Thread: Court marshall or not?

Just a caveat before I say my piece - I only skimmed the article.

One of the things that distinguishes us from terrorists is how we go about conducting ourselves in these situations. Now, I am not saying that a fat lip is equivalent to a limb amputation or murder, but there are rules regulating how these things should be conducted, rules which I believe the US and every free-thinking democratic country has signed up to.

Let's also not forget that these are suspects, and unless I missed something somewhere they are innocent until proven guilty. Unless the court had found these people guilty before their arrest took place, these marines allegedly assaulted people presumed innocent. There was no mention that I could seen in the report regarding whether the arrest took place as part of an incriminating conflict with these men, which would of course be a different matter as the marines would have been protecting themselves.

There is also the small matter of the statement in the report regarding the charges that has seemed to be overlooked so far in this discussion: all the marines have also been charged with something called "making a false official statement". Even if the charges of assault are spurious and "PC gone mad!", I would suggest respectfully that soldiers who are suspected of lying in their official statements of an event should have full scrutiny applied to them, and if found guilty of it suffer the full consequences of their actions.

James.

I think the investigation needs to be completed and the consequences dependent on the outcome.
The fact that they are in the military does not exempt anybody from committing crimes.
The article is (un)surprisingly sparse on details who is pressing the charges, but a court decided to let this case proceed to this stage. These things are an exception so when they happen I am inclined to think there is likely to be some reason, and refuse to take a side based on nothing but propaganda.
As I've said before if you think the (military) justice system is corrupt you have much more serious problems than three SEALs being charged for abuse.

And, yes, if he didn't resist the arrest it would have been wrong for them to assault and treat him as proven terrorist. In our society there's something about supremacy of the law, and it's a very fundamental concept.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Just a caveat before I say my piece - I only skimmed the article.

One of the things that distinguishes us from terrorists is how we go about conducting ourselves in these situations. Now, I am not saying that a fat lip is equivalent to a limb amputation or murder, but there are rules regulating how these things should be conducted, rules which I believe the US and every free-thinking democratic country has signed up to.

Let's also not forget that these are suspects, and unless I missed something somewhere they are innocent until proven guilty. Unless the court had found these people guilty before their arrest took place, these marines allegedly assaulted people presumed innocent. There was no mention that I could seen in the report regarding whether the arrest took place as part of an incriminating conflict with these men, which would of course be a different matter as the marines would have been protecting themselves.

There is also the small matter of the statement in the report regarding the charges that has seemed to be overlooked so far in this discussion: all the marines have also been charged with something called "making a false official statement". Even if the charges of assault are spurious and "PC gone mad!", I would suggest respectfully that soldiers who are suspected of lying in their official statements of an event should have full scrutiny applied to them, and if found guilty of it suffer the full consequences of their actions.

James.

james, if you don't have anything of value to add to this conversation please refrain from posting.

Jimbo, I already posted on this topic, but, saw your above comment and will state that I agree with what you said regarding false statements. I'm a retired law enforcement officer who rose through the ranks, retiring at an administrative level and say that only to illustrate I have had to consider such things in a professional light.

With that said, there is a flip-side to why these soldiers may have offered false statements, if, in fact they did...or...not made full disclosure and though I do not have any more of the facts than what anyone else here has, I would venture to say that they were pre-disposed to believe, if not know, that they would be hung out to dry because of this nation, and in particular, this administrations focus on protraying to the world that we are kinder, gentler and determined to make up for all our sins of the past by offering to the world an occassional sacrificial lamb in uniform. Right, wrong or indifferent, I would venture to say that our soldiers have about as much confidence that they will be fairly treated in light of like inquiry to accusation that they feel they have only themselves to look for in their defense.

Lastly Jimbo, with this post, I'm not talking to you...only using your comment to offer an opinion as to the fact that it is a crying shame that these boys, if they did offer false or a piece-meal account, probably did if based on lack of confidence in superior support or level investigation and responsive action.

I fear that serious efforts are being made at high levels of our government, to degrade the security of the United States. Tying the hands of our special operations groups is a great way to lose the war on terror, and have the sponsors of terror on our shores, with weapons of mass destruction. Our nuclear submarine fleet will soon need to be drydocked in order to reconfigure them for women sailors on board. Who will defend us against attack by sea during that time? Who in the world will benefit the most from these type of actions? Our enemies, and they will not show mercy.

I read the article before I posted, and now having a few of these points brought up maybe I should touch on a few of them.

First off, this isn't some beat cop busting a guy for petit larceny. This is war in a foreign country. It's a terrorist - or whatever you wanna call him - in a combat zone behind apprehended by military personnel. So spare the "he's a suspect" and "innocent until proven guilty." He's the enemy and he's lucky he didn't get an FMJ to the chest. If one of our guys gets taken by the enemy, there will not be a trial, or a presumption of innocence, or anything resembling a fair procedure of criminal prosecution. We're not playing home game rules anymore.

Secondly, the SEALs, being American citizens prosecuted under our laws, DO have certain rights not extended to enemy combatants, purely by virtue of their citizenship. As such, they have a right to participate in their defense. Saying "I didn't do it" isn't submitting false statements, it's disputing facts of evidence in a criminal case. Regardless, these charges are based on trumped up charges that should be dropped. If these precipitating charges are dropped - as they should be - then will we still prosecute them for submitting a false report? What's that, 50 push ups?

And Blues has a point about faith in superiors - how can you blame these guys for omitting some trivial aspect of a mission? (Yes trivial. We've all gotten smacked in the mouth or punched in the gut and the pain goes away.) If every prisoner who cried abuse was given the benefit of the doubt, whole prisons would empty into the streets.

Let this be a lesson to the boys and girls risking their lives for our sake: two to the chest and agree you saw a gun. Or is that too un-PC?

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Just a caveat before I say my piece - I only skimmed the article.

One of the things that distinguishes us from terrorists is how we go about conducting ourselves in these situations. Now, I am not saying that a fat lip is equivalent to a limb amputation or murder, but there are rules regulating how these things should be conducted, rules which I believe the US and every free-thinking democratic country has signed up to.

Let's also not forget that these are suspects, and unless I missed something somewhere they are innocent until proven guilty. Unless the court had found these people guilty before their arrest took place, these marines allegedly assaulted people presumed innocent. There was no mention that I could seen in the report regarding whether the arrest took place as part of an incriminating conflict with these men, which would of course be a different matter as the marines would have been protecting themselves.

There is also the small matter of the statement in the report regarding the charges that has seemed to be overlooked so far in this discussion: all the marines have also been charged with something called "making a false official statement". Even if the charges of assault are spurious and "PC gone mad!", I would suggest respectfully that soldiers who are suspected of lying in their official statements of an event should have full scrutiny applied to them, and if found guilty of it suffer the full consequences of their actions.

James.

Absolutely, the poor dear that was apprehended as a suspect should have never been so viciously attacked. Suspect, shmushpect; unless you know for sure that somebody did something really, really bad, kiss them on both cheeks and pat their butts as they walk out the door as honored non-combatants. Yup, we go way overboard when we even think about hurting people who are trying to kill us.

Mmm hmmm, all those poor dears just need a big hug. Watch out for the lumpy vests though.

"Accused" terrorist.

Not convicted.

Not known.

He could be completely innocent (You know, it's happened before. A LOT.).

So to all you guys who DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE, just saw Mark's line and thought "That's a freaking travesty", can I ask you what exactly do you think of the "rule of law"?

Here's an article from the "Navy Times". Surprisingly, it contains more facts than the FOX news story (shocking, I know...):
SEALs charged in alleged assault of detainee - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

"
McCabe is charged with one count each of assault of the detainee, dereliction of duty and making a false official statement, Silkman said. Officials accuse McCabe of “willfully failing to safeguard a detainee,” Silkman said.
Keefe is charge with one count each of dereliction of duty and false official statement; Huertas is accused of dereliction of duty, false official statement and impeding an investigation, she said."


Dereliction of duty, making a false official statement, impeding an investigation...sounds like a thorough investigation and trial are at least called for. You never know, they might be found innocent.

Originally Posted by BingoBango

So spare the "he's a suspect" and "innocent until proven guilty." He's the enemy and he's lucky he didn't get an FMJ to the chest.

Really? And all this from that same FoxNews article we all read....

Originally Posted by BingoBango

Saying "I didn't do it" isn't submitting false statements, it's disputing facts of evidence in a criminal case.

So what are the false statements they have been charged for then?

Originally Posted by BingoBango

And Blues has a point about faith in superiors

Let me get this straight - you are saying they have complete faith in their superiors that the person they are sent to arrest is a terrorist, but they don't have faith in these same people to defend their lawful actions?
Likewise you have complete faith in the protections that the US law grants US citizens, yet in this particular case somehow following the law is a witch hunt of some sort?

Yes, Sir, please carry on - 'Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!'

Originally Posted by Bruce

Suspect, shmushpect; unless you know for sure that somebody did something really, really bad, kiss them on both cheeks and pat their butts as they walk out the door as honored non-combatants.

Nice, so close to "Reductio ad absurdum", but sorry no cigar!