Seems as though you've skipped that little step here with the SEALs who are protecting our freedoms by putting their own lives on the line.

You highlight my words. "All three Seals are accused" and you think that this means that I've found them guilty and want to pass sentence. Very ironic, and no, since you don't know what "accused" means I don't expect you to understand "ironic".

[Jimd]

You highlight my words. "All three Seals are accused" and you think that this means that I've found them guilty and want to pass sentence. Very ironic, and no, since you don't know what "accused" means I don't expect you to understand "ironic".

Just as I don't expect you to know the first thing about being grateful to those who are fighting for your freedom in a combat zone.

I hold them in high esteem because they're risking their lives for my family and me. You hold them in contempt because...well, no one really knows the angle your coming from. Frankly, I don't care, either.

[v8r]

Maybe they should have given the Murderer cookies? :confused: I'm sorry I don't believe Special forces soldiers should be held to the same rules as the typical military. We train them to Kill , collect Intell, and be able to think on their feet. They have to do the nastiest, ugliest things to get the job done.They are not the typical soldier.They are controlled chaos.If the only thing this prisoner got was a swelled lip, he should consider himself lucky.The guy probably punched himself any way.If anyone here believes there isn't something crooked about these Seals having to go to trial for doing their jobs I think you should rethink your position. Have some here forgotten what happened 8 years ago on September 11th? I remember. These Terrorist are not AMERICAN citizens, so they have no rights under our constitution. God bless America and the American soldiers that defend her.

If anyone want's to throw me under the bus,or try and beat me down about my opinion I don't give a rats turkey.I come from a Military family and am very proud of where I live.I know if my country ever needed me to fight I would be happy to pull the trigger on a few terrorist.

[Jimd]

since you don't know what "accused" means I don't expect you to understand "ironic".

Oh, and whenever I read one of your posts on this thread, I throw up a little bit in my mouth.

[rljohns]

While it's important to follow orders, it must be realized that SEALs aren't police. They don't run around reading terrorists miranda rights. They're trained to kill enemy combatants.

Utilizing them as cops is a major mis-management of our military.

This is always a problem when we act as an occupying force. It's a no win situation. For all we know the guy was resisting arrest and trying get away. We can't really second guess the SEAL team.

So if we don't read them their Miranda rights, how can we try them in a US civil court???

[The Mastiff]

I am pretty familiar with the do's and don't's of taking people into custody in the military, and have had to testify at article 48 hearings, and courts matrtials as an MP, and an investigator.

Basicly, you can do what you need to do to affect the apprehension, following a sort of ladder of use of force. That doesn't mean you can't skip directly to deadly force if necessessary. You certainly can.

Once a person is in your custody and not a threat, force should cease and the prisoner should be protected from danger or injury when possible. If wounded, his wounds should get treated.

To physically assault someone already in custody is a chargeable offense.

These are laws meant to apply to US servicemembers who do wrong. Yes, they do also apply to POWS, along with a whole other set of rules for dealing with POWs. What is this guy's status?

One thing to consider is that SEALs , Rangers, RECON, Green Berets etc. are combat soldiers. SEALs are by definition a specialized commando unit. They are not trained LE, and IMO, shouldn't be held to the same standards. My opinion only.

Also my opinion, the Iraqi's saw an opportunity to embarass the US and called the US command up and began this process. If they would have told the murderous scumbag to sit down, and shut up this discussion wouldn't be happening.

To say this is not political is incorrect. It very much is. By the Iraqi's who began the process, and by the Commander and chief who I guarantee was appraised of the situation, and the possibility of an embarrassing incident. The decision was made to cover some asses and go ahead and investigate this incident for actions to be taken. The SEALs that lied to their superiors were wrong for doing so. No argument or excuse for that. The slap on the other hand is less than a nothing. Iraqi police do worse to civilians on traffic stops when they don't offer bribes fast enough.

For the commanders all the way up the chain of command to not look out for their troops and throw them to the military court system for political reasons is inexcusable.

As I said before maintaining discipline, or any of the other arguments made are, in my opinion, incorrect. This political all the way, and will have a detrimental effect on morale as these things invariably do.

The troops expect, rightly so, to be protected from bull$#!t by the commanders they serve. It's also in the best interests of the commanders to do so, not to mention the right and wrong factor.

In doing things like this over such a trivial event is like telling the troops being PC, and protecting the boss from minor embarassments is more important than the soldiers themselves. The soldiers in the military of the United states are far from stupid, or politically unaware. They also keep up with the news around the world.

Not the kind of command I'd want to work, and put my life and future on the line for. In the mean time, untill I could get out I'd look at doing what I can to cover my a$$, as no one else will, and that's about it. Let somebody else worry about the risky stuff.

I've been in situations exactly like this, and this was the outcome by and large. Even the best troops in the world aren't going to give their all for a commander that will do this kind of thing. Once again, only my opinion, not trying to say these are facts. Joe

[Doc Pyres]

Sadly, this is the attitude that's already developed by some in this country. They send soldiers out to do a job while standing over them with the regulation book opened and ready, poised to penalize our guys if all the I's aren't dotted and the T's crossed. It's pathetic beyond words. Repugnant.

What I'm wondering is...What about the rights of the four contractors that were murdered? When do they get their due process? Oh, that's right - they can't because they were murdered. But that's okay, I guess.

And lest anyone believe that the Canadians have no stake in this game, I just finished reading some accounts of their actions in Iraq & Afghanistan. They are serving admirably with our forces.

One Canadian sniper team scored a kill on a Taliban fighter using a Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle. The range, if I remember correctly, was in excess of 2,700 yards. It's the longest recorded sniper kill in world history, breaking Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock's record shot from Viet Nam of 2,500 yards.

OH MY GOD, I JUST REALIZED - THE SNIPERS DIDN'T READ THE TALIBAN FIGHTER HIS RIGHTS!!!! And I believe he got more than a fat lip! These guys are in big trouble!

Thank you for mentioning our service, Jim. We don't have nearly as many troops over there as you guys, but most Canadians are **** proud of them anyway. :)

Unfortunately, the amazing story of the Canadian sniper team had a sad ending. They were hung out to dry too. If anyone's interested, here's a good article... "We were abandoned."

[Sequimite]

I am pretty familiar with the do's and don't's of taking people into custody in the military, and have had to testify at article 48 hearings, and courts matrtials as an MP, and an investigator.

Basicly, you can do what you need to do to affect the apprehension, following a sort of ladder of use of force. That doesn't mean you can't skip directly to deadly force if necessessary. You certainly can.

Once a person is in your custody and not a threat, force should cease and the prisoner should be protected from danger or injury when possible. If wounded, his wounds should get treated.

To physically assault someone already in custody is a chargeable offense. Joe

I appreciate your take on this. I did not know that the Iraqis started the process and you are right that this automatically creates a strong political aspect. Soldiers have too often been sacrificed in the past for political expediency, the great movie, Breaker Morant dealt with this subject.

I had a long discussion the other day with my favorite brother-in-law, a chief of detectives, about the subject of police discretion. He received good advice early on: never kick someone's *** because you're angry or because it's emotionally satisfying, only do it if it is necessary to make a particular important point. We agreed that, just like judicial discretion, police discretion has been diminished not because it is not effective, but because only the abuses become well known. I frightening number of laws are based on a few anecdotes, rather than a cool rational policy assessment. This is a failure of the political system, but it is also our failure as citizens. Most of us don't look beyond the bumper sticker to the complexities of the underlying issues and so we have a political system that overreacts to isolated publicized incidents.

[224477]

I think 'objective amber' should be shot down and not punched. Enough said.

[noddy]

Noddy, from a different thread, you stated about me:

Yes, Joe

You were chucking your weight about

Never mind, eh?

[Jimd]

I appreciate your take on this. I did not know that the Iraqis started the process and you are right that this automatically creates a strong political aspect. Soldiers have too often been sacrificed in the past for political expediency, the great movie, Breaker Morant dealt with this subject.

I had a long discussion the other day with my favorite brother-in-law, a chief of detectives, about the subject of police discretion. He received good advice early on: never kick someone's *** because you're angry or because it's emotionally satisfying, only do it if it is necessary to make a particular important point. We agreed that, just like judicial discretion, police discretion has been diminished not because it is not effective, but because only the abuses become well known. I frightening number of laws are based on a few anecdotes, rather than a cool rational policy assessment. This is a failure of the political system, but it is also our failure as citizens. Most of us don't look beyond the bumper sticker to the complexities of the underlying issues and so we have a political system that overreacts to isolated publicized incidents.

I actually agree with you on the aspect of the advice your brother-in-law was given as far as not kicking prisoners' asses out of anger. For police, it's NOT a good idea to do such things.

I'm not certain if you're mincing American law enforcement into this military venue here (not pointing a finger, just confusion on my part). I believe we'd even both agree that the two are different animals.

[Sequimite]

I actually agree with you on the aspect of the advice your brother-in-law was given as far as not kicking prisoners' asses out of anger. For police, it's NOT a good idea to do such things.

I'm not certain if you're mincing American law enforcement into this military venue here (not pointing a finger, just confusion on my part). I believe we'd even both agree that the two are different animals.

Well, they're both extremely tough jobs that take a tremendous emotional toll. And because of that, a certain leeway is necessary. In both cases actions taken while under fire deserve more leeway than actions taken under the controlled conditions of the station/base.

I have great respect for both jobs and have many friends who have been in these situations, especially in Vietnam. My brother-in-law was Airborne and then Military Intelligence in Viet Nam and in law enforcement has done everything from patrolman to working for the FBI. I was recruited by West Point as a National Merit Scholar and still regret not being able to go there due to a crippled foot. So I became a typical armchair general, getting my battlefield insights from friends' experiences, John Keegan, William Manchester and others. I have faced imminent death three times, not counting the two times guns were pointed at me in anger and that gives me a slight bit of understanding.

I don't pretend to know the right and wrong of this situation, but I have at least as much respect for those having to do their duty to deal with this incident as I do for the accused.

It's an emotional subject, so perhaps we should let any previous harsh words or misunderstandings pass.

I just had some fresh baked fruit tart for breakfast and will soon get to work on the turkey and stuffing. Have a fulfilling holiday.

[Kuolema]

I'm going to squeak in here and then scamper out. I guess it's all just political nonsense. My cousin is going back for a third tour of duty in Afghanistan, and from what he's told me this seems kind of nonsensical. It's really easy to read this article and react in two ways:

A) This is outrageous! Geneva convention! You can't abuse POWs!

B) That's ridiculous, they should be able to bust his face in!

Seeing as how this is a heated thread, it's kind of interesting to see the responses. As a human being, this man is responsible for the death of many, many people. It's hard to not want to say he deserved it.

But then again, if this is allowed are we any better than 'the enemy' (I use this term loosely). We really can't judge any of this, we all don't know all the facts.

You're all very respectable people, and it seems a lot of fluff here was a result of some misunderstood words. But to those who have served in the armed forces, there's a certain point of view that is hard to understand from those of us who have not. Regardless of what transgressed, it is MY OPINION, that these men should not be charged. A lot of focus is put on this 'busted lip', and not on the fact that a very EVIL man is now no longer free to roam about terrorizing and killing innocent people.

That being said... I have talked to many soldiers and veterans, and war... War never changes. The horrors committed that go unpublished are stuff that nightmares are made of. Let's all agree to disagree. In the end, these men are serving their country, sacrificing their youth and their lives to protect and preserve the free world.

And in the end... War is only understood by those who have experienced it.

Peace and life, knife brothers, peace and love.

[Jimd]

It's an emotional subject, so perhaps we should let any previous harsh words or misunderstandings pass.

I just had some fresh baked fruit tart for breakfast and will soon get to work on the turkey and stuffing. Have a fulfilling holiday.

I'm fine with letting harsh words pass.
I wish everyone here a blessed holiday, and a fruitful one.

I also agree that this is most definitely an emotional subject. Just the very nature of it all: the fact that our service personnel put their lives on the line for freedom, by it's very nature, causes us to have emotions. Those emotions can be pain (for their sacrifices) and gratitude (again, for their sacrifices).

Happy Thanksgiving, all, and God bless our troops.