Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Citizen wrote:

It is always possible the arrestee was abused. It may be a valid charge. We just don't know, yet.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

conservative85 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

It is always possible the arrestee was abused. It may be a valid charge. We just don't know, yet.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

conservative85 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

It is always possible the arrestee was abused.  It may be a valid charge.  We just don't know, yet.

Click to expand...

   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.

Click to expand...

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  

Click to expand...

Citizen wrote:

Off-topic thread, fellas.

Click to expand...

Is there another place to post this ?

Click to expand...

Eryk wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Off-topic thread, fellas.

Click to expand...

Is there another place to post this ?

Click to expand...

There's a whole frikkin internet out there.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Your preachin to the choir!

This ain't chess this is life.  War is hell. I say we give it back 100 fold.

I think that it is only proper that when in some others playground you should play by their rules, and accommodate their wishes...

Click to expand...