Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Navy Seals face court martial for bloody lip or punch in the stomach or something

My immediate reaction to the news that three Navy Seals were facing courts martial for delivering a bloody lip or a punch in the stomach to a captured terror suspect was outrage.  But I read Ed Morrissey's HotAir post on the subject, and temporarily wimped out and decided to hold off on posting until more information was available.

Time's up.  I can't stand the thought that American Navy Seals who captured a subhuman terrorist who was the mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in March of 2004, are now facing a disgraceful ending to their exemplary careers because that terrorist accused them of abuse.

Disclosure. My family and friends will recall that I have a particular and painful bias in this matter.  In September of 2004, my friend, Jack Hensley, a contractor in Iraq, was beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  He was there to help rebuild the infrastructue of Iraq for its people, and to earn some needed extra money for his family.  Jack was one of the brightest, kindest, most unselfish people I have ever known, and his life was snuffed out in an instant in an unspeakable act of barbaric, senseless cruelty.

Doug Hagmann at Canada Free Press suggests that the sophisticated training our terrorist enemies receive, teaches them to use the protections and safeguards of our legal system against the men and women that serve and protect us day in, day out:
The ludicrous nature of the charges aside, outrage is unfortunately obscuring an extremely important piece of exculpatory evidence that should be introduced in their defense. The allegation of abuse during capture or while in detention adhere to a carefully outlined plan published by the enemy in late 2003, is an effective and demoralizing operational tactic of the enemy.

The claims by ABED follow a precise strategy detailed by an online paramilitary training series known as “al Battar,” which provides instructions on all aspects of Islamic warfare. First published in 2003, al Battar provides detailed instructions to Islamic terrorists on methods to fight the West, from practical weapons training to ideological warfare. The al Battar training series was concurrently supplemented by a sister publication known as the Voice of Jihad, a publication that provides more detailed ideological and scholarly instruction to terrorists than the al Battar series. Together, the publications provide valuable insight into the tactics of Islamists on and off the battlefield. The Northeast Intelligence Network has been extensively involved in securing, translating, and providing tactical analysis of that publication to military and federal authorities.

Among the topics contained within the instructional series are methods to employ when captured by Western forces. The favored approach by the captive is to allege abuse during capture or detention, which serves to exacerbate the ongoing political debates pertaining to the classification, handling and disposition of enemy combatants.

If our leaders require us to engage in this insane self-flagellation by forcing the three Seals into the criminal justice system, it is my hope that their attorneys present the aforementioned publications into evidence. It will be abundantly clear that ABED was merely following the Islamic warfare playbook.
I am somewhat encouraged by Bob McCarty's post at Big Government today.  He states, in part:
As my first investigative reporting effort related to the SEALs’ case, I offer six important facts about the case you’re likely not to read about in the mainstream media supplied to me by a source whom I cannot name inside the Pentagon:

1) The charges or accusations against the three Navy SEALs were not made from within the SEAL community. Sources tell me they came from someone within the Navy’s Master-at-Arm community.

2) The SEALs were presented with the option of going to Captain’s Mast for these charges but declined this form of non-judicial punishment and opted for court-martial instead. Why? Because they did not want to be judged by those outside of the SEAL community and believed the court-martial route would assure them the representation necessary to prove their innocence.

3) At no time did anyone within the Naval Special Warfare community have any control over these accusations or events other than providing advice or guidance to the accused SEALs.

4) The integrity of the chain of custody of the prisoner is at question.

5) There are extenuating circumstances that indicate there is questionable evidence in some of the accusations made.

6) Evidence will come out in a court-martial that might not have come out in a Captain’s Mast in favor of the accused SEALs.
I pray that Mr. McCarty's information is accurate, and that these brave young men will be completely exonerated.

In closing, I will leave you with a quote that is often attributed to George Orwell (probably incorrectly, but I don't really care):

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."


  1. Accepting a Captain's Mast could have set them up for a more substantial punishment. I'd risk the Court Martial too. It's beginning to look as if some of our military commanders are more concerned about their "job" than they are their service to our country and the men and women who serve with them.

  2. Since when does being a SEAL automatically mean you are above the law? I can't believe what I'm reading. You really think that it is perfectly okay for a US soldier to abuse prisoners? Whatever happened to that little thing called "Rule of Law?" Those "legal protections" you speak of are fundamental to what it means to be an American, and you are happily desecrating them for the sake of your own petty emotional bias.