• 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

Politics101 said:
You're back! :2wave:

Did you choose the top picture or the bottom picture as a most trusted source?
Click to expand...

Do you like baited questions? Since the people leveling the charges are the US Navy and the DOJ, what does that tell you?
 
Redress said:
Do you like baited questions? Since the people leveling the charges are the US Navy and the DOJ, what does that tell you?
Click to expand...

It tells me we need another hypothetical scenario: say you're on the jury in this trial, and they bring in the three witnesses. Two of the witnesses are from the bottom picture and the third witness is from the top picture.

The first of the two witnesses say, "When we were securing the package, he was flailing about like a pansy and fell. And then we were able to control him, but not until after he bloodied his lip."

The second witness says, "After the teorrist fell, and when my fellow SEAL jumped on him to secure the package, somewhere in the scuffle the terrorist got a bloody lip. But we got him! A most wanted terrorist. Booyah?"

The third witness says, "These two terrorists punched me. I don't which one, but they punched me. See! I got a bloody lip."

As the juror, just point to the picture, either top or bottom, which source is your most valued and who do you believe?
 
texmaster said:
LOL I asked you the original question. You once again dishonestly refused to answer it and then lied about who the witness actually is.

Then you claim the Seals are the ones who are lying once again without evidence. I challenged you to prove that and on cue, you run away.

Thanks for staying predictable Redress.
Click to expand...

You will find that redress will never answer a question directly.......She will respond with another question or attack you personally....
 
Navy Pride said:
You will find that redress will never answer a question directly.......She will respond with another question or attack you personally....
Click to expand...

Smoke and mirrors. The only way to remain on the offensive when you're surrounded by reality and truth.
 
Navy Pride said:
You will find that redress will never answer a question directly.......She will respond with another question or attack you personally....
Click to expand...

Irony, you are good at it.
 
Politics101 said:
It tells me we need another hypothetical scenario: say you're on the jury in this trial, and they bring in the three witnesses. Two of the witnesses are from the bottom picture and the third witness is from the top picture.

The first of the two witnesses say, "When we were securing the package, he was flailing about like a pansy and fell. And then we were able to control him, but not until after he bloodied his lip."

The second witness says, "After the teorrist fell, and when my fellow SEAL jumped on him to secure the package, somewhere in the scuffle the terrorist got a bloody lip. But we got him! A most wanted terrorist. Booyah?"

The third witness says, "These two terrorists punched me. I don't which one, but they punched me. See! I got a bloody lip."

As the juror, just point to the picture, either top or bottom, which source is your most valued and who do you believe?
Click to expand...

There is no need for hypotheticals, especially slanted ones. You do not know what evidence the government has. You are making assumptions, because you want them to be true.
 
Redress said:
There is no need for hypotheticals, especially slanted ones. You do not know what evidence the government has. You are making assumptions, because you want them to be true.
Click to expand...

He's making hypotheticals?

Do you really think that if they had not lied, they would be in the situation they are in? If they had said "yup, it was a mess, we had to rough him up a bit for our own safety", do you think any one would have prosecuted them? What always happens is the coverup is worse than the actual event.
Click to expand...

As usual your two faced answers expose your hypocrisy.

Please let us know which face we are talking to. The one who says our seals are lying and the terroist is telling the truth or the other face that says we don't know the information.


See Redress, the difference between us and you is that when we see a terrorist who has murdered Americans and taken into custody, we don't assume he is the one telling the truth, unlike you.
 
texmaster said:
He's making hypotheticals?



As usual your two faced answers expose your hypocrisy.

Please let us know which face we are talking to. The one who says our seals are lying and the terroist is telling the truth or the other face that says we don't know the information.


See Redress, the difference between us and you is that when we see a terrorist who has murdered Americans and taken into custody, we don't assume he is the one telling the truth, unlike you.
Click to expand...

You are making crap up as usual. I am not referencing the terrorist at all. That is all you, in trying to slant your case. I am stating facts, including the ones you got wrong.

Fact: The terrorist charged the seals with nothing, he does not have that power. I know this is inconvenient to the way you want to paint this, but it is the truth.

Fact: The US Navy and the DOJ are the ones who are charging the soldiers with crimes.

Fact: The reason this is going to court marshal is the Seals requested it over NJP.

Fact: Their guilt or innocence will be determined at a court marshal, and based on the actual facts of the case, which you are, like so many other things, ignorant of.
 
texmaster said:
Thats another LIE. There is only one person as a witness.

WHO IS THAT PERSON? Answer the question.
Click to expand...

An Eye-Witness is not the only type of witness. In fact, eye-witnesses are often times considered the worst kinds of witnesses. If all they had was an eye-witness, even if it was Jesus himself, they would not have brought these charges.

There is more then one witness in this case.
 
ScottD said:
An Eye-Witness is not the only type of witness. In fact, eye-witnesses are often times considered the worst kinds of witnesses. If all they had was an eye-witness, even if it was Jesus himself, they would not have brought these charges.

There is more then one witness in this case.
Click to expand...

OK, based on what has been said thus far, and looking to history as an example of previous cases where servicemen were being charged for something they did in the line of duty, I strongly believe all charges against the SEALs will be dropped at some point in the future.

Why?

Because if those who serve in the military begin getting prosecuted successfully every time something went awry during a war time campaign, we'd have a very skeptical, weak military always afraid to pull the trigger. That would be far more damaging to our military effectiveness than the 'benefits' (if there are any) of prosecuting two Navy SEALs for capturing a most wanted terrorist.

We can cement this comment to the archives, but mark my words, all charges will be dropped at some point in the future. That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it!
 
Here'd be my question.

First, lets say hypothetically they did punch the guy. Lets even you and I have no issue with that fact. However, when questioned about it they lie, officially, to their commanding officer and later its found out to be a lie.

Do you think they should be charged or not?

Second, if you answered "No, they should not be charged", what was your stance on the crimes of this man:

Bill+Clinton+National+Debt.jpg


You know, the guy that the Republicans in congress went after, a thing many republicans/conservatives greatly agreed with, based on the notion that we are a people under a RULE OF LAW and that breaking the law...even if you're doing it to cover up something that was not at all illegal...is illegal.

Third, if you answered yes, what do you think of people this sign is supposed to be referencing:

illegal-immigrants3.jpg


Since I keep hearing in the Immigration debate that its important that every single one of them over here is punished because they broke the law, and it doesn't matter what reason they broke the law because we are a country of LAWS and those laws must be followed.

Both sides are right, we DON'T know the facts of the case. All we know is this, there is enough evidence that these guys:

navy-seal-4.jpg


the marines decided it was worth while to bring charges forth. So all those that answered yes please, tell me, why is it that you don't care about the Rule of Law and why you don't trust the above people's decisions on whether there's a potential violation of said law?

Do you hate the Military? Is that it? Are you anti-american (I figure I'd just join in the ridiculous demonization ride with you all)
 
Politics101 said:
OK, based on what has been said thus far, and looking to history as an example of previous cases where servicemen were being charged for something they did in the line of duty, I strongly believe all charges against the SEALs will be dropped at some point in the future.

Why?

Because if those who serve in the military begin getting prosecuted successfully every time something went awry during a war time campaign, we'd have a very skeptical, weak military always afraid to pull the trigger. That would be far more damaging to our military effectiveness than the 'benefits' (if there are any) of prosecuting two Navy SEALs for capturing a most wanted terrorist.

We can cement this comment to the archives, but mark my words, all charges will be dropped at some point in the future. That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it!
Click to expand...

Again, you are falling into the trap of thinking the charges stem from hitting a terrorist. The investigation started there, but that is not where the charges stem from. The charges stem from the the appearance that the Seals lied to the investigation(whether they actually did or not will be determined in their court marshal, which I repeat the Seals themselves requested). Lying to an investigation is a serious charge, and one that cannot be let slide.
 
Redress said:
Again, you are falling into the trap of thinking the charges stem from hitting a terrorist. The investigation started there, but that is not where the charges stem from. The charges stem from the the appearance that the Seals lied to the investigation(whether they actually did or not will be determined in their court marshal, which I repeat the Seals themselves requested). Lying to an investigation is a serious charge, and one that cannot be let slide.
Click to expand...

What people need to do is separate the emotion of hatred for terrorist/ enemies and what the SOP, rules of engagement, laws defined in the UCMJ, and international norms of behavior are for those we place in the line of duty to defend this nation and kill or “arrest” the enemy. These Special Forces troops are the most highly trained and the best of the best hence they should have “known better” than try and cover up an action they took from investigators. We need to put aside our sympathies for our people and not let our emotions cloud what is right and what is wrong even if we do understand why and how they allegedly did what they did.

Not that The My Lai Incident ( some say ‘Massacre ) is the same as this case but I can understand emotionally and intellectually what and why Lt. Calley did what he allegedly did yet whatever those villagers did before his troops got to their village his alleged order to render them parallel to the ground was not proper. These SEALS should not have allegedly lied
 
Last edited:
F107HyperSabr said:
These SEALS should not have allegedly lied
Click to expand...

Do you mean, "If the allegations are found to be true, the SEALs would be wrong to have lied?" Because the way you have it there's a nice liberal spin, as though you are stating an allegation as a fact.
 
Politics101 said:
Do you mean, "If the allegations are found to be true, the SEALs would be wrong to have lied?" Because the way you have it there's a nice liberal spin, as though you are stating an allegation as a fact.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that if the Seals are found to have lied to an official investigation and obstructed justice(I forget if it's one or two who have the obstruction justice charge), that this is a very serious matter and does deserve action on the part of the Navy?
 
This is so PC stupid. The Seal who punched the terrorist/prisoner should get punished for stupidity, if anything. He could have beat the hell out of the guy while they were bringing him in. But, once the guy was in custody it was goddamn stupid of him to hit him then. And then doubly stupid for the other Seals to lie for him.

They will probably get some punishment but, I think a court martial would be extreme. It's not like this is a real trial. It's a military trial and they certainly take care of their own... usually.
 
Politics101 said:
Do you mean, "If the allegations are found to be true, the SEALs would be wrong to have lied?" Because the way you have it there's a nice liberal spin, as though you are stating an allegation as a fact.
Click to expand...

Bag the hyperbolic "liberal spin" crap. No, not I nor you know if they indeed "lied". Maybe it will turn out that they bent or maybe even fractured a rule oR procedure during the detainment of the" nice " terrorist fellow. If they did fracture a rule and they AND are shown to have lied about it they may have to be chastised for that. I would hope that if they are found in viiolation of he rule against lieing that they are mildly chastised. That 's all.

And people nned to end this "liberal" vs "conservative" crap when it comes to our national security. If you notice I did not bring partisanship into this discussion and I am not happy if someone else does. There are enough topics around where we can play the partisan game..... This one is not it !!!!!
 
Redress said:
Would you agree that if the Seals are found to have lied to an official investigation and obstructed justice(I forget if it's one or two who have the obstruction justice charge), that this is a very serious matter and does deserve action on the part of the Navy?
Click to expand...

Because I value integrity, depending on the circumstances of the trial and if they are indeed found guilty, I would agree that a reprimand take place. Maybe a demotion -- that being the most severe reprimand. But again, none of us seem to know what or why they allegedly lied. If they are found to have lied, then the severity of the reprimand should be based on what type of lie it was. And don't give me, "well, they lied!" BS... because every single one of us has lied at some point or another. So I'd really like to know what they allegedly lied about, if they did lie at all.
 
Funny thing is if they did get a demotion, if I were their commanding officer I'd immediately turn around and promote them for capturing a most wanted terrorist.
 
Politics101 said:
Because I value integrity, depending on the circumstances of the trial and if they are indeed found guilty, I would agree that a reprimand take place. Maybe a demotion -- that being the most severe reprimand. But again, none of us seem to know what or why they allegedly lied. If they are found to have lied, then the severity of the reprimand should be based on what type of lie it was. And don't give me, "well, they lied!" BS... because every single one of us has lied at some point or another. So I'd really like to know what they allegedly lied about, if they did lie at all.
Click to expand...

Does not matter what they lied about. You do not do that during an investigation, period. No matter what is being investigated, the lie is much more severe than the actual charge.

Next point: since the Seals themselves bumped this from NJP(Captain's Mast in this case) to a court marshal, I don't see a guilty verdict resulting in anything other than a discharge.

Last point: it is also important to understand that the lying and obstruction of justice charges did not magically happen. We do not know a lot of details, since the DOJ is rightly not commenting, but we do know this from the article in the OP of this thread:

Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.
Click to expand...
 
Politics101 said:
Funny thing is if they did get a demotion, if I were their commanding officer I'd immediately turn around and promote them for capturing a most wanted terrorist.
Click to expand...

Navy promotions do not work that way. There is a test and points system every six months.
 
Redress said:
Navy promotions do not work that way. There is a test and points system every six months.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know. I think it's that way for all branches of the military. I was trying to use an analogy to show my gratitude for the awesome work the SEALs did in capturing a most wanted terrorist.
 
Politics101 said:
You're back! :2wave:

Did you choose the top picture or the bottom picture as a most trusted source?
Click to expand...




You do know, Redress served in the navy, honorably in the Gulf Right?


I'd hate for you to look foolish here with over the top rhetoric. :ssst:


I disagree with her over her position on the seals here for the most part, but lets not use circus clown antics in this discussion.... K? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Navy promotions do not work that way. There is a test and points system every six months.
Click to expand...

Promotions do not go the way the other guy stated in any of the branches of American armed forces. There are promotion boards and a process to follow and guidlines of performance, testing, verification, and time in grade etc. This is not like the King of Camelot making knights.
 
Last edited:
F107HyperSabr said:
Promotions do not go the way the other guy stated in any of the branches of American armed forces. There are promotion boards and a process to follow and guidlines of performance, testing, verification, and time in grade etc. This is not like the King of Camelot making knights.
Click to expand...

Unless they have changed it E4 thru E7 take a test for promotion...They not only have to pass the test but beat the quota....In other words you can pass the test and not get advanced.......E8 and E9 you go in front of a selection board and your record is the deciding factor........At least it is that way in the Navy........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom