Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

[Freedom&Liberty]

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.


The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.


Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.


Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html

If you can't beat up a bad guy, what's the point of becoming a Navy SEAL?

[jwreck]

Well they obviously crossed the line. I mean c'mon, the guy ended up with a bloody lip. That kind of savagery cannot be tolerated.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

This is the sort of bizarre, twisted theatre the faux 'Peace Left' loves. Cry 'War Crime!!!' every time some low life POS genocidal murderer gets captured, no matter what.

This is why these guys should have just shot the rabid animal into hamburger meat and tossed a firearm beside his body. In fact, because of crap like this, that's what will start happening.

[Snouter]

Is this trial going to be in civilian court, in NYC like with the so-called enemy combatants, or do the so called enemy combatants get more rights? Where is Dershowitz when ya need 'em?

[Guido]

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004.

Did this Abed guy ever actually do anything bad?

Why is he a "most wanted terrorist"?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Is this trial going to be in civilian court, in NYC like with the so-called enemy combatants, or do the so called enemy combatants get more rights? Where is Dershowitz when ya need 'em?

The SEAL's have requested a trial by court-marshall.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

It's their best bet, though not foolproof; the military would have been more than happy to bury them under the shitter to avoid 'controversy', and Ospama's opportunities for influencing the Court's judgements and interfering in favor of his terrorist friends is limited more than it would otherwise be.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Guido

Did this Abed guy ever actually do anything bad?

Why is he a "most wanted terrorist"?

He killed some Blackwater guys. It's hard to say if that's terrorism: Are semi-military civilians in a foreign occupation legitimate targets?

I'd imagine if UN troops were occupying the US Midwest, and some French security contractors were in Idaho running errands for the UN troops, and some farmer shot the **** out of them, no one would be calling the farmer a "terrorist".

[jwreck]

If Obama had his way they'd be tried as war criminals in international court, so it could always be worse.

[Cd.]

Originally Posted by Freedom&Liberty

If you can't beat up a bad guy, what's the point of becoming a Navy SEAL?

Well the Seals don't need sadistic bullies. They need elite professionals.

[Bo]

"if they have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass kicking with them" ~ Chris Rock

[Freedom&Liberty]

Originally Posted by Cd.

Well the Seals don't need sadistic bullies. They need elite professionals.

Elite professionals sometimes have to punch people. Deal with it.

[Old World Order]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

He killed some Blackwater guys. It's hard to say if that's terrorism: Are semi-military civilians in a foreign occupation legitimate targets?

I'd imagine if UN troops were occupying the US Midwest, and some French security contractors were in Idaho running errands for the UN troops, and some farmer shot the **** out of them, no one would be calling the farmer a "terrorist".

Only because "terrorist" isn't an objective moniker, only a subjective one. That's sort of obvious.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

He killed some Blackwater guys. It's hard to say if that's terrorism: Are semi-military civilians in a foreign occupation legitimate targets?

I'd imagine if UN troops were occupying the US Midwest, and some French security contractors were in Idaho running errands for the UN troops, and some farmer shot the **** out of them, no one would be calling the farmer a "terrorist".

Agreed. Very much the Red Dawn scenario. Were the Wolverines terrorists? No. Then how are the Iraqis who fight us in that same fashion terrorists? One of the questions I had in the military that were never answered.

[Old World Order]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Agreed. Very much the Red Dawn scenario. Were the Wolverines terrorists? No. Then how are the Iraqis who fight us in that same fashion terrorists? One of the questions I had in the military that were never answered.

Because it depends what side of the gun you're on. It's really not that complicated, unless you're trying to see the world in a very black-and-white way. If you are, you should probably stop.

I mean are touchdowns good or bad? Kind of depends if you're on offense or defense, no?

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by Old World Order

Because it depends what side of the gun you're on. It's really not that complicated, unless you're trying to see the world in a very black-and-white way. If you are, you should probably stop.

I mean are touchdowns good or bad? Kind of depends if you're on offense or defense, no?

Yes, I agree, but I think that many people confuse terrorism for actual warfare. The only thing that made the attack on the Pentagon a terroristic act, for example, was the commercial airliner. The Pentagon is a legitimate target. I even have an issue with considering the airliner to be not a legitimate target. I mean, airports are legitimate targets. Baghdad airport was one of the first things that we tried to secure (after the oil wells). Attacking infrastructure like roads, bridges, utilities, radio and TV towers, and government, and military buildings are always considered legit.

Even Oklahoma City... What that Terrorism? It was a federal building. Sure kids were killed, but don't we trash the enemy for hiding behind women and children? Are there not schools on almost every Army Post in the country?

For me, the issue of terrorism is a confusing one. I don't know if terrorism truly exists.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

For me, the issue of terrorism is a confusing one. I don't know if terrorism truly exists.

I think the common definitions revolve around targeting civilians in an attempt to terrorize civilian populations into forcing political change. That means that attacking military targets isn't terrorism, and I'd think military contractors serving the military in an occupied country would count as legitimate targets.

[Nicholae]

Charging Navy SEALS for doing their job...this is ludicrous!

[Old World Order]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Yes, I agree, but I think that many people confuse terrorism for actual warfare. The only thing that made the attack on the Pentagon a terroristic act, for example, was the commercial airliner. The Pentagon is a legitimate target. I even have an issue with considering the airliner to be not a legitimate target. I mean, airports are legitimate targets. Baghdad airport was one of the first things that we tried to secure (after the oil wells). Attacking infrastructure like roads, bridges, utilities, radio and TV towers, and government, and military buildings are always considered legit.

Even Oklahoma City... What that Terrorism? It was a federal building. Sure kids were killed, but don't we trash the enemy for hiding behind women and children? Are there not schools on almost every Army Post in the country?

For me, the issue of terrorism is a confusing one. I don't know if terrorism truly exists.

Oh, on that I totally agree. It's just asymmetrical warfare versus conventional. The title "terrorist" is used only because no nation claims them as a legal combatant, but obviously they're involved in combat.

I thought you were going to whole "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter" route, by bad.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

I think the common definitions revolve around targeting civilians in an attempt to terrorize civilian populations into forcing political change. That means that attacking military targets isn't terrorism, and I'd think military contractors serving the military in an occupied country would count as legitimate targets.

So I have to ask, would Oklahoma City be a terrorist act by that definition? Are federal employees considered civilians are legitimate targets? Yes, there were children in that building, but it was a federal building full of federal employees. Would such an attack be a terrorist act or an act of war, even if no individual nation endorses the act?

And would attacking military contractors in the US be an act of terrorism? You know... bombing various Raytheon buildings or something... Would that be terrorism or a form of guerrilla warfare?

I know it's an issue of semantics, and I don't endorse any of it, but I believe that until we can properly speak on a subject, we shouldn't even talk about it. Step one: define terrorism vs. conventional warfare vs. guerrilla warfare.