Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

I had a "very good shot" :wink: at the Air Force Academy. Thought about going until I was told my colorblindness would limit my choices. Then i just gave up. Things like the new cyber command would have been cool though.

 

Nah, they have excellent attitude adjustment methods.

:hihi:

 

You guys need to ease back in your foxholes.

There is a lot more or a lot less to this story than Fox has reported...wow, that would hardly be the first time.

This is a show, that is all it is. These guys will come out unscathed.

Now, when the bad guy goes to "trial" and the defense moves for dismissal due to the fact he was roughed up illegally (which is sure to happen), the government will object, stating these alleged charges were investigated and these guys were found not guilty by an impartial court. Motion denied and off we go.

Sometimes you need to look past the next move. Kinda like chess. Wouldn't hurt on the football field, either.

hwr

 

Nancy Pelosi and Red.

 

This story isn't about punishing brave soldiers for doing their jobs; it is about punishing soldiers who disregard orders and then try to cover it up.

You guys are so easily manipulated. You complain about the effect of the librul' media, but then get willfully hauled in by these propaganda pieces as soon as they swing into your political sphere. This is a case study in why people do not find Fox News to be a credible source of news; this guy blatantly contradicts himself several times in his piece. It is smart PR for the soldiers, because they are framing themselves as victims to Political Correctness and Libruls', but this issue is more about lying to NCIS, and then acting surprised about being punished for it.

First the headline:
"Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist"

The story says that there was only a single assault charge, the one against McCabe, not "Assault Charges". And the reason wasn't "for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist", it was for attacking him after he had already been captured.

So if the writer was being "fair and balanced", he would have written something like:
"Navy SEAL Faces Assault, Other Charges for Attacking Detained Terrorist. Other SEALs Also Charged With Hindering Investigation."


So moving past the incorrect and misleading headline, let's examine what "facts" the writer provides to us. So what happened to poor, poor Ahmed?

According to the writer, with no source attribution:

Ahmed... told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Okay, so Ahmed got punched in the face? Doesn't sound like a very smart place to hit a guy if you aren't trying to make it obvious, and I bet a SEAL would know that, so perhaps what happened was what the Attorney for the main defendant said:

...the SEALs are being charged for allegedly giving the detainee a “punch in the gut.”

Ok, so the author doesn't really seem to know where the guy was hit, or the extent of his injuries, but this piece is the main source of information out there about this case?


So how about the timeline? At what point in the capture did the assault occur? During the initial capture? Maybe he was running away? That would be very excusable and justified. Or was it later on, while poor, poor Ahmed slept, dreaming of Jihad? Well, our author has once again proven that he doesn't have any idea. Here's why:

"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."

Sorry for all of the bolds, but here the author is presenting some hard, concrete evidence that supports the notion that the terrorist was harmed in the initial event, or very close to it, when tempers are still flared, fingers are still on triggers, etc...

According to this "official statement", within mere hours of his capture, the complaint had already been filed with someone at the SEAL base, which was immidiately sent up the chain of command. I mean, I'm sure you'd find lots of people on a SEAL base who would rat out their fellow soldiers within a matter of minutes. Command then made a speedy decision to immediately round up and fly out investigators and JAGS to the SEAL base :lol:, who were able to sort out who may have been involved, (with the help from all of the SEALs, who quickly identified their mischevious brothers) depositioned them, and got official handwritten statements, all within hours of capture.

Either NCIS is faster in real life than the TV show ever imagined, or the author and Foxnews doesn't know what the hell they are talking about, or are just making it up as they go. But ok, let's say that my speculation of the ease of getting invesigators to a SEAL base almost instantly is unfounded. Well here is some information, that directly contradicts the Foxnews.com "official handwritten statement", and seems much more plausible because it has a wider timeline, and doesn't involve SEALs ratting each other out for a terrorist's sake.

"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."

So can the author not get his story straight? Why would he report this timeline right after saying that he had the "official handwritten statement", showing that the investigation was in full swing only hours after capture? I wonder if he could produce this statement if asked? :rofl:


Okay, so far the author has given conflicting accounts of the injury, and the timeline. How about the accused? Are they just poor soldiers doing their duty, and getting caught up in Librul' politics?

Let's tally the charges among the three:

Assault: 1
Dereliction of Duty: 3
Making a False Official Statement: 3
Impediment of an Investigation: 1

The Foxnews bunch is trying to portray this story as a further erosion of our military's ability to wage the War on Terror, and a attack on our brave troops who risk their lives to bring scumbags like poor, poor Ahmed to justice. I mean c'mon, you can't punch a Terrorist?

Do any of you military guys truly think that the Commanding Officer of SOCOM would have nailed these guys to the wall if they had told the truth about beating up Ahmed?

Think about it:

One of America's most valuable soldiers punches terrorist. Terrorist complains. Investigator asks SEAL about incident. SEAL says "yes, but only because I was <insert stress of war excuse here.>" I can't imagine alot would happen. Open and shut case, they fessed up to it, Ahmed was a scumbag, let's move on.

But no,

Valuable Soldier punches Ahmed :cuss:. Ahmed complains :cry: Investigators ask soldier about it. Soldier is afraid of punshment and says "huh"? Soldier's buddies believe in loyalty so they say "Huh" as well. Soldier makes the mistake of assuming that everyone that was present or heard about the incident would also be silent. But then you read things like:

"Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged."

and this seems to indicate that the witnesses weren't charged, because they didn't lie to the investigators and Commanding Officers. Funny how that works.

The conflicting stories cause paperwork at NCIS. Paperwork begats conference calls. Conference calls begat Status Reports. Status Reports begat CYA. And so on. Basically, these guys created a massive ruckus that wasn't necessary, and had they been honorable men, they wouldn't have put themselves in that situation. A guard is not only there to make sure the prisoner stays put. That prisoner may have valuable information, and if you are punching the vessell that holds the information, you are potentially undermining the security of our country. To have a live terrorist leader in your possession is a very valuable asset, and yet you are going to beat up the person you have been directly ordered to keep safe and secure? There is a reason that we want this guy safe and secure, and it isn't because Libruls' want him to destroy America.

Everyone like it when terrorists are killed or captured. Most people like it when they suffer. Few people on this side of the ocean would shed a tear for this guy either way. The military is not trying to makes our troops less safe in order to be nice to evil people. Neither is our inept President. That isn't the issue here, but is exactly the impression that the author is trying to convey.

What should be taken away from this is that soldiers are supposed to obey orders. When they disobey those orders, for whatever reason, then they are accountable. When they try to escape accountability by lying about it, they deserve the punishment that they get. Just because you are brave and selfless in the defense of the Country, doesn't mean you are above the ages old system of rules and regulations that govern our Military.

If you 'wingers, especially the Vets, can show me where anything these guys did was honorable or appropriate, other than punching poor, poor Ahmed, which I think is great, please pipe in. I just think this article is trying to put a large dose of Spin where the real issue is how these soldiers behaved once they were under investigation.

 

I would have tied him up, shoved a hose up his ass, turned on the faucet and left the room. I would have returned later to retrieve the hose and then whupped USM upside the head with it.

 

Could you possibly have made your post any longer?
You pretty much lost me after the part I just quoted, I glanced over the rest as fast as i could.
I see you don't like Fox News well none of the so called networks in this country are worth a sh!t.
You get a liberal or a conservative point of view or whatever that particular agenda they are pushing.
I see you like making fun of wingers and things and can't spell liberals.:lol:

Let me tell you who is easily manipulated.
Its people who watch and listen to networks that claim to be objective or neutral but are not.
The case has never been stronger than the last few years.
The Ass kissers who followed Obama on his world wide crusade during the last election and did everything to ignore the other side.

There is no good news organization in this country,they all have lost creditability but Fox News will cover left wing corruption that the other networks just won't cover.
Another example, where were all the networks covering John Edward's story and his mistress, it took the National Enquirer to bring the story.

Trash Fox all you want, Journalism in this country aint worth a sh!t dude.
Pretty much all networks have sold their souls to an agenda.
You live your life and I'll live mine!:wave:

For the record, I don't and won't watch tv news, its too depressing plus the agenda at hand.
I read all of my news through various sources on the internet including Fox.
I still try and read it through a filter though.

 

You can thank your liberal muslim president for that, now that he's in office, any abuse of his "brothers" will surely be met with harsh consequneces and many good american soldiers will have their lives ruined because of his weekness he feels for these radicals.
The easiest solution here would've been to reward the prick with a double tap. Dead men don't sue or press charges.

 

That kind of language sir, is not appropriate for a family based website... please clean it up. :wave: