• 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

MrVicchio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was it in a warzone? I thought it was after he was in detention. If not, it probably doesn't violate anything, and as of such I don't care. And yes I care about his frickin' rights, because I care about everyone's rights. It's just the kind of person I am. And more importantly, I believe in most cases you follow the rules you've agreed to follow. Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't your mother ever tell you that?

jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they be punished for punching him, if it violates the UCMJ?

Keep in mind I'm not saying we should believe the terrorist over the service men, but if it does come out in court of law that they're guilty, they should be punished accordingly.
 
Redress said:
Do you mean why is the military not talking about the case? They should not until it is resolved.
Click to expand...
But they already have. The military stated... blah, blah, and blah.

Why stop at the three blah's?

Why not either go with no blah's (ignorance is bliss), or offer all the blah's (ah yes, it all perfect makes sense now)?

That's what I mean by doing this half-assed. They released just enough information to piss folks off, but not enough information to enlighten anyone.
 
Tashah said:
But they already have. The military stated... blah, blah, and blah.

Why stop at the three blah's?

Why not either go with no blah's (ignorance is bliss), or offer all the blah's (ah yes, it all perfect makes sense now)?

That's what I mean by doing this half-assed. They released just enough information to piss folks off, but not enough information to enlighten anyone.
Click to expand...

Quick obvious caveat: I am not a lawyer.

I think what it looks like is the SOC spokewoman got asked, and answered in the most general way.

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.
Click to expand...

So one of the Seals, or their family or friends I suspect went to FOX with the story, and when FOX checked with SOC, they got a yes, we have 3 guys charged in connection with...I really wish we had things like the actual question(s) she was asked, and her actual answers. That is the thing that is so frustrating about this whole thing, we lack so many details.
 
I suspect that someone is deliberately withholding the details and preventing enlightenment.
Who?
 
Arch Enemy said:
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Is there some clause that Mass Murderers are not allowed to be punched in the facial structure?
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's called the Geneva Convention. (You don't have to like it. I sure don't. But 'dem be the rules as far as our military is concerned on how to treat prisoners.)
 
Objective Voice said:
Yeah. It's called the Geneva Convention. (You don't have to like it. I sure don't. But 'dem be the rules as far as our military is concerned on how to treat prisoners.)
Click to expand...

You do know that Terrorist are not covered by the GC right?

Why do people give a rats ass about the rights of terrorist? I prefer this method of dealing with scum bags on the field of battle (BTW it was completely legal, sadly the bleeding hearts of the world condemned the Gen. Shame really)

viet_cong_prisoner_shot_by_gen.loan_febr1_1968.jpg
 
This was most talked about today during Turkey Dinner and all of us are outraged! We found common ground today while doing the political talks cause we all think this is just NUTS! :(
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agreed with you up until that bit about "the Messiah" and the preceived conviction.

Why does a conviction mean instant retribution to the officers and/or non-commissioned officers of the jury? Couldn't the Obama Administration simply commend the military judicial system for working as it was intended? And it's very possible that these soldiers could/will go free.

The only outcome we can all be sure of is if there is a conviction, even one, the Republican Party will have a field day with it and will certainly blame the Obama Administration despite the Iraq War leading up to making this convicted terrorist public enemy #1 happened under GW Bush's watch.
 
MrVicchio said:
You do know that Terrorist are not covered by the GC right?

Why do people give a rats ass about the rights of terrorist? I prefer this method of dealing with scum bags on the field of battle (BTW it was completely legal, sadly the bleeding hearts of the world condemned the Gen. Shame really)

viet_cong_prisoner_shot_by_gen.loan_febr1_1968.jpg
Click to expand...

Of course you realize that was a great recruiting tool for Charlie don’t you?
 
donc said:
Of course you realize that was a great recruiting tool for Charlie don’t you?
Click to expand...

Of course it was, it was a horrible thing this general did, following the rules of war and executing a spy. HOW DARE HE?

Bleeding heart liberals and hand wringing fools were great recruiting tools for the enemy, not this incident.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Why shouldn't they be punished for punching him, if it violates the UCMJ?

Keep in mind I'm not saying we should believe the terrorist over the service men, but if it does come out in court of law that they're guilty, they should be punished accordingly.
Click to expand...


Because it opens the door for some terrorist to claim some **** in order to retaliate against his captures and or it may discourage service members from wanting to so their job if they know that they have to treat terrorist scum with kid gloves and worrying about facing punishment for little scratches. Besides that its just a punch our service members shouldn't have to b punished over a little punch.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
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.
Click to expand...




meh, there are also scumbag civilians as well. :shrug:
 
Tashah said:
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.
Click to expand...





could this be a ploy to show Obama won't stand for another abu gharib?


it seems odd that this is happening at all.
 
jamesrage said:
Because it opens the door for some terrorist to claim some **** in order to retaliate against his captures...
Click to expand...
No body has proven that that the suspect is a terrorist, and the U. S. Military has a horrible record of arresting and abusing innocent people. The U. S. military is just another incompetent government bureaucracy that can't do anything right.

The capture of terrorists should be left to the laws of supply and demand.

What about my right to be terrorized?
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
No body has proven that that the suspect is a terrorist, and the U. S. Military has a horrible record of arresting and abusing innocent people. The U. S. military is just another incompetent government bureaucracy that can't do anything right.

The capture of terrorists should be left to the laws of supply and demand.

What about my right to be terrorized?
Click to expand...

Hey Junior,

So you have actual proof that the person that the SEALs capture wasn't the Ring Leader never mind that Interpol had him listed on there Most Wanted Listed and that it was the Iraqi Govn. that put him on that list.

As for your next part I call BS on that I would love to see you walk up to anyone in the Military and tell them that that are incompetent and abusive.
 
jamesrage said:
Because it opens the door for some terrorist to claim some **** in order to retaliate against his captures
Click to expand...
This particular terrorist appears to have three SEALS to back up his accusations, boo. The Faux article claims that,

Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses​
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
This particular terrorist appears to have three SEALS to back up his accusations, boo. The Faux article claims that,

Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses​
Click to expand...


So what? What in the actions of the SEALs in arresting this war criminal is in any way different from what happens to any American criminal that evades Police? I can assure you that if you run, or fight back upon capture by any if not most Police officers here in the US, you will recieve at least a bloddy lip. I don't see our Police on trial for every arrest.

See Whip, it boils down to this, many liberals in the far left, hate our actions in the ME, they hate our country winning any conflict due to their own guilt of being born free in America, and they hate our Military for winning their objectives. You said earlier that you wanted your "right to be terrorized"....Well, no one istaking that from you, should you believe in that right, as I do for you, then there is a somwhat simple solution. Fly to the ME and walk into Iran unaccompanied. I am sure that there are those there that will accomadate you, and show you plenty of terror. At which point you will probably beg to be rescued by the very same SEALs that you now work against.


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom