• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

If he committed those offenses, he should be prosecuted. If convicted, he should be punished.

I hate to admit it, but there are some scumbags in Special Forces, just like in any other occupation.

Hey Junior,

Next time you decide to pop off your mouth I suggest you might do some reading before hand,

Uniform Code of Military Justice - UCMJ

Oh and one other item you do have actual proof that there are Scum Bag in any of the US Special Force's correct. Also I dare you to go up and call any SP a Scum bag make sure we get a nice video of your arse kicking so we can all laught at your dumbarse
 
Hey Junior,

Next time you decide to pop off your mouth I suggest you might do some reading before hand,

Uniform Code of Military Justice - UCMJ

Oh and one other item you do have actual proof that there are Scum Bag in any of the US Special Force's correct. Also I dare you to go up and call any SP a Scum bag make sure we get a nice video of your arse kicking so we can all laught at your dumbarse

Oh leave him alone, he's a top flight super rich lawyer and former army special forces commando, he's way smarter then any of us little people!
:roll:
 
I think they should be given a medal for catching this scum bag......I wonder how many innocent people he has killed............
 
Faux News Lied That The Seals Were Charged With Assault

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

Only one was charges with assault.

Hey Junior I suggest you go back and read the whole Story that Fox's put up also the Pentagon released a statement saying all of them have been charged with Section 905 Article 105 charge.

Time for you to run along Junior and go play with your Erector Set.
 
Punching a mass murderer in the face?

If any of those Navy Seals make their way down to Raleigh, the beer is on me. Dinner, too.
 
I suspect there is more to the story than we know. Let's look at the charges:



From that, I would guess that the reason they where charged is not that they roughed him up a bit, but that they lied about it.

Do you demand that the receive a civilian trial?
 
For now it seems there are many unpleasant things at work not the least of which is the disciple like worship of Obams in part because so many still hate Bush and refuse to see what is clear to some. Then there is the fear some have of being called racist for opposing Obama on any level. Those people like to call names point fingers and project their own hateful feeling on to others. So stinking terrorist got a flat lip. He's lucky to be alive. And since when to the rules domestic police operate under extend over seas and to the enemy. This is BS just like Obama moving the GITMO 5 to N.Y. so they can be released. If that happens and these SEALs are convicted there is going to be trouble and it most likely could get ugly. A lot of people are frightened at the direction we are being pushed into and I fear the push back will not be pretty. I just pray that people will use the 2010 elections to vent their anger. Another fear i have is that the Senior Officers in the Military will decide to bail rather than continue to follow the orders of a rank amateur who is seemly uninterested in doing the right thing at any level.
 
This is how I see it: there are rules, including rules following military conduct. These rules must be followed as closely as possible. If you break the rules, you should be punished unless you can show there were extenuating circumstances. If doesn't matter whether this scum bag deserved to be punched, if the rules say you don't punch him, you don't punch him because it is the rules. If the rule is unfair you try to change it, but you obey it until then.
 
I suspect there is more to the story than we know. Let's look at the charges:



From that, I would guess that the reason they where charged is not that they roughed him up a bit, but that they lied about it.

They're being put on trial for giving an enemy a bloody lip.

I'd be falsifying official documents all over the place if that's what happens when the men do their duty properly.

And yes, bitch slapping a prisoner who was trying to kill you and who doesn't know when to shut up is perfectly acceptable behavior for warriors.

Not for cops, but it's just fine and dandy, expected even, for warriors when their blood is up.

What's the big deal?

OH! I know! Let's create a domestic climate so the warriors feel their own side is out to get them, and will punish them if they take prisoners. So they'll kill prisoners instead of going to the bother of dragging them in.

Seriously, I've no problem with that. The best terrorists are the dead terrorists, after all. Why starve the worms and buzzards?
 
If all he got was a bloody lip from the deal, then que sera sera. I mean, it would have been different if he came out with all sorts of busted bones and ****. But a bloody lip, that's nothing.

So long as he lived long enough to be hanged, what difference does a few broken bones make?
 
If he committed those offenses, he should be prosecuted. If convicted, he should be punished.

I hate to admit it, but there are some scumbags in Special Forces, just like in any other occupation.

No.

The criminal in this story is the officer or enlistee that reported the terrorists sad little tale about getting punched in the face. THAT man should be identified and sent into the field with Special Ops men, and continue to be sent out until he doesn't return.

The Correct Response to the Scenario:

Terrorist Prisoner: They beat me up! I want to complain! See? I have a fat lip!

Guard: Didn't your mother tell you to not run into walls? Shut up, or your other lip will get punched, too.

Gee, suddenly there's no story. It's not like the terrorist suffered anything.
 
No.

The criminal in this story is the officer or enlistee that reported the terrorists sad little tale about getting punched in the face. THAT man should be identified and sent into the field with Special Ops men, and continue to be sent out until he doesn't return.

The Correct Response to the Scenario:

Terrorist Prisoner: They beat me up! I want to complain! See? I have a fat lip!

Guard: Didn't your mother tell you to not run into walls? Shut up, or your other lip will get punched, too.

Gee, suddenly there's no story. It's not like the terrorist suffered anything.

Why don't you believe in rule of law?
 
IF they were guilty of those charges, then they wouldn't have been brought up for NJP, it would have been a Court Marshal from the word go.

No, I don't think so. In fact, the command would have felt that offering NJP was a way to slap the wrists and avoid the stink. Now they got the stink.

If the courts martial convicts, it's political hay with the conservatives in Congress and the Americans.

If the men are acquitted, the Messiah and his cronies will seek to wreck the careers of the officers sitting in judgement.

So they're going to be convicted in all likelihood. What the hell, the time-honored tradition in the military is screw the enlistees. This isn't going to be any different.
 
I do.

The law of nature says that animals don't have rights.

Since terrorists are animals, they don't have rights.

They may be animals morally, but according to legal definitions, they are people, and thus interaction with them are bound by military rules. Rule of law is the foundation of our entire society, and we must enforce the rules as they are. Whether people deserves protection of the rules or not is irrelevent, the rules are there and they must be followed until they're changed.

Besides, I'm pretty sure you get in trouble if you punch most animals in the face.
 
I do.

The law of nature says that animals don't have rights.

Since terrorists are animals, they don't have rights.

All humans are animals. You're an animal. I'm an animal. Your mother is an animal. Get over it.

Time for a 9th grade biology class.

Sit down, boy.

An animal is a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family. They are the only surviving member of the genus Homo. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving.
 
They may be animals morally, but according to legal definitions, they are people, and thus interaction with them are bound by military rules.

Rule Number 1: Don't rat on your shipmates.

That holds for prison guards, too.

It would be different if the prisoner was actually injured, it's hard to explain self-inflicted broken bones if the prisoner was logged safely in his cell, but he could easily have given himself a fat lip just to have something to charge the guards.

There.

Reasonable doubt established, the accused SO's must be acquitted.

Rule of law is the foundation of our entire society,

This line of argument is not allowed for any Democrat.

Get back to us when you begin obeying the Constitution, okay?
 
All humans are animals. You're an animal. I'm an animal. Your mother is an animal. Get over it.

Anyway, now that you've proven that you learned the same things in ninth grade the rest of us learned in the fourth grade, I recommend you read some of the threads in this forum regarding "rights" and what they actually are.

Since I don't give a flying **** about any terrorist's "rights", it's a shame his captors have to be sacrificed in a kangaroo court before the altar of the God of Poltical Correctness. So long as the terrorist lives long enough to enjoy the short drop with the sharp jerk on his neck at the end of it, I'm happy no matter what is done to him.
 
Rule Number 1: Don't rat on your shipmates.

That holds for prison guards, too.
Informal creed, not an established legal law. Therefore, irrelevent.

It would be different if the prisoner was actually injured, it's hard to explain self-inflicted broken bones if the prisoner was logged safely in his cell, but he could easily have given himself a fat lip just to have something to charge the guards.

There.

Reasonable doubt established, the accused SO's must be acquitted.
Your previous claim was that a breach of rule of law was justified because terrorists are animals. Do you now admit that argument was fallacious?


This line of argument is not allowed for any Democrat.

Get back to us when you begin obeying the Constitution, okay?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque]Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Tu quoque, a form of ad hominem, is a logical fallacy since it fails to address the point being argument, instead attacking the person. Regardless of me, please address my actual argument instead of throwing out logical fallacies. Do you disagree that rule of law is the basis of our society? If you do agree, why is breach of that justifiable in this situation?
 
Anyway, now that you've proven that you learned the same things in ninth grade the rest of us learned in the fourth grade, I recommend you read some of the threads in this forum regarding "rights" and what they actually are.

Since I don't give a flying **** about any terrorist's "rights", it's a shame his captors have to be sacrificed in a kangaroo court before the altar of the God of Poltical Correctness. So long as the terrorist lives long enough to enjoy the short drop with the sharp jerk on his neck at the end of it, I'm happy no matter what is done to him.

So you disagree with rule of law?
 
I would have thought we could all agree here, a fat lip, really, we are going to argue this?

There is no common ground, is there?

I hate war, we all do, well most of us, but come on people, this is absurd!
 
I would have thought we could all agree here, a fat lip, really, we are going to argue this?

There is no common ground, is there?

I hate war, we all do, well most of us, but come on people, this is absurd!

If you punch me in the face or beat me with a two by four, it is still violation of assault laws. The degree of injury is not important.
 
If you punch me in the face or beat me with a two by four, it is still violation of assault laws. The degree of injury is not important.

Like I said, some people just cannot be reached.:shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom