Obama prosecutes 3 navy seals who captured terrorist

[JakeStarkey]

SpidermanTuba highlights the dilemma on this constitutional issue. An "activist" has to argue a loose construction of the Constitution to deny an accused the rights given to him in the document. A true strict constructonist tries the sucka in federal court not in a military tribunal. I imagine before GWB and after Vietnam, military tribunals were not held, and since GWB military tribunals are optional. Interesting problem.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The Constitution does not distinguish between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens except with regards to qualification for the Presidency and incorporation via the 14th amendment.

Are you really suggesting that enemy combatants should be afforded Constitutional rights?

The Constitution was written with all the exceptions it needs. For instance, the 5th amendment reads:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So yes - obviously, the Founders thought of all the exceptions they wanted having to do with war, that's why they wrote them.


And the UCMJ is clear on the issue. If one assaults a "person" - one is guilty of assault. It doesn't say "persons other than enemy combatants" or "U.S. citizens", it just says "person".


Not to mention the obvious fact that making false official statements isn't a crime with a terrorist as a victim at all - the United States People are the victims of that crime. I fail to see why you think it should be OK to lie to investigators.

Read it again homey.

 

[CMike]

Once again, who are the pro-terrorist liberals defending?

From the link

The SEALs -- Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas -- were part of a team that in September 2009 captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected plotter behind the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

The contractors' bodies were burned and left hanging from a bridge. The image came to symbolize the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the brutality of the enemy Americans face

 

[CMike]

Actually Al Qaida terrorists are unlawful combatants, they don't even have the rights that a regular POW would get.

 

[Dr Grump]

Once again, who are the pro-terrorist liberals defending?

From the link

The SEALs -- Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas --were part of a team that in September 2009 captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected plotter behind the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

The contractors' bodies were burned and left hanging from a bridge. The image came to symbolize the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the brutality of the enemy Americans face

the bolded part

 

[jillian]

Actually Al Qaida terrorists are unlawful combatants, they don't even have the rights that a regular POW would get.

general petraeus disagrees with you.

 

[PixieStix]

Right, because their widdle feewings should matter in a war zone.

Yep, we should be worried about the enemies feelings.

Spoken like true asshole.

I'm sure the enemy would love it if we let our soldiers lie to their superiors in a war zone.

Oh my gawd, you have no clue what you are talking about. It is people like you that has had the most negative effect on our Military and the length of the battles

People like you disgust me beyond words!!!

The enemy our parents and grandparents faced … … wore a different uniform to theirs, but had aims and, by and large, had conduct they could understand. The enemy fought much as we fought; his forces were structured much the same way. And, by and large, they accepted the same conventions. Today’s most dangerous, global enemy, the terrorist, does not.We face an adversary,
Which revels in mass murder;


Which sets out to cause the greatest pain it can to innocent people;


Which is entirely unconstrained by any law;


Which sees all civilians, including women and children not as non-combatants but as easy targets;


Which sees terror as a key part of its arsenal, and


Which both glorifies and operates suicide bombers.

It is an enemy unfettered by any sense of morality

 

[Coyote]

You are over thinking it. Its as simple as this guy was the enemy and this SEAL was pissed about something. Maybe the towel head said something, spit on him, anything really. The SEAL hit him and to me that is acceptable. This is a fucking war. Right and wrong becomes real murky when you are getting shot at.

You have a point.

If we were talking about organized and drawn out torture, that would be another story.

Exactly. What we at home fail to realize is the mentality that you have to take on in theater. When you are trying to stay alive, its tough to show compassion to the enemy.

I'm not faulting that attitude, because it's war...but I suppose it is why the enemy has to be demonized...like the Germans in WW1...

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Actually Al Qaida terrorists are unlawful combatants, they don't even have the rights that a regular POW would get.

general petraeus disagrees with you.

Yes he does. Still doesn't give these guys constitutional protection as Spidermantuba asserted.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Once again, who are the pro-terrorist liberals defending?

From the link

The SEALs -- Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas -- were part of a team that in September 2009 captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected plotter behind the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

The contractors' bodies were burned and left hanging from a bridge. The image came to symbolize the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the brutality of the enemy Americans face

CMike, why are you against law enforcement? And why do you invoke the image of dead innocents to justify your support for no enforcement of the law?

 

[Kalam]

Since when is killing foreign mercenaries during a war an "act of terrorism"? Plus, it wasn't al-Qa'idah that executed the mercenaries, it was the people of Fallujah.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually Al Qaida terrorists are unlawful combatants, they don't even have the rights that a regular POW would get.

See Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006), where the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yep, we should be worried about the enemies feelings.

Spoken like true asshole.

I'm sure the enemy would love it if we let our soldiers lie to their superiors in a war zone.

Oh my gawd, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Well fortunately I don't have to. My taxes go to fund military prosecutors who figure all this shit out for me.

It is people like you that has had the most negative effect on our Military and the length of the battles

Hey, I'm not the one prosecuting the charges, I'm just posting on a message board. Maybe you should nut up and direct your comments to the members of the U.S. military who have decided to bring these charges instead of picking on the first hippie you see.

People like you disgust me beyond words!!!

Hey, NUT UP and say that to THIS GUY:

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually Al Qaida terrorists are unlawful combatants, they don't even have the rights that a regular POW would get.

general petraeus disagrees with you.

Yes he does. Still doesn't give these guys constitutional protection as Spidermantuba asserted.

I don't have to assert it, the U.S. Supreme Court has already done so. There's no higher court, you lose, too fucking bad.

 

[Kalam]

03-05-2010 12:49 AM -- CrimsonWhite -- fuck you

I'm assuming that you disagree with me. Care to elaborate?

 

[Munin]

[/FONT]

The enemy our parents and grandparents faced … … wore a different uniform to theirs, but had aims and, by and large, had conduct they could understand. The enemy fought much as we fought; his forces were structured much the same way. And, by and large, they accepted the same conventions. Today’s most dangerous, global enemy, the terrorist, does not.We face an adversary,
Which revels in mass murder;


Which sets out to cause the greatest pain it can to innocent people;


Which is entirely unconstrained by any law;


Which sees all civilians, including women and children not as non-combatants but as easy targets;


Which sees terror as a key part of its arsenal, and


Which both glorifies and operates suicide bombers.

It is an enemy unfettered by any sense of morality

So, because the enemy is a monster we should become one too?

I really have no compassion for terrorists, so yes I feel like we should be able to burn these fuckers (people who murder/mutilate/... civilians) alive. But there s a difference between what you feel and how you should act, if you d burn the fucker alive you re the one who is giving in to the enemy: You re the one who is giving up your morals, not him. It s not because they have no morals that we shouldn't have any either.


It re those rules that make us different from them, when we take away those rules we d become no different than the nazis or possibly the terrorists themselves.


I agree that we should consider the circomstances that it happened in, if he was in chains in a room in a "safe" environment or if it happened during capturing the combattant. But I don't think you or we should be proud of beating a man in chains, I wouldn't think high of anyone who is proud of doing such a thing.




And about the terror aspect: the US is not that innocent either, look at WWII and the "carpet/terror bombing". The goal was to bomb the enemy into submission (no distinction between civilians and soldiers).

And the funny thing about WWII is that the enemy was sometimes more civilized than we were:

Hitler repeatedly sought to secure a truce in city bombing, and that in any future conflicts bombing should be confined to the narrow zone of military operation. Existing conventions and laws of war did not specifically allude to air bombardment, and therefore he repeatedly made offers to restrict the conduct of war by ‘confining the action of war to the battle zones.’

Ministers had been lying through their teeth to Parliament, but this was no ordinary lie. It was the betrayal of the core principal on which civilised life depends – that civilians and civilian buildings shall not be as such subject to attack. Instead, terror was now coming from the sky, terror beside which the deeds of ordinary killers paled into insignificance. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were reduced to heaps of smouldering ruins.

http://www.codoh.info/newrevoices/nrcitybomb.html

 

[Claudette]

I also read an article on the Navy Seals.

They were the ones asking for the Court Martial. They wanted to prove that they were inocent of any wrongdoing.

They probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist from Command but they opted for the Courts Martial.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist - Iraq | War | Map - FOXNews.com

Slap on the wrist? No way you can make that statement and mean it. Non Judicial Punishment is unpredictable. Their CO could bust them down in rank if he wants to, thus affecting their livelihood and they have no recourse. Court-Martial is what I would done as well.

Unpredictable is right. I was assuming it would be something minor and I very well could be mistaken. . AS I told Gunny, I'm with you folks on this.

My dad served 22 years in the Military and my brother 20. They both retired as Senior Master Sargeants. No way in hell either on of them would have taken a reprimand for something they didn't do. Lilke these SEALS they would both have opted for the Court Martial.

Navy SEALS are heroes in my book. These men accomplish things that most of us would never contemplate doing in a million years.

I am sure these guys will be exonerated.

 

[CMike]

Actually Al Qaida terrorists are unlawful combatants, they don't even have the rights that a regular POW would get.

general petraeus disagrees with you.

The 3rd Geneva Convention does not.

 

[CMike]

You have a point.

If we were talking about organized and drawn out torture, that would be another story.

Exactly. What we at home fail to realize is the mentality that you have to take on in theater. When you are trying to stay alive, its tough to show compassion to the enemy.

I'm not faulting that attitude, because it's war...but I suppose it is why the enemy has to be demonized...like the Germans in WW1...

[/IMG]

Since the enemy's modus operandi is to target and kill as many civilians as possible they should be demonized.

 

[CMike]

Once again, who are the pro-terrorist liberals defending?

From the link

The SEALs -- Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas -- were part of a team that in September 2009 captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected plotter behind the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

The contractors' bodies were burned and left hanging from a bridge. The image came to symbolize the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the brutality of the enemy Americans face

CMike, why are you against law enforcement? And why do you invoke the image of dead innocents to justify your support for no enforcement of the law?

Why do you care if a mass murdering terrorist, who mutilated, burned, and publically hung 4 americans gets a bloody lip when he is captured?