Punush?? No, put a medal on these guys.

[Wresh]

GOP Reps. Want Charges Dropped Against SEALs Accused of Abusing Terror Suspect


Two Republican lawmakers are seeking to have charges dropped against three Navy SEALs facing court-martial for accusations of abusing a terror suspect arrested for an ambush killing of U.S. contractors in Iraq.

The SEALs -- Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas -- were part of a team that in September 2009 captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected plotter behind the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

The contractors' bodies were burned and left hanging from a bridge. The image came to symbolize the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the brutality of the enemy Americans face there.

McCabe is accused of punching Abed in the stomach and giving him a bloody lip during the arrest.

Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind. and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. are holding a news conference Thursday with McCabe and more than a dozen retired Navy SEALs and other special forces personnel.

Burton and Human Events, a conservative publication, have gathered petitions with more than 150,000 signatures demanding that the charges be dropped against the men.

The SEALs were offered what's call administrative punishment if they admitted wrongdoing but that would have hurt their future as special operators.

Rather than accept the reprimand, the sailors chose to fight the charges in a military court.

They were arraigned in military court in December and the trials are set to begin in April for Huertas and Keefe, and in May for McCabe, who is charged with assault, dereliction of duty and making a false official statement; Keefe is charged with dereliction of duty and making a false official statement; and Huertas is charged with dereliction of duty, making a false official statement and impeding an official investigation.

The stakes are high for the three SEALs because a guilty finding could result in severe punishment. They face up to one year confinement in a military facility, demotion to entry-level position and a bad conduct discharge from the Navy.

Supporters are angry the three SEALs face charges. Protests are being organized and several Web sites have popped up defending their case.
"The response we've gotten from most of the American people is even if this happened, do we want to saddle the most highly trained special warfare fighters we have -- warriors, heroes who captured this abominable terrorist -- do we want to saddle them with federal convictions for the rest of their lives?" Lt. Col. Neal Puckett, McCabe's attorney told Fox News.

"The insanity could be stopped at any time,” Puckett added. "This is a knee jerk reaction to their refusal to accept a lower form of discipline which would have ended their careers and would not have given them a fair hearing because guilt had already been established in the minds of senior people in the chain of command.

"There are so many ways in the military system to handle this short of court martial," he continued. "That's all we're asking."

Burton has been on the case since December, when he sent a letter to Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, commander of Special Operations Command Central, asking for all charges against the SEALs to be dropped. Forty members of Congress signed onto Burton's letter, which was also sent to President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff.

"My 40 colleagues in Congress and I are asking that the charges be dropped immediately, and for the Navy SEALs to be restored to their capacity within the Special Forces so they can continue the heroic business of fighting our nation's most wanted enemies," Burton said in a statement released at the time.

Cleveland defended the court-martial in a response to Burton writing, "The abuse of a detainee, no matter how minor, creates strategic repercussions that harm our nation's security and ultimately costs the lives of U.S. citizens."

Burton told Fox News Thursday that even if the SEALs are guilty of the charges, he doesn't believe they should be court martialed.

"In fact, I said to the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff if I had been one of the people who captured this guy, I would have broken both his legs," he said. "This guy's a terrorist and I don't think he should be treated with kid gloves."

[Domathoine]

Punish**

I can see both sides of the argument, though I tend to lean towards civility in these kinds of situations. Otherwise we aren't any better.

[Lonskils]

You don't win a war being the "better" man. Ask the Brits how that worked out for them when the US soldiers wouldn't just stand up and see who got mowed down first. Or ask all those Vietcong that kicked our asses our of Viet Nam why they would just go around and lay traps and dig tunnels. The fact is, we are in a fucking war. I'm not sure when it happened exactly, but if you aren't willing to do the job or witness it...don't watch and don't partake in it. You want to get a civilizations attention? Start killing their civilians that give aid to the enemy as well as the enemy.

Is it nasty? It sure as fuck is....it is called a God Damn War for a reason. The truth...as sickening as it is to a great many folk is, the more brutal you are...the shorter the war. Right now in Afghanistan our soldiers are told they cannot shoot anyone that cannot be identified as shooting at them. Many of the other side have taken to killing a few of our men from a building then dropping their guns and walking by the very people they shot at without a gun and they can't do shit to them. THAT IS NOT HOW YOU WIN A FUCKING WAR. People die in war, kids, women, puppies and kittens. That is why you want to be as brutal and as effective as you can in what you do...It will end a lot faster, word gets out that you have no problem blowing the entire country up *READ JAPAN* and people quit fucking with you.

Going into another country and giving our soldiers the same fucking rules of engagement you give to a border patrolman or a police officer in the states is not how you win. It is how you string out a war to appease folks. Iraq and Afghanistan would have been OVER by now had we fully committed. But no, bleeding hearts from all over the world was all about saving masques and shit. While that may win you some political points from the very people you despise. The truth is you go in, kill everything that moves until folks quit coming at you for FEAR of reprisal. This is symptomatic of someone saying there should be no death penalty because it doesn't work. It works every fucking time they pull the damn lever to end someone's murderous life, they should do it more often.

You cannot have it both ways...you cannot be respected by simply demanding respect. You cannot fight off a bully by running. And you sure as fuck Can't win a war by saying "well we are no better than they are" when that very reason is why they still exist. It is funny that as soon as wars began to be televised we started losing them heh.

[Aindayen]

I don't see how making an example of them helps our war on terror.

I'd like to hang the sons of bitches off a bridge so they know what we'll do...

Ain

[Allara]

I don't find myself saying this very often, but I agree with Lons.

[Wresh]

I don't find myself saying this very often, but I agree with Lons.


I was thinking the very same thing.

[Domathoine]

I agree with lons... TO AN EXTENT.

There isn't a reason to NOT show civility when you've apprehended a suspect//criminal//whatever. By that point, you can send him through the legal system or processing or whatever the fuck is going on in that regard.

[Sabertootth]

Doma, I may be just a 17 year old that doesn't know crap but honestly, think of it this way, they attacked us we went to catch the people that did it . They kept attacking us, we used the guy to get information. These seals were doing there jobs. You cant put these attackers through the legal system because it takes top long is a bigger drain because we give them rights, takes a small amount of focus that can be put towards other objectives, and do they honestly deserve to live if they killed 4 American contractors, burned their bodies and hung them from a bridge? And. If we are going to charge these seals with a war crime then lets go to their C.O's and charge them with giving the order to. We did it to the National Socialists (NAZIS) and went up the chain.

another question. what would you do if you were a Terrorist and you attacked someone got caught and they gave you a fair trial? another guy attacks and your sacrificed. You cant win this war with civility. You have to be able to fight their way and do it better than they do.

But, again i'm just a 17 year old that has no political view besides what is given to him.

[Domathoine]

You have to be careful when you call this a *WAR*.

Typically, a war has a very clear goal (What is it in this one? Eliminate terrorism? Find bin Laden? "Liberate" the Iraqi people so that they can have their own democratic government and a stable, western-influenced society? Take your pick.) Also, typically, a war has a very clear end-game scenario. Either we A) Win and impose what we want or B) lose and withdraw or concede.

Neither of those cases is even remotely viable in this "war" that we are currently in, but I also don't agree in saying that we are in peace-time.

[Wresh]

The U.S. has never "imposed" anything when we win.

Actually, when we beat someone we are the 1st to lend them aid to get them back onto their feet and get their economy stable. We are the only country EVER on this planet that doesn't impose our will onto the people we beat.

[Sabertootth]

You have to be careful when you call this a *WAR*.

Typically, a war has a very clear goal (What is it in this one? Eliminate terrorism? Find bin Laden? "Liberate" the Iraqi people so that they can have their own democratic government and a stable, western-influenced society? Take your pick.) Also, typically, a war has a very clear end-game scenario. Either we A) Win and impose what we want or B) lose and withdraw or concede.

Neither of those cases is even remotely viable in this "war" that we are currently in, but I also don't agree in saying that we are in peace-time.

Simply to state this isnt a "Typical" war. I have put much research into wars as i am a self styled "history nerd" and nearly every war is started by an "attack" from an aggressor(9/11) and a response from the victim. And a War has 2 sides. Usually, 2 alliances or two countries fighting each other. In this case it is a country fighting an alliance. when I say this isnt typical. I mean this isnt a Were going in to stop a country from doing something inhumane or stopping a country from attacking people. we are stopping an Alliance of self-styled "patriots" that attacked another world super power simply because russia got tired of the struggle and decided it was better to leave them alone. so, they set thier sights on the U.S. we came and I do not believe we are going to pull out till we set a standard to not !@#$ with the U.S. we may be facing tough ecconomic times and struggleing to keep the support of the General populace but you know what vietnam lasted for a while and i dont see this lasting any shorter an amount of time. Soldiers went over to do their job, their job was to protect American lives. Wether or not that be taking pre-emptive action or fighitng on our soil. we will protect our own ( or at least i hope to god we will). These soldiers and defenders of freedom are heroes. NOT criminals.

[Domathoine]

The U.S. has never "imposed" anything when we win.

Wut?

We didn't fight against the British and, after winning, set our own terms about how we were going to go about conducting ourselves on this continent, away from the reach of the monarchy?

We didn't fight the British AGAIN in response to unlawful trade laws that, after winning, we demanded be changed?

What about fighting Mexico for territorial expansion and the acquisition of our southwest, including Texas?

The civil war against ourselves, both sides of which were trying to impose one side of the same argument (really dumbed down, here)...?

You could argue again for territorial expansion in the spanish-american war, even though that was largely started because of cuba...

My point is that wars SHOULD have an end-game. What is the end-game on the current war? It sure isn't to defend our people anymore; I'd say we are well past that mark.

[Domathoine]

These soldiers and defenders of freedom are heroes. NOT criminals.

You just made a case for the opposition with that one line.

You can't just act like this is a loophole war either by calling it non-standard or non-typical. Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose?

Saber, some grammar would serve you well.

[Peotr]

Both sides of this conversation are missing the point.

Watch this video [NSFW]:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?videos=YexjqFBPwx0&v=3o7iWgqf-Dg


Within this video is the key to the problem, but before you start leaping to conclusions I'll give you a hint: The problem isn't the Marines, and it isn't Afghanistan.

[Sabertootth]

(not on topic) my grammar is correct. spelling and punctuation may be incorrect. but i don't believe verb tense and sentence structure is wrong...

[Valdis]

Punctuation is one of the major chunks o' grammar.

[Aindayen]

Punctuation is one of the major chunks o' grammar.

I've used your for you're so much trying to piss berae off it is now a bad habit :(

Ain

[Domathoine]

But a worthy cause.

[Octavus]

(not on topic) my grammar is correct. spelling and punctuation may be incorrect. but i don't believe verb tense and sentence structure is wrong...

Sentence structure requires punctuation. Using commas, periods, and "other" forms of punctuation direct the reader into what you are trying to convey. Without these the reader is left confused and makes it difficult, if not painful, to read. I probably use commas too often and too often incorrectly but at least I don't blast the reader with a wall of text. A persons writing is often viewed as a direct representation of your ability to present ideas and is judged quite critically. Often people with horrid grammer are viewed as unintellegent and find it hard to find jobs, get into college or even win a debate over war and all its tragedies.

Not a bash on your overall intellegence but something you should consider, especially as you get closer and closer to college and your career development.

Disclaimer: I don't use spelling or grammer checks on these forums.

[Andaas]

Sentence structure requires punctuation. Using commas, periods, and "other" forms of punctuation direct the reader into what you are trying to convey. Without these the reader is left confused and makes it difficult, if not painful, to read. I probably use commas too often and too often incorrectly but at least I don't blast the reader with a wall of text. A persons writing is often viewed as a direct representation of your ability to present ideas and is judged quite critically. Often people with horrid grammer are viewed as unintellegent and find it hard to find jobs, get into college or even win a debate over war and all its tragedies.

Not a bash on your overall intellegence but something you should consider, especially as you get closer and closer to college and your career development.

Disclaimer: I don't use spelling or grammer checks on these forums.

Maybe you should? :)

[Octavus]

;)

[Gheltire]

Wut?

We didn't fight against the British and, after winning, set our own terms about how we were going to go about conducting ourselves on this continent, away from the reach of the monarchy?

The monarchy was just up the road in Canada. We didnt have to impose anything on GB/KG3, they were broke and France was circling NA for the kill. And the US made incredibly sure that it wouldnt have to impose anything on anyone because it wasnt able to drop balls enough to declare allegiance to either a Protestant or a Catholic European landscape. The US won and held its breath, and tried its best to not draw attention for at least 25 years after winning. It couldnt even print Federal money for 11 years:) Couldnt raise an army, couldnt sign treaties. Basically it had tossed a mez on the world and was praying that no rangers mistargetted an arrow:)

We didn't fight the British AGAIN in response to unlawful trade laws that, after winning, we demanded be changed?

The War of 1812 was a trade war on the open seas and in response to British ships refusing to acknowledge US maritime laws and sovereignty over its on seafaring vessels. You cant board an American ship, take its sailors and force them to join the British Navy. That's just impolite. At worst, the war of 1812 was an excuse for the US to break out its War Hawks and inflict some pain on a foreign entity while it was trying to deal with an uncomfortable Indian problem at home. Stretch its wings a little, see if they could develop a world shipping lane now that thy had an infrastructure to deal with foreign entities, protect its own lanes, and distribute product wanted by Europe. And if memory serves correctly, the US did not march up the Thames and burn Buckingham Palace

What about fighting Mexico for territorial expansion and the acquisition of our southwest, including Texas?
Texas was an independent Republic for 9 years before joining the Union. Maybe you think the US filibustering occurred here, but its also just as good an argument that Texicans didnt want to pay fealty to a foreign entity miles and miles to the south, when those Texicans had been pouring their own blood sweat and tears into Indian defense and spreading the economy much further out than the Mexican fortress/El Camino Real spheres of influence. Sure some US guys wandered around going to bed at night dreaming of Manifest Destiny. But the War for Texan Independence was just like most colonial revolutions, it was just fighting off the parent country's domination. Happened in the US, Mexico, and most of the South American countries. I think it's just a natural evolution of colonialism under the capitalist model. You cant send colonists who want to generate personal wealth to start a country that will kick in that wealth to a government til for very long. As soon as the government is not doing the protecting or enforcing, it's not required anymore, and the colonies will rebel. And yeah while the Catholic model was on the surface a conquest of ideology, it is the one that introduced slavery to the Caribbean for farming profits, and wiped out most of Mexico's indigenous population too while pursuing economic ventures which generally only enriched the government (1/5) and the landowners under the hacienda system. So I kindof think its a capitalist model too. But anyway

The civil war against ourselves, both sides of which were trying to impose one side of the same argument (really dumbed down, here)...?
way too much to answer here. But whichever way you view the Confederacy (states rights or keeping slavery) the confederacy wasnt imposing a view on the Union, it was defending a view, right or wrong. So at best the Union imposes the Constitution on the Confed and says State serves the Fed, at worst, Union imposes on the Confed for grounds of humanity. But you're right, really dumbed down so let's let this one go just touched upon

You could argue again for territorial expansion in the spanish-american war, even though that was largely started because of cuba...meh the Colonial Imperialist period of the 19th/early 20th century US best fits your imposition argument, specifically Wilson, Taft, Teddy who made Mexico, SAmerica, the Phillipines, the Carribean particular targets. But I might argue that this wasnt the US imposing a will for ideology or defense, Id argue this was more a result of the US internally listening to its own superpowered economic entities who demanded US protection abroad (and forced injection, like Japan and China)

My point is that wars SHOULD have an end-game. What is the end-game on the current war? It sure isn't to defend our people anymore; I'd say we are well past that mark.

I think there is an end game for both sides who live on the extreme of the spectrum. Those of us who like to live in the middle of that range dont like to acknowledge that both sides think there is an end game victory. Because it requires us to acknowledge that there are elements of our society and their society who will forego what we think of as civil human behavior to completely wipe the other side off the face of the planet. If you can accept that one element is trying to destroy the other, it's not a far reach to accept that there is an end game strategy on the table, and it's not counted in months or seasons of combat. Expecting an end game to be a race or the first person to put up a flag or tear down a statue of Saddam Hussein is not really feasible. Mission Accomplished was as stupid an "ending" to a war as the world has ever seen. But it's probably more like the scene in Amadeus when Mozart is ending his Austrian operas with loud noise. When asked why he composes this way he responds that if he didn't, Austrians wouldnt know when to applaud. Bush tried to give everyone a "happy" end game. The truth of the matter proved itself otherwise.

Your best argument in regards to imposed will is the US practice of enforced democracy. It didnt work in Haiti, it's bordering on a failed experiment in Russia (Putin and Medvedev are hardliners as you know and we've already seen where Russia lands with regards to more successful westernized models like Georgia), Afghanistan/Iraq will continue to reelect leaders of its preinvasion groups, and Pakistan's democracy is only a democracy to stay in the US pocket and keep India from blowing it into the Stone Age.

And that's because we try to germinate democracy with bullets. We use our might incorrectly hoping to somehow spark a Reformation of thought/political consciousness in areas we don't understand or refuse to understand that a holy man is also a political entity. And an attack on one man's political figures is then also an attack on his god. Attack a man's god and he's going to do what generation upon generation of humans have done across the history of our planet: Convert you or kill you. So you'd better be prepared to either accept his political/religious system, or prepare to fight an end game. Since in our Enlightened minds we feel the need to separate his Church and State, we'd better be prepared to kill him.

[Redwingsfan]

Sentence structure requires punctuation. Using commas, periods, and "other" forms of punctuation direct the reader into what you are trying to convey. Without these the reader is left confused and makes it difficult, if not painful, to read. I probably use commas too often and too often incorrectly but at least I don't blast the reader with a wall of text. A persons writing is often viewed as a direct representation of your ability to present ideas and is judged quite critically. Often people with horrid grammar are viewed as unintelligent and find it hard to find jobs, get into college or even win a debate over war and all its tragedies.

Not a bash on your overall intelligence but something you should consider, especially as you get closer and closer to college and your career development.

Disclaimer: I don't use spelling or grammar checks on these forums.

fixed :cool:

[Octavus]

fixed :cool:

Funny thing is I thought I spelled them both wrong, but was too lazy to check... Ironically Grammar and Intelligent were wrong in a rant about the value of proper English writing.

/fail

[Sabertootth]

wtb topic back on topic?

these guys are just doing there job.

[Lonskils]

....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RZxlYx1u9Jc/S5LE5wxW3-I/AAAAAAAABK0/UrYS_g6UzQw/s400/Save+Our+Navy+Seals.jpg

[NormetheGnome]

Nailed it lons...i been saying it for years...media is why we stopped winning wars. These fuckheads are no better than hittler..why do they get handled with kid gloves? I for one would love to see America return to the badassery of my grandfathers generation where fucking longhairs had fire hoses turned on em. No CIVILIZED country wants to go to war with America. Why? WE HAVE NUCLEAR MISSILES. AND WEVE USED THEM. I dont understand why we dont just say fuck it and finish this shit.
Carpet Bombing. Its effective.

FUck public opinion with a rake.

[Syana]

dammit..

What's worse than a wall of text? a wall of red text.. omg my eyes!! my eyes!! the goggles, they do nothing!!!