[Joe Friday]

Navy Times

By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 24, 2009 17:41:46 EST

SAN DIEGO — Three Navy SEALs are facing court-martial for allegedly assaulting and mishandling a detainee they captured in Iraq in September, military officials said.

The three SEALs — Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe, and SO1 Julio Huertas — will be arraigned Dec. 7 in a military court in Norfolk, Va., said Army Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman with U.S. Special Operations Command Central.

McCabe is charged with one count each of assault of the detainee, dereliction of duty and making a false official statement, Silkman said. Officials accuse McCabe of “willfully failing to safeguard a detainee,” Silkman said.

Keefe is charge with one count each of dereliction of duty and false official statement; Huertas is accused of dereliction of duty, false official statement and impeding an investigation, she said.

Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, SOCCent commander, preferred the charges against the SEALs and will serve as the convening authority as the cases proceed to court-martial, tentatively scheduled for mid-January, Silkman said.

None of the SEALs is confined, she added.

The alleged incident happened in Iraq on or about Sept. 1, Silkman said. “The one thing I can’t talk about is this alleged victim,” she said.

No other details about the alleged incident were immediately available.

The SEALs have been assigned military attorneys to defend them in the cases, which will be tried separately as special courts-martial.

One defense attorney said they had refused to accept nonjudicial punishment, administrative actions that some in the military may consider as a admission of guilt.

Neal Puckett, a defense attorney who is representing McCabe, said the SEALs are being essentially charged for allegedly giving the detainee “a punch in the gut.”

They are expected to plead not guilty when they appear at their arraignment. “They are all together and they all maintain that they are innocent of these charges,” said Puckett, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel and judge advocate.

The SEALs were on the tail-end of their deployment to Iraq when the alleged incident happened, he said.

Puckett offered no details about the alleged incident, but said that “in a combat environment, the handling of a detainee … these things happen all the time and can easily be justified as maintaining [control of] a detainee.”

McCabe’s special court-martial is slated to begin Jan. 19, he said.

Huertas, 28, is originally from Blue Island, Ill., and enlisted in 1999. He has served in special warfare units since 2002. He has an Iraq Campaign Medal and was advanced in June 2006, Navy records show.

McCabe, 24 is originally from Perrysburg, Ohio, and enlisted in 2003. He served on the Amphibious Assault Ship Belleau Wood before training in special warfare. He was advanced in September 2007, Navy records show.

Keefe, 25, is originally from Yorktown, Va., and enlisted in 2006. He began SEAL training the same year, Navy records show. He was last advanced in June 2008.

Cmdr. Greg Geisen, a Naval Special Warfare Command spokesman in Coronado, Calif., referred all questions about the charges to SOCCent.

The charges were first reported by Fox News, which posted a story on its Web site Tuesday, saying the charges surround the SEALs’ handling of Ahmed Hashim Abed, who is believed to be connected to the 2004 slaying of four U.S. security contractors in Fallujah.



This makes me reeeeeeeeally angry ! When are we going to give our guys the support they deserve! A punch in the gut is nothing compared to what the contractors had to endure at the hands of this piece of garbage. Time to call our representaives and tell them to stop this NOW!

[DevilsWin]

So far the only person saying it was just a punch in the gut is a defense attorney. Just a little perspective.

There is a code of conduct and it should not be broken under any circumstances.

Otherwise we'd be a bunch of murdering savages.

[Hoot Gibson]

Four brave American SEALS are being court martialled in a military court for giving the most wanted terrorist in Iraq a fat lip.

Meanwhile, back in New York, the confessed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks who is directly responsible for the death of more than 3,000 innocent civilians will receive the full constitutional rights of a US citizen as he is allowed to publicize his grievances against our government.

Welcome to Barack Obama's warped vision of a just America.

[Stardust]

What a joke. Good luck to the four men. I'm pretty confident that if the shoe was on the other foot, our Iraqi brethren would have followed the geneva convention and taken very good care of their detainees.:please:

[Joe Friday]

So far the only person saying it was just a punch in the gut is a defense attorney. Just a little perspective.

There is a code of conduct and it should not be broken under any circumstances.

Otherwise we'd be a bunch of murdering savages.

Haditha Marine prepares to sue Murtha over smear
Congressman had accused soldiers of killing 'in cold blood'

Posted: June 18, 2008
6:14 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani

With most of the eight Marines charged in the Haditha, Iraq, incident now exonerated, the highest-ranking officer among the accused is considering a lawsuit against Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers.

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Savage, the lead attorney for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani said he and his client will look into suing Murtha and the Time magazine reporter, Tim McGuirk, who first published the accusations by Iraqi insurgents.

But the attorney, Brian Rooney, said nothing will happen immediately because he wants Chessani, described as a devout Christian and the father of six homeschooled children, completely "out of the woods" legally before any action is taken. The government, through Lt. Col. S.M. Sullivan, today filed a notice that it would appeal the case to the next judicial level.

As WND reported, a military judge at Camp Pendleton in California yesterday dismissed charges that Chessani failed to properly investigate the Nov. 19, 2005 incident in which 24 Iraqi men, women and children were killed.

Rooney, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center who served a tour of duty in Iraq himself, is urging citizens to tell their representatives in Congress and military officials that they want the case to come to an end.

"At some point you have to have somebody in the chain of command, whether it's civilian or military, saying enough is enough," said Rooney, who served with Chessani in the second battle of Fallujah.

Rooney told Savage the Haditha case is the largest investigation in the history of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, with 65 agents assigned by the government.

The filing of charges against Chessani was approved by Gen. James Mattis, then commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command and commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton. Mattis has been promoted to commander of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation and commander of U.S. Joint Forces.

"This is the most important case since Vietnam, if not before," Rooney said. "There's no doubt about it."

He noted the New York Times featured the case on the front page when it was being compared by war critics to the infamous My Lai massacre in Vietnam. But now, with evidence the Haditha accusations were a smear, the story has been relegated to the back pages.

The military judge, Col. Steve Folsom, dismissed Chessani's charges without prejudice, giving permission for the prosecutors to continue trying to build a case that began in December 2006.

Four Marines were charged with murder and another four with not properly investigating the incident.

Defense lawyers contend insurgents deliberately attacked the Marines from hiding places where they surrounded themselves with civilians to use as shields. The defense insisted Chessani promptly reported the events to his superiors and that nobody in the chain of command believed there was any wrongdoing on the part of the Marines.

Libel and defamation

Rooney acknowledged to Savage it's difficult to sue a sitting congressman, but he believes it can be done.

"If he leaves his realm of speaking from the congressman's point of view … then he can be sued for libel and defamation," Rooney said.

The Time magazine story, according to Rooney, was planted by an insurgent propaganda agent. Publishing of the story was soon followed by a May 17, 2006, news conference by Murtha. The congressman announced he had been told by the highest levels of the Marine Corps there was no firefight and Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

"All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about," Murtha told reporters at the time.

Murtha's assertions, however, conflicted with results from the military's own investigations. An initial probe by Army Col. G.A. Watt found no indications coalition forces "intentionally targeted, engaged and killed noncombatants." Later, Army Maj. Gen. Aldon Bargewell found no cover-up.

Nevertheless, the Marine Corps eventually brought charges against Chessani and seven other Marines.

But now the cases against Lance Cpls. Stephen Tatum and Justin Sharratt, Capts. Randy Stone and Lucas McConnell and Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz have been dropped. First Lt. Andrew Grayson has been acquitted, leaving only the case of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich untested in court and Chessani prosecutors facing the hurdles of the appeal process.

WND previously reported a military jury of seven officers acquitted Grayson of all charges.

The ruling by Col. Folsom yesterday followed a previous decision in which he confirmed evidence of unlawful command influence.

The evidence indicated two generals who controlled Chessani's case were influenced by Marine lawyer Col. John Ewers, who was allowed to attend at least 25 closed-session meetings in which the case was discussed.

Throwing Marines under the bus

Rooney acknowledged the Haditha case taken a toll on the Marine Corps.

"There's no doubt it's affected recruiting," he told Savage. "How could you have your sons or daughters join the Marine Corps when you're not sure the government will protect them?"

Rooney was asked by Savage why he thought Murtha, a former Marine himself, accused the officers and enlisted men.

"In my opinion, it's clear it was done during the election cycle, it was done to bolster himself in the party," the attorney said. "He was vying for a leadership position, and if he had to throw some Marines under the bus to do so, that was the cost of power for him."

He hopes soon politicians will weigh in on the case in support of Chessani and the others.

"I would think all politicians, especially politicians that have military records, should say something about this case," he said.

"In a horrible and very complex environment, when you have an enemy that's using women and children as shields, you should always give the benefit of the doubt to the Marine or soldier," said Rooney. "You should never bring him back and put him in front of a court martial."

Here is another perspective, the terrorist have figured out our system...accuse our heroes of abuse and that is all the MSM and everyone wants to talk about; no matter how heinous the crime or act the terrorists have committed against Americans (such as this piece of crap terrorist, mutilating, torturing, and hanging the beheaded bodies of our contractors over a bridge), is it our fault because he felt so guilty that he surrendered without a fight. Right DevilsWin? Do you really believe it possible to catch a terrorist without putting a few scratches on them? THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND DO NOT HAVE SUCH RIGHTS AND PRIVILEDGES!!!! 'If you don't stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them.'

I am supporting John Russell, retired Army, for congress in Pennsylvania - MURTHA, The Traitor, HAS GOT TO GO! alute:

[Old School]

Four brave American SEALS are being court martialled in a military court for giving the most wanted terrorist in Iraq a fat lip.

Meanwhile, back in New York, the confessed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks who is directly responsible for the death of more than 3,000 innocent civilians will receive the full constitutional rights of a US citizen as he is allowed to publicize his grievances against our government.

Welcome to Barack Obama's warped vision of a just America.

As I understand it these 9/11 terrorists, have the right to fire their attorney's and represent themselves which would give them access to all pertinent and confidential information.

You know Obamamania is in decline, when Chris (thrill up my leg) Matthews disagrees with him, why I almost fell out of my chair when I heard Matthews say that.:yikes:

[Old School]

Navy Times

By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 24, 2009 17:41:46 EST

SAN DIEGO — Three Navy SEALs are facing court-martial for allegedly assaulting and mishandling a detainee they captured in Iraq in September, military officials said.

The three SEALs — Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe, and SO1 Julio Huertas — will be arraigned Dec. 7 in a military court in Norfolk, Va., said Army Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman with U.S. Special Operations Command Central.

McCabe is charged with one count each of assault of the detainee, dereliction of duty and making a false official statement, Silkman said. Officials accuse McCabe of “willfully failing to safeguard a detainee,” Silkman said.

Keefe is charge with one count each of dereliction of duty and false official statement; Huertas is accused of dereliction of duty, false official statement and impeding an investigation, she said.

Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, SOCCent commander, preferred the charges against the SEALs and will serve as the convening authority as the cases proceed to court-martial, tentatively scheduled for mid-January, Silkman said.

None of the SEALs is confined, she added.

The alleged incident happened in Iraq on or about Sept. 1, Silkman said. “The one thing I can’t talk about is this alleged victim,” she said.

No other details about the alleged incident were immediately available.

The SEALs have been assigned military attorneys to defend them in the cases, which will be tried separately as special courts-martial.

One defense attorney said they had refused to accept nonjudicial punishment, administrative actions that some in the military may consider as a admission of guilt.

Neal Puckett, a defense attorney who is representing McCabe, said the SEALs are being essentially charged for allegedly giving the detainee “a punch in the gut.”

They are expected to plead not guilty when they appear at their arraignment. “They are all together and they all maintain that they are innocent of these charges,” said Puckett, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel and judge advocate.

The SEALs were on the tail-end of their deployment to Iraq when the alleged incident happened, he said.

Puckett offered no details about the alleged incident, but said that “in a combat environment, the handling of a detainee … these things happen all the time and can easily be justified as maintaining [control of] a detainee.”

McCabe’s special court-martial is slated to begin Jan. 19, he said.

Huertas, 28, is originally from Blue Island, Ill., and enlisted in 1999. He has served in special warfare units since 2002. He has an Iraq Campaign Medal and was advanced in June 2006, Navy records show.

McCabe, 24 is originally from Perrysburg, Ohio, and enlisted in 2003. He served on the Amphibious Assault Ship Belleau Wood before training in special warfare. He was advanced in September 2007, Navy records show.

Keefe, 25, is originally from Yorktown, Va., and enlisted in 2006. He began SEAL training the same year, Navy records show. He was last advanced in June 2008.

Cmdr. Greg Geisen, a Naval Special Warfare Command spokesman in Coronado, Calif., referred all questions about the charges to SOCCent.

The charges were first reported by Fox News, which posted a story on its Web site Tuesday, saying the charges surround the SEALs’ handling of Ahmed Hashim Abed, who is believed to be connected to the 2004 slaying of four U.S. security contractors in Fallujah.



This makes me reeeeeeeeally angry ! When are we going to give our guys the support they deserve! A punch in the gut is nothing compared to what the contractors had to endure at the hands of this piece of garbage. Time to call our representaives and tell them to stop this NOW!

IMO It won't be until the next administration takes office.

[DevilsWin]

Thank God you guys don't serve!

When you raise your hand and take that oath it means something.

All of it!

Sitting there in your easy chair and making judgments on which parts of the constitution you want to defend and which to disregard isn't very patriotic.

[Hoot Gibson]

Thank God you guys don't serve!

When you raise your hand and take that oath it means something.

All of it!

Sitting there in your easy chair and making judgments on which parts of the constitution you want to defend and which to disregard isn't very patriotic.

What part of the US Constitution do you think these Navy Seals failed to defend and what part do you believe requires non-uniformed enemy non-combatants be afforded any constitutional rights or civil trial? Throughout most of this nation's history, those fighting this country and captured out of uniform were given a quick military trial and executed - including those captured in this country during wartime. Neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda are parties to the Geneva Conventions, so their "soldiers" are not covered by those documents either.

By criminalizing the war on terror, the Obamao administration is risking setting precedents that could severely restrict our armed forces' ability to defend this nation in the future.

So, please list what constitutional rights the terrorists who captured four US civilians on Iraqi soil and tortured them to death should enjoy, in your opinion.

[Stardust]

Thank God you guys don't serve!

When you raise your hand and take that oath it means something.

All of it!

Sitting there in your easy chair and making judgments on which parts of the constitution you want to defend and which to disregard isn't very patriotic.

What makes you think you know ANY of our pasts! This sanctimonious rant is self-severed for your own purposes. I know why I did what I did!

[Joe Friday]

Thank God you guys don't serve!

When you raise your hand and take that oath it means something.

All of it!

Sitting there in your easy chair and making judgments on which parts of the constitution you want to defend and which to disregard isn't very patriotic.

Hoot and Stardust are ON TARGET! The Constitution of the United States is for American Citizens - not illegal aliens or terrorists from another country. No one but American Citizens have the Rights laid out and provided by the Constitution of the U.S. That is why so many have tried to get to this Country and enjoy the freedoms enjoyed by Americans that a well known document stated that all are equal and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

In order to enjoy these Rights you have to contribute - pay taxes, sit on juries, obey laws, etc., and, in the case of the Brave SEALs - Sworn to Defend the Constitution of the United States. They have to make split second analysis of a situation based upon the information they have immediately and the intelligence reports they have received. Our armed forces deserve our support because they are in harm's way defending our freedom to Enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. How long are people going to be willing to serve if they are continually chastised and second-guessed and even CHARGED for actions as combatants in a war zone?

As I am sure you are aware, the earlier quote was from the Declaration Of Independence and pertains to Americans - NOT TERRORISTS! How have they (the terrorists) contributed to our way of life or, for that matter, when did they become U.S. Citizens?

Happy Thanksgiving DevilsWin - Courtesy of the Armed Forces of the United States.

[Stardust]

^ Nice post JF :Thumbs:

[vundy33]

Thank God you guys don't serve!

When you raise your hand and take that oath it means something.

All of it!

Sitting there in your easy chair and making judgments on which parts of the constitution you want to defend and which to disregard isn't very patriotic.

**** I do and I agree with them. Good lord, what I want to know is how a police officer in America can take his little stick thing he carries on him and hit a suspect that is fighting back in the stomach mulitiple times and it's perfectly OK, but when a Navy SEAL punches a terrorist connected with the Blackwater Fallujah attack in the stomach they get Article 15'd? Come on man, you have to protect your own. Especially on something that is a non-issue like this.

First of all, for those who don't know, what the article means by "non-judicial punishment" is called an Article 15 in the military. There are three types, a Summary grade, Company Grade, and Field Grade, the least being the less serious to the most serious. I'm guessing these guys went before there commander with Field Grade Article 15's, and if you accept it you pretty much admitted you're guilt and you take you're punishment, Loss of pay or rank or extra-duty, and it's over with. We would have never heard about this if that would have been the case. But if they did that then it would have been on there record for I think like 5 more years and apparantly they didn't want that, so they opted to go before a court-martial.

[vundy33]

What part of the US Constitution do you think these Navy Seals failed to defend and what part do you believe requires non-uniformed enemy non-combatants be afforded any constitutional rights or civil trial? Throughout most of this nation's history, those fighting this country and captured out of uniform were given a quick military trial and executed - including those captured in this country during wartime. Neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda are parties to the Geneva Conventions, so their "soldiers" are not covered by those documents either.

By criminalizing the war on terror, the Obamao administration is risking setting precedents that could severely restrict our armed forces' ability to defend this nation in the future.

So, please list what constitutional rights the terrorists who captured four US civilians on Iraqi soil and tortured them to death should enjoy, in your opinion.

They actually threw grenades into there SUV's, then continued to hit them with AK-47 and RPG fire until they decided to pull the burnt bodies out and hang them over a bridge and dance under them. It's one of the many reasons I joined the military.

[Hoot Gibson]

They actually threw grenades into there SUV's, then continued to hit them with AK-47 and RPG fire until they decided to pull the burnt bodies out and hang them over a bridge and dance under them. It's one of the many reasons I joined the military.

Thanks for the clarification and more importantly, thank you for your service to our country.

[Stardust]

Vundy, thank you for your Service to our Conurty. :worthy:

[lawrencefan]

**** I do and I agree with them. Good lord, what I want to know is how a police officer in America can take his little stick thing he carries on him and hit a suspect that is fighting back in the stomach mulitiple times and it's perfectly OK, but when a Navy SEAL punches a terrorist connected with the Blackwater Fallujah attack in the stomach they get Article 15'd? Come on man, you have to protect your own. Especially on something that is a non-issue like this.

First of all, for those who don't know, what the article means by "non-judicial punishment" is called an Article 15 in the military. There are three types, a Summary grade, Company Grade, and Field Grade, the least being the less serious to the most serious. I'm guessing these guys went before there commander with Field Grade Article 15's, and if you accept it you pretty much admitted you're guilt and you take you're punishment, Loss of pay or rank or extra-duty, and it's over with. We would have never heard about this if that would have been the case. But if they did that then it would have been on there record for I think like 5 more years and apparantly they didn't want that, so they opted to go before a court-martial.

Not to mention being dishonorably discharged. What kind of officer would bring charges against his men under these circumstances? He is probably watching his a&& in this politically correct world we live in. Just like the officers supervising the shooter at Ft Hood.

[vundy33]

Not to mention being dishonorably discharged. What kind of officer would bring charges against his men under these circumstances? He is probably watching his a&& in this politically correct world we live in. Just like the officers supervising the shooter at Ft Hood.

You can't be dishonorably discharged through an Article 15, but you can with a court-martial. To clear it up a little bit more, Summary Article 15's are not common, Well I've never heard of someone getting one. A Company Grade is what it is...it stays within the company pretty much. It doesn't follow you throughout your career...Now a Field Grade, that does. You can get it expunged pretty easily with good behavior, ect...at least thats how a few soldiers I know have gotten rid of them.

Remember people, this is a war. I know we have taken an oath and that we have to uphold a standard but that oath also says that we will support and defend the constitution against ALL enimies. I'm about 99% sure that the detainee was resisting, whether it be him kicking and screaming, spitting on them, or any kind of resisting you can think of. ****, a punch in the face is perfectly legal if he is resisting or compromising security. In the Arab world, spitting on a person is one of the worst ways you can "diss" a person. Probably second to throwing your shoes at them....Just like the Arab reporter threw his shoes at Bush. A punch in the stomach is perfectly OK, our cops do it everyday with their stick things all around the country. **** I've butt stocked a few in the stomach. I mean we don't just start pounding their face as soon as they resist...we go through escalation of force. We'll go from simply having their hands behind their heads and fingers in a position to if they try to move we can squeeze a few fingers and they'll stop. Some just keep going and going and it escalates(sp?) into having to hit them with first or a the stock of you're weapon. Can you guys kind of understand what I'm trying to say? Even if DW was a non-combat MOS and didn't see much action (I have know idea what he seen or what his job was, this is just an example), I know that he went through training on how to treat detainee's and escalation of force.

I really can't believe that we have people trying to get these SEAL's put in prison for a **** punch in the gut.

[DevilsWin]

This will all come out in the wash and I think you guys, with the exception of Vundy 33, are getting all bent out of shape.

I've taken the oath and served my time in a war theater and finished honorably with letters of commendation. So in the future don't patronize me about freedom and the cost of it cause I know. First hand.

[Stardust]

This will all come out in the wash and I think you guys, with the exception of Vundy 33, are getting all bent out of shape.

I've taken the oath and served my time in a war theater and finished honorably with letters of commendation. So in the future don't patronize me about freedom and the cost of it cause I know. First hand.

Don't pretend to know the rest of our stories!

[Mr.Kimball]

This will all come out in the wash and I think you guys, with the exception of Vundy 33, are getting all bent out of shape.

I've taken the oath and served my time in a war theater and finished honorably with letters of commendation. So in the future don't patronize me about freedom and the cost of it cause I know. First hand.

Just curious DW, during your your time in the war zone, were you a pilot with sorties under his belt. Not trying to be smart about anything, just wondering since you are pictured standing beside the jet?
.

[Hoot Gibson]

This will all come out in the wash and I think you guys, with the exception of Vundy 33, are getting all bent out of shape.

I've taken the oath and served my time in a war theater and finished honorably with letters of commendation. So in the future don't patronize me about freedom and the cost of it cause I know. First hand.

The only patronizing that I noticed was this post:

Thank God you guys don't serve!

When you raise your hand and take that oath it means something.

All of it!

Sitting there in your easy chair and making judgments on which parts of the constitution you want to defend and which to disregard isn't very patriotic.

Now which part of the Constitution are the Navy Seals in question alleged to have failed to uphold? You seem to believe that the Iraqi terrorist that was captured has constitutional rights. Is that right or did you simply misspeak? Perhaps you were referring to the Iraqi constitution.

Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would not question my patriotism in the future. Patronizing is believing that those who have not served in the military are less patriotic than those who have served.

[Joe Friday]

Posted on Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:08:46 AM by RedRover
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://wa...ving07.htm

Click on the link above to see how accusations about or against 'OUR' Troops affects them and their families, in many different ways.

I don't think we are getting bent out of shape - I am mad as all get out! I would never presume to question your patriotism and service to our country, for which I thank you DevilsWin. Do not assume (you know what that makes us) that you are the only one who has served or is serving our country. The link I posted above shows what happens if we don't stand up for our soldiers and demand that our government take care of our troops first and terrorist's 'rights' second. Yes, our troops must be held to a high standard but we must give them some leeway when it comes to protecting themselves - we cannot take self-preservation away from the equation.

[vundy33]

The only patronizing that I noticed was this post:

Now which part of the Constitution are the Navy Seals in question alleged to have failed to uphold? You seem to believe that the Iraqi terrorist that was captured has constitutional rights. Is that right or did you simply misspeak? Perhaps you were referring to the Iraqi constitution.

Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would not question my patriotism in the future. Patronizing is believing that those who have not served in the military are less patriotic than those who have served.

They are covered by the Geneva Convention though, which in my mind has some riciculous rules. Listen up.

Let's say there's an enemy 20 yards in front of you. You pop 3 rounds at him, one of which hits him in the hip. He goes down and doesn't move. We are required to give medical aid to them, which is no problem to me. I would rather just kill them than to help them, but I'll do it gladly. Anyway, say you have some contact behind you and your squad run to take cover where the insurgents you just shot were. Say you were running and you go to jump over his body and he just raises his AK up at you. Do you know that by the Geneva conv. law that you cannot engage him while he's hurt, on the ground, legally, he has to get up and engage you before you can shoot him. Ridiculous, right? There are many more rules like it.

Of course, 99.9% of troops are going to send him to Allah as soon as he goes for his weapon, even if he is laying down. I'm just trying to get across to some of you the fact that we are severely handicapped in what we can and cannot do. We can't even use certain weapons like the Mark 19(Auto grenade launcher) in Iraq because they cause to much damage.I can understand that, but I'm just trying to prove a point.

[Hoot Gibson]

They are covered by the Geneva Convention though, which in my mind has some riciculous rules. Listen up.

Let's say there's an enemy 20 yards in front of you. You pop 3 rounds at him, one of which hits him in the hip. He goes down and doesn't move. We are required to give medical aid to them, which is no problem to me. I would rather just kill them than to help them, but I'll do it gladly. Anyway, say you have some contact behind you and your squad run to take cover where the insurgents you just shot were. Say you were running and you go to jump over his body and he just raises his AK up at you. Do you know that by the Geneva conv. law that you cannot engage him while he's hurt, on the ground, legally, he has to get up and engage you before you can shoot him. Ridiculous, right? There are many more rules like it.

Of course, 99.9% of troops are going to send him to Allah as soon as he goes for his weapon, even if he is laying down. I'm just trying to get across to some of you the fact that we are severely handicapped in what we can and cannot do. We can't even use certain weapons like the Mark 19(Auto grenade launcher) in Iraq because they cause to much damage.I can understand that, but I'm just trying to prove a point.

Terrorists fighting out of uniform are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. My understanding is that only combatants fighting in uniform on behalf of a nation that is signatory to the conventions are covered.

Our politically-correct government is granting Islamo-fascist terrorists rights to which they are not legally entitled. Not content with affording prisoners the rights equal to those covered by the Geneva conventions, the Obama administration plans to bring 9/11 terrorists into this country and grant them the full constitutional rights of US citizens.

Members of the military deserve better leadership and support from their own government. It must be very frustrating to be hamstrung by rules of engagement that no member of Congress or the administration would apply to themselves.

[vundy33]

Terrorists fighting out of uniform are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. My understanding is that only combatants fighting in uniform on behalf of a nation that is signatory to the conventions are covered.

Our politically-correct government is granting Islamo-fascist terrorists rights to which they are not legally entitled. Not content with affording prisoners the rights equal to those covered by the Geneva conventions, the Obama administration plans to bring 9/11 terrorists into this country and grant them the full constitutional rights of US citizens.

Members of the military deserve better leadership and support from their own government. It must be very frustrating to be hamstrung by rules of engagement that no member of Congress or the administration would apply to themselves.

I don't exactly know the rule on that for sure, but I do know that the United States choose to apply the Geneva Convention to all enemies, terrorists or not. When I got to my first duty station I got a booklet on all rules and reg's on that post, and the general ROE. There was a big part of the Geneva convention in it, including some of the rules I stated in my previous posts. We have classes on it. ALOT of VERY boring classes...lol.

[vundy33]

Terrorists fighting out of uniform are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. My understanding is that only combatants fighting in uniform on behalf of a nation that is signatory to the conventions are covered.

Our politically-correct government is granting Islamo-fascist terrorists rights to which they are not legally entitled. Not content with affording prisoners the rights equal to those covered by the Geneva conventions, the Obama administration plans to bring 9/11 terrorists into this country and grant them the full constitutional rights of US citizens.

Members of the military deserve better leadership and support from their own government. It must be very frustrating to be hamstrung by rules of engagement that no member of Congress or the administration would apply to themselves.

It is.

In my opinion, my bestfriend was killed because of all the red tape we have to go through to fire back.

He was on a COB (Combat Out-Post) in the Konar Province along with about 200 soldiers and I think around 60 or so Marines. They were in a valley, on a little hill in the middle of it, surronded by mountains. They recieve sniper and mortar fire every single day. He told me that it would take them 20 minutes of going up the chain of command, trying to get permission to fire back, to fire artillery on the Taliban's position. By that time, they are long gone.

Anyway, they started recieving incoming mortars and small-arms fire that morning and started firing artillery on the enemy's position. After about 10 min or so of doing that, the mortar's and small-arms fire stopped. As soon as it stopped, about 300 Taliban rushed the COB, from all sides. The battle was 10 hours long. They had snipers and mortars pinning our guys down while they tried to breach the COB, they actually got in too. Only a few got in and they were killed immediately. Anyway, after 10 hours they finally got a Special Forces A-Team up there, thats 8-12 guys. They have something called a SOFLAM, or atleast I'm pretty sure thats what its called. It's a laser that they can point on something and jets drop bombs to where the laser is pointing. The Taliban were ALL dead within minutes.

You all might remember this battle, it was in September and it was the most US soldiers at one time in Afghanistan since 2005. 8 soldiers died that day, including my best friend. He had a 3 week old daughter that was born 3 weeks after he deployed...He chose to stay at the COB with his buddies because they were in the **** and they needed him, instead of going to see his daughter born. He was also engaged to his fiance' and was going to marry her during his R&R leave, around the 6th month of a 12 month deployment. It's a sad and heart-breaking story, but there are many many more just like it. His beautiful daughter, and people it's not just because it's his daughter, this was the most beautiful baby I've ever seen, big blue eyes, will never get to meet her dad, one of the most amazing people I've ever known and will ever know. He was a real-estate agent and made good money when he decided to join the Army and be a Cavalry Scout, a grunt soldier that pretty much has no skills that would help him in any job outside of the Army, after the Fallujah attack on the Blackwater agents. I was lucky to have him as a friend, and theres not a day that will ever go by that I won't think about him.

Just wanted to share that story with you all, whether you are for or against the war, please support the troop surge. Don't let guys like my friend die over a lost cause. IF we do not get these extra 30,000-40,000 troops, we will end up leaving that country worse than it was before, and an even bigger safe-haven for the people that have killed so many of us.

Please, please, support the surge. We need it more than you know.

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't exactly know the rule on that for sure, but I do know that the United States choose to apply the Geneva Convention to all enemies, terrorists or not. When I got to my first duty station I got a booklet on all rules and reg's on that post, and the general ROE. There was a big part of the Geneva convention in it, including some of the rules I stated in my previous posts. We have classes on it. ALOT of VERY boring classes...lol.

I know that we are granting rights that were negotiated under the conventions to enemy combatants, but we do so voluntarily. The Geneva conventions were reciprocal agreements among those countries who signed them. Al Qaeda and the other non-uniformed terrorists in Iraq only receive the "rights" that our federal government has elected to grant them.

Murderous terrorist thugs should be treated humanely until they can be tried by a military tribunal and executed. They should not be told that we are treating them in accordance with treaties to which they are not subject.

IMO, these terrorist organizations should be kept guessing about how their prisoners are treated.

[Old School]

It is.

In my opinion, my bestfriend was killed because of all the red tape we have to go through to fire back.

He was on a COB (Combat Out-Post) in the Konar Province along with about 200 soldiers and I think around 60 or so Marines. They were in a valley, on a little hill in the middle of it, surronded by mountains. They recieve sniper and mortar fire every single day. He told me that it would take them 20 minutes of going up the chain of command, trying to get permission to fire back, to fire artillery on the Taliban's position. By that time, they are long gone.

Anyway, they started recieving incoming mortars and small-arms fire that morning and started firing artillery on the enemy's position. After about 10 min or so of doing that, the mortar's and small-arms fire stopped. As soon as it stopped, about 300 Taliban rushed the COB, from all sides. The battle was 10 hours long. They had snipers and mortars pinning our guys down while they tried to breach the COB, they actually got in too. Only a few got in and they were killed immediately. Anyway, after 10 hours they finally got a Special Forces A-Team up there, thats 8-12 guys. They have something called a SOFLAM, or atleast I'm pretty sure thats what its called. It's a laser that they can point on something and jets drop bombs to where the laser is pointing. The Taliban were ALL dead within minutes.

You all might remember this battle, it was in September and it was the most US soldiers at one time in Afghanistan since 2005. 8 soldiers died that day, including my best friend. He had a 3 week old daughter that was born 3 weeks after he deployed...He chose to stay at the COB with his buddies because they were in the **** and they needed him, instead of going to see his daughter born. He was also engaged to his fiance' and was going to marry her during his R&R leave, around the 6th month of a 12 month deployment. It's a sad and heart-breaking story, but there are many many more just like it. His beautiful daughter, and people it's not just because it's his daughter, this was the most beautiful baby I've ever seen, big blue eyes, will never get to meet her dad, one of the most amazing people I've ever known and will ever know. He was a real-estate agent and made good money when he decided to join the Army and be a Cavalry Scout, a grunt soldier that pretty much has no skills that would help him in any job outside of the Army, after the Fallujah attack on the Blackwater agents. I was lucky to have him as a friend, and theres not a day that will ever go by that I won't think about him.

Just wanted to share that story with you all, whether you are for or against the war, please support the troop surge. Don't let guys like my friend die over a lost cause. IF we do not get these extra 30,000-40,000 troops, we will end up leaving that country worse than it was before, and an even bigger safe-haven for the people that have killed so many of us.

Please, please, support the surge. We need it more than you know.

Thanks for sharing your story.

I've always known that our government was notorious for the amount of red tape, but I never realized it carried over into combat situations as you just described.

Obama has been trying to decide since August if he is going to send additional troops to Afghanistan, he is scheduled to announce his plan Tuesday night. Below are some comments Obama made in July 2008.

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that United States needs to focus on Afghanistan in its battle against terrorism.

"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism," Obama said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq," he said.
Obama said troop levels must increase in Afghanistan.
"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he told CBS. "I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities.

As Obama said, we need to be focused on Afghanistan, so why has he taken over 3 months to decide if he's going to send more troops or not. IMO this adminstration does not seem like it's focused on our military's current situations as it should be, and as Obama said he would.

[Aslan]

Four brave American SEALS are being court martialled in a military court for giving the most wanted terrorist in Iraq a fat lip.

Meanwhile, back in New York, the confessed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks who is directly responsible for the death of more than 3,000 innocent civilians will receive the full constitutional rights of a US citizen as he is allowed to publicize his grievances against our government.

Welcome to Barack Obama's warped vision of a just America.

:thumpsup: