TexasCHLforum.com

Zee wrote:No one likes a swiftboating.

bdickens wrote:I can't even say what I need to say here....

In recent years, I’ve published too many posts about members of the Armed Forces facing undeserved charges:

• First, it was the so-called “Haditha Marines” who faced trumped-up charges, thanks largely to idiots like Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) declaring them guilty before a mainstream media eager to paint them in a bad light.
• Next, it wasArmy Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna who was wrongly convicted of executing an Iraqi detainee, Ali Mansur, on May 16, 2008, and is now serving a 25-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
• Now, I’m following the case of three Navy SEALs facing assault charges related to their capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed. Who is Abed? He’s the alleged planner of the March 2004 ambush, killing and mutilation of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. The SEALS gave this enemy combatant piece of dirt a fat lip while apprehending him.

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.

marksiwel wrote:SoOoOoOoOo, if the Navy Seals went a step farther, and broke both his arms, broke his legs, and beat him while he was unconscious, should they have still been brought up on charges.

So we have a bloody lip here, is that chargeable? Where do YOU draw the line?

C-dub wrote:That's the way it was when I was in. My squadron tried to railroad me because I didn't show up for some event that the entire squadron was at. However, I and another guy were never told about the required meeting and I was asleep in my room in the barracks. No one knocked on my door or I also would have been there. Anyway, they told me the CO was so mad that he wanted me at Captain's Mast. I wouldn't admit guilt and threatened them with requesting a Courts Martial if they took me to Captain's Mast. The other guy with me was a little panicky and I kept telling him to shut up and let me do the talking and we'd be fine. Every officer in the chain of command came and talked to us right up to the XO. I told the XO that if they insisted on Captain's Mast I would officially request a Court's Martial because I did nothing wrong and could prove it. The XO finally told the CO and they dropped the whole thing.

I wish that would have been the case here.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

marksiwel wrote: Does that make some kind of sense to you?

marksiwel wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

marksiwel wrote: Does that make some kind of sense to you?

No, that makes perfect sense, thats what I figured happened, I have friends who are cops and have done much worse than that getting a suspect into some cuffs and all within reason.
Just because charges were brought up doesn't mean anything really, its kind of a good thing that charges CAN be brought up even if they are a waste of time. Think of it as checks and balances.
It puts the Justice into Military Justice.

Purplehood wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

marksiwel wrote: Does that make some kind of sense to you?

No, that makes perfect sense, thats what I figured happened, I have friends who are cops and have done much worse than that getting a suspect into some cuffs and all within reason.
Just because charges were brought up doesn't mean anything really, its kind of a good thing that charges CAN be brought up even if they are a waste of time. Think of it as checks and balances.
It puts the Justice into Military Justice.

In my opinion that was the worst aspect of a Military career. It is all subject to the whim of the Commanding Officer from any perspective that you care to choose. The CO is the DA and Grand Jury all rolled into one.

marksiwel wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

marksiwel wrote: Does that make some kind of sense to you?

No, that makes perfect sense, thats what I figured happened, I have friends who are cops and have done much worse than that getting a suspect into some cuffs and all within reason.
Just because charges were brought up doesn't mean anything really, its kind of a good thing that charges CAN be brought up even if they are a waste of time. Think of it as checks and balances.
It puts the Justice into Military Justice.

NORFOLK — Two of the three Navy SEALs accused of mistreating a suspected terrorist will have the chance to confront their accuser in open court — in Iraq.

A military judge ruled Monday that the two trials should be moved to Camp Victory in Baghdad where Ahmed Hashim Abed is being held in U.S. custody.

Abed is the alleged planner of the March 2004 ambush that killed four Blackwater employees.

The three SEALs are credited with capturing Abed, and accused of mistreating him afterward. One of the three allegedly punched him in the stomach and all three face charges relating to an alleged cover-up.

The ruling is a victory for defense attorneys who wanted to question Abed face to face. Prosecutors sought to go forward with a videotaped deposition instead.

"If he is available for deposition, he is available for trial," said Cmdr. Tierney Carlos during a procedural hearing at Naval Station Norfolk.

Moving the trial to Iraq, with all of its logistical challenges, was apparently preferable to whisking a high-profile terror suspect halfway across the globe and onto the world's largest naval installation in a case that has already attracted national attention.

The trials moved to Iraq are for Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe of Yorktown and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas.

Keefe faces an April 6 trial. Huertas' case will be heard later that month.

Both are charged with dereliction of duty and making false statements during the subsequent investigation.

Huertas faces an additional charge of impeding the investigation by trying to influence the testimony of a witness — a 3rd class petty officer.

Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class Matthew McCabe is accused of the actual assault. He faces a hearing Wednesday before Capt. Moira Modzelewski on whether his trial, set for next week, should be continued.

As of now, McCabe's trial has not been moved. That could change given Monday's ruling, as the court might want to keep all three cases tied together.

Monica Lombardi, the attorney for Huertas, said she was pleased at the turn of events.

"This is the complaining witness," she said. "He's the alleged victim. Is he telling the truth? Is he lying? I want members of the jury to see this person. They can judge for themselves whether to believe his allegations or not."

However, the judge rejected her request to compel prosecutors to further explain two of the charges against her client.

Huertas allegedly tried to influence the testimony of the third class petty officer who said he witnessed the punch. But Lombardi said she has received no detail on what Huertas is accused of doing.

The third class petty officer was guarding the makeshift detention facility where Abed was being held, Lombardi said.