Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    This makes me sick.........read on


    Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

    The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

    Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

    Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

    Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

    Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

    Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.


    The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

    FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

    The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

    "I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."

    Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

    United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

    The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."

    The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

    The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

    Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

    The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment

  2. #2
    Guest

    Post imported post

    They should've brought back a corpse.

  3. #3
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    The three S's Shoot Shovel and shutup!
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I find it odd that we can bomb, maim, and kill but lord don't treat the enemy combatant with disrespect.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Off-topic thread, fellas.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Off-topic thread, fellas.
    Is there another place to post this ?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Eryk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Off-topic thread, fellas.
    Is there another place to post this ?
    I think this is very on topic, if they can prosecute a soldier for doing his job, think of how long before they prosecute citizens for defending themselves.

    I can imagine a trial where a citizen is on the stand because he shot a criminal, wounded him then sat on the suspect till police arrived and gets charged for holding him against his will, or they say that you caused him unnecessary pain by sitting on a person with a gun shot wound, inflicting more pain (torture).

    Notice how we went from soldiers fighting a war giving no aid & comfort to the ENEMY, to a police situation, restraining our troop, giving aid and comfort to the enemy!



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    Eryk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Off-topic thread, fellas.
    Is there another place to post this ?
    I think this is very on topic, if they can prosecute a soldier for doing his job, think of how long before they prosecute citizens for defending themselves.

    I can imagine a trial where a citizen is on the stand because he shot a criminal, wounded him then sat on the suspect till police arrived and gets charged for holding him against his will, or they say that you caused him unnecessary pain by* sitting on a person with a gun shot wound, inflicting more pain (torture).

    Notice how we went from soldiers fighting a war giving no aid & comfort to* the ENEMY, to a police situation, restraining our troop, giving aid and comfort to the enemy!


    Very well said thank you, I was beginning to wonder if anyone gave a damn. Thank you

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Eryk wrote:
    conservative85 wrote:
    Eryk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Off-topic thread, fellas.
    Is there another place to post this ?
    I think this is very on topic, if they can prosecute a soldier for doing his job, think of how long before they prosecute citizens for defending themselves.

    I can imagine a trial where a citizen is on the stand because he shot a criminal, wounded him then sat on the suspect till police arrived and gets charged for holding him against his will, or they say that you caused him unnecessary pain by sitting on a person with a gun shot wound, inflicting more pain (torture).

    Notice how we went from soldiers fighting a war giving no aid & comfort to the ENEMY, to a police situation, restraining our troop, giving aid and comfort to the enemy!


    Very well said thank you, I was beginning to wonder if anyone gave a damn.
    Your welcome, I appreciate your concern for Our brothers in arms, and your patriotism.

    This is a topic that enrages me to no end. I being former Military Police know all to well what happens when politics are involved. In this war it should be fought as one. There should be no rules in this war, least not with an enemy that does NOT fall under Geneva Convention, they should have no protection from the rules, and should be executed on the spot. It is them or us, this is a war of self preservation.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    I completely agree with you. I to was in the military and for the brass not to have our soldiers backs is ludicrous and disrespects all our soldiers in uniform.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    They do prosicute people in Britain if they injure thieves while commiting crimes. If they can get there, we could too. Easily.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Should have brought a dead body back
    Freedom isn't free, but this is America! We will find a way to outsource it and save some money - Jeremy

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    It is always possible the arrestee was abused. It may be a valid charge. We just don't know, yet.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    We are at war with these people, he is a terrorist. Who gives a rats ass if he was abused.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Totally Disgusting and a slap in the face of Americas finest

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    exactly right

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    Sorry for the repeat!



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    It is always possible the arrestee was abused. It may be a valid charge. We just don't know, yet.
    With all due respect he was not arrested he was captured on the battle field, he is not aforted rights like an American citizen, or even a person under the Geneva convention.

    The Govt. is treating this guy like a victim and not a terrorist. but if he was caught back when he committed this crime he would not have been put on trial for his act, he would have been put on trail for his acts against America.

    I mean he would not have been put on trial for dragging them around the street, before he killed them, so why are we putting ours on trial for punching. The guy should be glad he was not shot on site. If we keep punishing the men and women for doing their job, they will stop volunteering for the job.

    Can you imagine every time a soldier was charged we'd have stop pull him off the battle field gather witnesses, try to find evidence blah blah blah.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    It is always possible the arrestee was abused.* It may be a valid charge.* We just don't know, yet.
    ** With all due respect he was not arrested he was captured on the battle field, he is not aforted rights like an American citizen, or even a person under the Geneva convention.

    ** The Govt. is treating this guy like a victim and not a terrorist.* but if he was caught* back when he committed this crime he would not have been put on trial for his act, he would have been put on trail for his acts against America.

    ** I mean he would not have been put on trial for dragging them around the street,* before he killed them, so why are we putting ours on trial for punching. The guy should be glad he was not shot on site. If we keep punishing the men and women for doing their job, they will stop volunteering for the job.

    *** Can you imagine every time a soldier was charged we'd have stop pull him off the battle field gather witnesses, try to find evidence blah blah blah.
    that's exactly right

    I'll say it again we are at WAR with these people.

  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Eryk wrote:
    conservative85 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    It is always possible the arrestee was abused. It may be a valid charge. We just don't know, yet.
    With all due respect he was not arrested he was captured on the battle field, he is not aforted rights like an American citizen, or even a person under the Geneva convention.

    The Govt. is treating this guy like a victim and not a terrorist. but if he was caught back when he committed this crime he would not have been put on trial for his act, he would have been put on trail for his acts against America.

    I mean he would not have been put on trial for dragging them around the street, before he killed them, so why are we putting ours on trial for punching. The guy should be glad he was not shot on site. If we keep punishing the men and women for doing their job, they will stop volunteering for the job.

    Can you imagine every time a soldier was charged we'd have stop pull him off the battle field gather witnesses, try to find evidence blah blah blah.
    that's exactly right

    I'll say it again we are at WAR with these people.
    These aren't people. They are a sub-human culture that is hell bent on killing every single one of us infidels.

    To keep this on topic, I open carry a pistol and if someone yells allah akbar around me he will get shot. Because I am fearful of what I know is coming next.

    Our Marines should be allowed to kick down doors and eradicate this scum without having to consult with a JAG or reading Miranda.

    Kill 'em all. Let allah sort 'em out!

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    It is always possible the arrestee was abused. It may be a valid charge. We just don't know, yet.
    With all due respect he was not arrested he was captured on the battle field, he is not aforted rights like an American citizen, or even a person under the Geneva convention.

    The Govt. is treating this guy like a victim and not a terrorist. but if he was caught back when he committed this crime he would not have been put on trial for his act, he would have been put on trail for his acts against America.

    I mean he would not have been put on trial for dragging them around the street, before he killed them, so why are we putting ours on trial for punching. The guy should be glad he was not shot on site. If we keep punishing the men and women for doing their job, they will stop volunteering for the job.

    Can you imagine every time a soldier was charged we'd have stop pull him off the battle field gather witnesses, try to find evidence blah blah blah.
    Thank you for the respect.

    My main point, unstated earlier: lets not swallow hook-line-and-sinker the government story, nor fall into a line of thinking that automatically supportsthe servicemen. If all servicemen were above reproach, there would be noneedfor captain's masts nor courts martial. The military must have a way to weed out the bad ones.It reflects well on the military if it takes accusations of abuse of defenseless detainees seriously.

    Lets be a little precise. Abedwasn't captured on the battlefield. The article clearly states he was identified by intelligence at some point in the past as a leader and had evaded capture. No active battle. This was much more akin to a highly-trained SWAT team capturing a criminal thought to be highly dangerous.

    Whatwe are missing here is the actual evidence against the SEALs. If it is literally nothing morethan the detainee's accusation and his split lip, then somethingstinks. If that is all, what prosecutor in his right mind would go for criminal charges? The word of an insurgent (according to intelligence reports) against the word of someone presumed innocent until proven guilty?If this is the case, this is really nothing more than a political prosecution. The SEALs wouldbe found not guilty, but put through the wringer in the meantime to make the government lookconcerned aboutstopping abuse.

    But, if there is more evidence, like a couple otherSEALs who witnessed and reported abuse, or heard the accused bragging later about roughing up the prisoner, or security video, or something, then of course itwould be a proper prosecution.

    I thinkit best to just wait and see what evidence the government has, if any.

    And my main point, lets not jump to any conclusions just yet.

    Especially on an off-topic thread.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    conservative85 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    It is always possible the arrestee was abused. It may be a valid charge. We just don't know, yet.
    With all due respect he was not arrested he was captured on the battle field, he is not aforted rights like an American citizen, or even a person under the Geneva convention.

    The Govt. is treating this guy like a victim and not a terrorist. but if he was caught back when he committed this crime he would not have been put on trial for his act, he would have been put on trail for his acts against America.

    I mean he would not have been put on trial for dragging them around the street, before he killed them, so why are we putting ours on trial for punching. The guy should be glad he was not shot on site. If we keep punishing the men and women for doing their job, they will stop volunteering for the job.

    Can you imagine every time a soldier was charged we'd have stop pull him off the battle field gather witnesses, try to find evidence blah blah blah.
    Thank you for the respect.

    My main point, unstated earlier: lets not swallow hook-line-and-sinker the government story, nor fall into a line of thinking that automatically supportsthe servicemen. If all servicemen were above reproach, there would be noneedfor captain's masts nor courts martial. The military must have a way to weed out the bad ones.It reflects well on the military if it takes accusations of abuse of defenseless detainees seriously.

    Lets be a little precise. Abedwasn't captured on the battlefield. The article clearly states he was identified by intelligence at some point in the past as a leader and had evaded capture. No active battle. This was much more akin to a highly-trained SWAT team capturing a criminal thought to be highly dangerous.

    Whatwe are missing here is the actual evidence against the SEALs. If it is literally nothing morethan the detainee's accusation and his split lip, then somethingstinks. If that is all, what prosecutor in his right mind would go for criminal charges? The word of an insurgent (according to intelligence reports) against the word of someone presumed innocent until proven guilty?If this is the case, this is really nothing more than a political prosecution. The SEALs wouldbe found not guilty, but put through the wringer in the meantime to make the government lookconcerned aboutstopping abuse.

    But, if there is more evidence, like a couple otherSEALs who witnessed and reported abuse, or heard the accused bragging later about roughing up the prisoner, or security video, or something, then of course itwould be a proper prosecution.

    I thinkit best to just wait and see what evidence the government has, if any.

    And my main point, lets not jump to any conclusions just yet.

    Especially on an off-topic thread.
    Points taken.

    Lets put Ahab the Arab sheik of the burning sand, place him in Guantanamo bay Cuba and when the war is over we will try him in a military tribunal. Then and then only try the soldiers.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Washington Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    conservative85 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    It is always possible the arrestee was abused.* It may be a valid charge.* We just don't know, yet.
    ** With all due respect he was not arrested he was captured on the battle field, he is not aforted rights like an American citizen, or even a person under the Geneva convention.

    ** The Govt. is treating this guy like a victim and not a terrorist.* but if he was caught* back when he committed this crime he would not have been put on trial for his act, he would have been put on trail for his acts against America.

    ** I mean he would not have been put on trial for dragging them around the street,* before he killed them, so why are we putting ours on trial for punching. The guy should be glad he was not shot on site. If we keep punishing the men and women for doing their job, they will stop volunteering for the job.

    *** Can you imagine every time a soldier was charged we'd have stop pull him off the battle field gather witnesses, try to find evidence blah blah blah.
    Thank you for the respect.

    My main point, unstated earlier:* lets not swallow hook-line-and-sinker the government story, nor fall into a line of thinking that automatically supports*the servicemen.* If all servicemen were above reproach, there would be no*need*for captain's masts nor courts martial.* The military must have a way to weed out the bad ones.**It reflects well on the military if it takes accusations of abuse of defenseless detainees seriously.**

    Lets be a little precise.* Abed*wasn't captured on the battlefield.* The article clearly states he was identified by intelligence at some point in the past as a leader and had evaded capture.* No active battle.* This was much more akin to a highly-trained SWAT team capturing a criminal thought to be highly dangerous.

    What*we are missing here is the actual evidence against the SEALs.* If it is literally nothing more*than the detainee's accusation and his split lip, then something*stinks.* If that is all, what prosecutor in his right mind would go for criminal charges?* The word of an insurgent (according to intelligence reports) against the word of someone presumed innocent until proven guilty?**If this is the case, this is really nothing more than a political prosecution.* The SEALs would*be found not guilty, but put through the wringer in the meantime to make the government look*concerned about*stopping abuse.

    But, if there is more evidence, like a couple other*SEALs who witnessed and reported abuse, or heard the accused bragging later about roughing up the prisoner, or security video, or something, then of course it*would be a proper prosecution.

    I think*it best to just wait and see what evidence the government has, if any.

    And my main point, lets not jump to any conclusions just yet.

    Especially on an off-topic thread.****



    I say to hell with "political correctness" the enemy didn't seemed to concerned how it looked when they flew those planes full of innocents into the WTC.

    and you seemed quite concerned with this being an off-topic thread. If if bothers you that much and you have the option to kill the thread then do so and be done with it. Obviously it bothers you being here *

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Eryk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Off-topic thread, fellas.
    Is there another place to post this ?
    There's a whole frikkin internet out there.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Eryk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Off-topic thread, fellas.
    Is there another place to post this ?
    There's a whole frikkin internet out there.
    "Always a Step ahead of Hank T". HA!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •