Prosecuting Navy Seals

[macadamizer]

macadamizer.... maybe the terrorist is lying? I don't know what went down in the field and I highly doubt that these guys beat the shit out of their prisoner. They were probably issued a direct order to get this guy and bring him back alive, and they did.

Here's possibly how the scenario played out...
In evacuating the prisoner while still behind enemy lines trying to evade capture and LIVE...

Navy Seal:
Hey prisoner... STFU no talking
Prisoner
but... wah wah wah
Navy Seal:
punch stomach punch to mouth... I said STFU
prisoner


I don't know

The fact that the terrorist may or may not be lying wasn't my point. Based on the charges listed, this is how I see it going down:

Navy Seal:
Hey prisoner... STFU no talking
Prisoner
but... wah wah wah
Navy Seal:
punch stomach punch to mouth... I said STFU
prisoner


Prisoner (to jailer later): That mean SEAL punched me.
Jailer runs it up to his commander.
Commander starts an investigation.

Commander: Mean SEAL, did you punch him?
Mean SEAL: No.
Commander: Mean SEAL's team, did Mean SEAL punch him?
Mean SEAL's Team: No.

Some other evidence comes up, or someone talks, or whatever.

Commander: Investigation shows that Mean SEAL probably did punch him. You guys are all in trouble for lying.

That's sort of what I see based on the charges filed. Had the original SEAL just said, "yeah, I hit him, he was resisting" maybe it would have been no harm, no foul. Maybe a letter of reprimand. Maybe an Article 15. Who knows. But once people started lying to cover for one another, then it becomes a different issue.

 

[macadamizer]

How many days did you spend in the sandbox? How many detainees did you deal with? Thought so...

And just a point, the fact that someone didn't serve, or someone didn't go to Iraq, or whatever, doesn't mean someone can't have an opinion on something. Even a correct opinion.

EDIT: Not saying that his opinion was correct, just that this isn't a good rebuttal to an argument.

 

[Brown81]

regarding the use of 'mercs' in Iraq. There are military objectives, "Take that town" and then there are political/administrative objectives, "give politician A a ride to the airport, train the police, feed the troops". AFIK, Mercs have never been outsourced to perform Military objectives. With today's modern volunteer Army, it is very cost effective to use civilians in performing those non-military tasks. Could you imagine some soldiers face that after a day in the shit being told he has to go drive Route Irish to pick up some USO tour and risk his life over that?!

Actually, it is not cost effective at all. It's fucking beyond expensive.

The idea that they are not performing military duties is laughable.

I think some of you have no clue as to what happens over there, and what the civilian contractors have to go through. The media image of gun toting wanna be soldiers, shooting up everything in sight like an old west movie is pretty much a load of Most of them I have known are pretty decent folks that are there to do the jobs that are necessary, and not having to use a real soldier to do. They are not Legionnaires. They are also not paid as handsomely as some of you think they are. Granted that in the beginning of the war, their salaries were made up just to get qualified folks there. Now...not so much. My friend is making $80k there and he has been hit by 3 IEDS so far. Is that a lot of money for that?

If they don't like it maybe they come come back here and get 10/hr as a security guard and pay taxes and whatnot. No sympathy at all.

They are doing it of there own free will. They can leave at any time.

 

[n10sive]

Actually, it is not cost effective at all. It's fucking beyond expensive.

As expensive as leaving hundreds of acres of military vehicles there instead of shipping them home? Everything is relative. Also, if they get shot, no lifetime medical beni's. They get stabilized and sent back stateside to a civilian hospital where they get to fight with civilian insurance to get treated.

The idea that they are not performing military duties is laughable.

Again, definition. My friends official title is "International Police Officer". He trains Iraqi police, and on occasion Iraqi SF. He oftens goes out in the bush with them and with military SF operators to evaluate their performance. Is this 'military' in nature. Yeah...probably. But is it performing a tactical objective like clearing a road, taking a town? no.

They are doing it of there own free will. They can leave at any time.

Yup...they can. And some of them do once they find out it's not as glamorous as it is made out.

 

[Yakoo752]

and maca... you are right they can have an opinion, but most opinions that don't gather all the facts are flawed and I feel that not experiencing it is a missed fact.

I would follow this up with who has worked in a detainment facility?

 

[macadamizer]

and maca... you are right they can have an opinion, but most opinions that don't gather all the facts are flawed and I feel that not experiencing it is a missed fact.

I would follow this up with who has worked in a detainment facility?

Your experience biases your position -- so it works both ways. There isn't a way for anyone to have access to all the facts and be free of bias -- so you pick and choose what to believe, and stake out your positions accordingly.

Argue on the merits, don't argue "well, you wouldn't understand, it's an [insert whatever here] thang." It's a weak argument, and doesn't persuade anyone.

 

[B-Cuz]

I need a beer after reading this bullshit.

 

[Yakoo752]

touche

 

[Human Ills]

and maca... you are right they can have an opinion, but most opinions that don't gather all the facts are flawed and I feel that not experiencing it is a missed fact.

I would follow this up with who has worked in a detainment facility?

The military is "supposedly" under civilian control for a reason.
There are plenty of tools that would make a soldier's life easier, that alone isn't enough to justify their use.

 

[Yakoo752]

There are plenty of tools that would make a soldier's life easier, that alone isn't enough to justify their use.

I don't understand what you mean by this...

 

[n10sive]

Argue on the merits

This reminds me of the end of the movie "A Few Good Men" where they were acquitted of Murder, but discharged due to "conduct unbecoming". If they lied, it was a mistake on their part and they should stand before the mast on it.

Apparently one SEAL disagreed with them. That was enough to warrant an investigation. But from my understanding, they were not really offered a 'trial' or chance to explain their position, they were merely offered NJP (which is like traffic court), which they refused, and is their right. I don't blame them since the first outcome would have resulted in the end of their careers anyway.

 

[Human Ills]

I don't understand what you mean by this...

Sorry.

 

[Human Ills]

This reminds me of the end of the movie "A Few Good Men" where they were acquitted of Murder, but discharged due to "conduct unbecoming". If they lied, it was a mistake on their part and they should stand before the mast on it.

Apparently one SEAL disagreed with them. That was enough to warrant an investigation. But from my understanding, they were not really offered a 'trial' or chance to explain their position, they were merely offered NJP (which is like traffic court), which they refused, and is their right. I don't blame them since the first outcome would have resulted in the end of their careers anyway.

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5675997&postcount=6

 

[n10sive]

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5675997&postcount=6

sorry..missed your post

 

[Human Ills]

sorry..missed your post

I'm sure that happens A LOT.

 

[Yakoo752]

Sorry N10sive... from how it reads... they weren't offered NJP they were offered to admit guilt and receive a letter of reprimand which would have ended their career...

I think this case gets weird though because I can't see a skipper willing to hold an NJP over this because of the sensitivity of it. It's kinda out of their league. So it might have been referred to the Admiral.

and ummmm ok Shaun

ahhh never mind... you again are elevating the use of force to beyond physical restraint. I get it... Sorry you can't lump in torture and grave bodily harm with physical restraint.

 

[n10sive]

at least you know that you are not on ignore!

 

[B-Cuz]

Sorry.

I'm sure that happens A LOT.

You're hysterical.

 

[Human Ills]

Sorry N10sive... from how it reads... they weren't offered NJP they were offered to admit guilt and receive a letter of reprimand which would have ended their career...

I think this case gets weird though because I can't see a skipper willing to hold an NJP over this because of the sensitivity of it. It's kinda out of their league. So it might have been referred to the Admiral.

and ummmm ok Shaun

ahhh never mind... you again are elevating the use of force to beyond physical restraint. I get it... Sorry you can't lump in torture and grave bodily harm with physical restraint.

While I don't think a punch in and of itself is a terrible assault, I do think it's a chickenshit way to deal with a mouthy prisoner. So no, I don't find it a justification for such a minor offense.

 

[Human Ills]

You're hysterical.

Call a mod and get me kicked off. All I do is mouth back when mouthed off to. So sorry you don't like it.