• 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

the makeout hobo said:
Why do you disagree with my point?
Click to expand...

Because violence demands violence, and you cannot ask these men to go in to a situation with their hands tied behind their back. If the guy needed a smack across his face, so be it, this is why we sent them there. These are not american police officers, and they do what they have to do to secure their target. That said, do you know how many americans get their faces busted up everyday in the hood, more then we can count, this is a non-issue, period!
 
Jackboot said:
Because violence demands violence, and you cannot ask these men to go in to a situation with their hands tied behind their back. If the guy needed a smack across his face, so be it, this is why we sent them there. These are not american police officers, and they do what they have to do to secure their target. That said, do you know how many americans get their faces busted up everyday in the hood, more then we can count, this is a non-issue, period!
Click to expand...

The issue is that they are bound by certain rules. What the rules are is irregardless in most situations*, they are there. The soldiers agreed to abide by these rules, then they broke them. They broke the rules, so they must deal with the consequences. It's as simple as that. Why do you disagree with this reasoning?



*we can discuss when it is more ethical to break a rule than to follow it, but that's not really within the realm of this thread, unless you're really trying to argue that the rules these soldiers broke are unethical.
 
Great job Seals :applaud

I would probably have provided a good kick to his ass myself.
 
the makeout hobo said:
So you disagree with rule of law?
Click to expand...

There are more serious issues to be dealt with than fat lips.

Since the accuser is a terrorist, his complaint shouldn't be important.

Hmmm......let's see....terrorist engineers the mass murder of thousands, plots the murder of possibly millions if he can figure out how....whines of fat lip....against US serviceman doing his job protecting America against said terrorist.

Well, I can see why you're siding with the terrorists, but really, the fatness of his lips isn't something I'm losing sleep over.
 
the makeout hobo said:
The issue is that they are bound by certain rules. What the rules are is irregardless in most situations*, they are there. The soldiers agreed to abide by these rules, then they broke them. They broke the rules, so they must deal with the consequences. It's as simple as that. Why do you disagree with this reasoning?



*we can discuss when it is more ethical to break a rule than to follow it, but that's not really within the realm of this thread, unless you're really trying to argue that the rules these soldiers broke are unethical.
Click to expand...

I will try to be polite here, but you have no damn idea what rules were broken, and what rules were followed, to the letter. I think a fat lip can be explained quite easily, you seem to think we need a congressional hearing, I think you are insane!:doh
 
the makeout hobo said:
So I suspect you also agree that rule of law should be waived in this case?:roll:
Click to expand...
Not at all. But sometimes, ya just gotta do what ya gotta do.

Although we don't know the full story, on the surface at least this seems like a case of applying the law to the Nth degree.

If so... it's petty and utter bull****
 
the makeout hobo said:
The issue is that they are bound by certain rules.
Click to expand...

Yes, the prison guards are bound by unwritten rules of loyalty to their country, their shipmates, and finally stupid laws protecting terrorists.

The guard that reported the complaint violated the more important rules and obeyed the rule that says terrorists should be coddled because they're special, delicate little flowers that bloom only for America-hating politicians in the US.

Like I said, the men that turned the terrorist's complaint in for official action should be sent to combat units immediately, so they can get a speedy return to America via Dover AFB.
 
Jackboot said:
I will try to be polite here, but you have no damn idea what rules were broken, and what rules were followed, to the letter. I think a fat lip can be explained quite easily, you seem to think we need a congressional hearing, I think you are insane!:doh
Click to expand...

Like I said, he punched himself in the face to make a phony complaint.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, the prison guards are bound by unwritten rules of loyalty to their country, their shipmates, and finally stupid laws protecting terrorists.
Click to expand...
And they can deal with the consequences of any rules they break, but no rules should ever trump the laws of their land, which in this case apparently prohibit striking terrorists.

The guard that reported the complaint violated the more important rules and obeyed the rule that says terrorists should be coddled because they're special, delicate little flowers that bloom only for America-hating politicians in the US.

Like I said, the men that turned the terrorist's complaint in for official action should be sent to combat units immediately, so they can get a speedy return to America via Dover AFB.
Click to expand...

You are a sick bastard if you think these people deserve to die for this.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There are more serious issues to be dealt with than fat lips.

Since the accuser is a terrorist, his complaint shouldn't be important.
What does the legal systems that the soldiers are bound by say on the matter? Informal codes of honor are not legal systems.

Hmmm......let's see....terrorist engineers the mass murder of thousands, plots the murder of possibly millions if he can figure out how....whines of fat lip....against US serviceman doing his job protecting America against said terrorist.

Well, I can see why you're siding with the terrorists, but really, the fatness of his lips isn't something I'm losing sleep over.
Click to expand...

I'm not siding with the terrorists, I believe that the rules should be fairly applied no matter what. You don't like it, you change the rules. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are making an assumption from incomplete facts. Last I heard, the military is(rightly) not commenting on the case, so we have only one side of the story. If the primary complaint is they hit the guy, I hope they get off. If there is more to the story, as I suspect there is, I will withhold judgment until I know more.

The problem here is that people are rushing to throw a fit without knowing for sure what is going on. Some of you so badly want something to bitch about, you run ahead of the facts.
 
Redress said:
The problem here is that people are rushing to throw a fit without knowing for sure what is going on. Some of you so badly want something to bitch about, you run ahead of the facts.
Click to expand...
I just finished looking at every news-story and blog-article listed at Google News concerning this. They basically all say what was reported in this thread OP. According to the US military, three Navy Seal commando's have been officially charged with “abusing a detainee” and “falsifying official documents”. The initial charge stems from an abuse complaint filed by the terrorist himself. The secondary charge is a consequence of the initial abuse charge.

People can only go by what the military itself has stated. Either the military is witholding pertinint information on this case, or the military is engaged in a ridiculous and petty application of political correctness as reported.

Neither scenario is very comforting.
 
the makeout hobo said:
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.
Click to expand...

In a war zone, taking into custody a high value target, who resists...

And he gets a bloody lip.

AND YOU PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT HIS FREAKING RIGHTS???

Do you know what this animal did to 4 Americans and why he was targeted?

DO YOU HAVE A CLUE THE PAIN HE INFLICTED?

And you're worried about his freaking lip?

DO YOU EVEN CARE ABOUT HOW WEAK WE LOOK?

Cause the rest of the world, especially our enemies, are laughing at us.
 
theangryamerican said:
All of those charges could easily be brought against a soldier for striking a prisoner that attacked them or struggled against them. It doesn't make him a scumbag for not using "kid gloves" on a known and dangerous terrorist.
Click to expand...

I agree. They turned down the plea bargain and demanded a trial. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 
the makeout hobo said:
And they can deal with the consequences of any rules they break, but no rules should ever trump the laws of their land, which in this case apparently prohibit striking terrorists.
Click to expand...


Claims made by terrorist should never trump those made by our service men and women. I do not know about you but I prefer to take the word of our service mem and women instead of the word of terrorist. And even if they did punch the scumbag they still shouldn't be punished for it.
 
Scorpion89 said:
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
Click to expand...
I don't call people names for no good reason, boo. I shouldn't have implied that the three accused were scumbags. They are innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand, illegal conduct cannot be excused just because they are Special Forces. Over the years, Special Forces soldiers have be convicted of everything from murder to bank robbers.
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
If they deserve a medal, they should get it. If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

A liberal siding with a scumbag over that of our service men and women(or sometimes law enforcement), why does that sound so cliche?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom