[Osedax]

FOXNews.com - 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.
________________________

Disciplined? Sure. But forced to either admit guilt (and be forced off the field) or face court Marshal is insanity.

[SpaceMonkey]

"The insanity could be stopped at any time,” Puckett [McCabe's attorney] 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."

Does anyone know what, exactly, Puckett is referring to? It's not elaborated on in the article. It's difficult to address the question without knowing what the alternatives are.

[BadKosh]

Again the terrorists are now our and 0bamas good friends, and or military are the bad guys. Haven't you been listening to the 'news' ?? It's more important to put on a nice appearance so our enemies will respect us again than protect our own.

[ort888]

Seems unfair, but we weren't there.

If only their was some sort of legal way for people to come together and go over all known evidence for both sides and come to an impartial decision based on fact and legal precedent. Maybe have one side present the viewpoint of the soldiers and another side take the oppositional side and have the entire debate overseen by some sort of impartial arbiter.

[SpaceMonkey]

Crazy talk.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Again the terrorists are now our and 0bamas good friends, and or military are the bad guys. Haven't you been listening to the 'news' ?? It's more important to put on a nice appearance so our enemies will respect us again than protect our own.

I'm sure terrorist loving Obama and the America-hating Democrats have a lot to do with military trials.

[SpaceMonkey]

Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, commander of Special Operations Command Central, will do anything to make Obama happy. He's probably going to stack the tribunal with gays who all shower together.

[OAW]

Seems pretty silly on the surface given the way the story was reported. I find it interesting that the case involves 3 SEALS, but the article only lists a relatively minor accusation against 1 of them. Certainly 3 SEALS shouldn't be facing charges for punching a guy in the stomach and giving him a bloody lip during the course of an arrest in a war zone. That is not Abu Ghraib by any stretch of the imagination. But something tells me that there's a lot more to this story than FOX News chose to report. We shall see ....

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But something tells me that there's a lot more to this story than FOX News chose to report. We shall see ....

I think one can surmise from the other charges that there's a coverup involved. That may be what the real issue is.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Does anyone know what, exactly, Puckett is referring to? It's not elaborated on in the article. It's difficult to address the question without knowing what the alternatives are.

The individual's commander decides whether or not to pursue in cases where the individual is offered an Article 15, non-judicial punishment. It sounds like the SEALs got rough with very dangerous people and the commander wanted to "make a statement" about how his troops are supposed to behave. Unfortunately for the commander, he's got SEALs working for him, and "delicate and with political sensitivity" isn't part of their training. So they did the job and brought in someone with a busted lip...and the commander decided that a career-ending action was appropriate.

There are LOTS of alternatives. Extra duty, confinement to base, additional watch requirements, withholding of promotions. These are all things that are used every day to say "you didn't perform as professionally as I expect you to, and I want you to learn a lesson from this event." An Article 15 punishment is a FEDERAL CONVICTION, as effective in keeping someone from getting a decent job as doing a year in a federal prison. And the commander knows this-it's part of his job to know it.

[Big Mac]

Absolutely, the charges should be dropped immediately, and whoever is responsible for this moronic prosecution should be reprimanded and demoted. Those SEALs are war heroes who deserve praise not prosecution.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

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

Wait, are these Navy SEALs we're talking about, or kids on a playground?

Really? We're now going to try and prosecute special forces for bruised tummies and bloody lips? Really?

If there are other charges, let's see 'em. Otherwise, this is complete bullshit, trumped up by some hack nitwits that think the role of special forces is to give bedtime stories and a tuck-in to our enemies.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Again the terrorists are now our and 0bamas good friends, and our military are the bad guys. Haven't you been listening to the 'news' ?? It's more important to put on a nice appearance so our enemies will respect us again than protect our own.

0Bama? Really? You are still showing this juvenile behavior?

As for the OP, it seems a lot of the information is lacking. I find it a bit hard to believe that their CO would choose to prosecute them for something as trivial as a busted lip. Hell, some cops just got off from beating a UCSC student with batons because it was deemed within reasonable force. I can almost guarantee that the guy didn't surrender without some sort of conflict. Also, these are SEALS, not grunt troops. They are trained to get results, which they did, however possible.

[CreepDogg]

Well, we all know that FOX News is the last bastion of truth and freedom in American journalism (edit: and, clearly NOT part of the MSM), so this must absolutely be the whole, responsibly reported story.

Originally Posted by ort888 

If only there was some sort of legal way for people to come together and go over all known evidence for both sides and come to an impartial decision based on fact and legal precedent. Maybe have one side present the viewpoint of the soldiers and another side take the oppositional side and have the entire debate overseen by some sort of impartial arbiter.

If they did something wrong, they should be punished. If they didn't, they should be acquitted. If the charges are REALLY this asinine, then yeah, whoever is prosecuting should be flogged.

That said, if there's wrongdoing here, then they shouldn't be let off the hook just because of who they are. Sorry, I'm not going to let someone break in my house, steal my car, and shoot my dog just because they're a Navy SEAL.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

0Bama? Really? You are still showing this juvenile behavior?

The 'president' doesn't get my respect. I will refer to him anyway I like. Your own reaction to this is unimportant. Who cares about your opinions?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

If they did something wrong, they should be punished. If they didn't, they should be acquitted. If the charges are REALLY this asinine, then yeah, whoever is prosecuting should be flogged.

That said, if there's wrongdoing here, then they shouldn't be let off the hook just because of who they are. Sorry, I'm not going to let someone break in my house, steal my car, and shoot my dog just because they're a Navy SEAL.

The "appropriate" action to take against a military member who basically failed to keep his cool demeanor and professionalism is to restrict him to his quarters for a week or so, and perhaps mark him down on his annual review (yes, everybody has these). To take an action that WILL end the person's career over what appears to simply be a matter of how much force was used to bring in an enemy combatant alive and ready to stand trial is far more excessive than somewhat roughing up someone who is responsible for an atrocity.

We should all remember that SEALs are NOT police officers, they're not even military police. Their primary job is to identify and locate an enemy, close on him and kill him. They're very good at that. Assigning such troops to a police action either means that somebody has no clue what SEALs do, or that they felt the target of the operation would be a very difficult person to apprehend. If the latter, it would be moronic to expect that the target would be brought in completely unruffled. Further, such an individual would probably put up a fight-how would you subdue such an individual without causing permanent damage? A nice punch to the gut usually makes a person calm down quite a bit...

[OreoCookie]

If that is the standard military procedure to investigate possible crimes committed by members of the military, then by all means, this procedure should be followed.
The people in favor of dropping the charges act as if a court martial is the same as a conviction.

[ctt1wbw]

So the only evidence is a bruise on a cave dwelling camel ****er who wants to kill us? Give me a break. He should have been beaten more just for the **** of it.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The "appropriate" action to take against a military member who basically failed to keep his cool demeanor and professionalism is to restrict him to his quarters for a week or so, and perhaps mark him down on his annual review (yes, everybody has these). To take an action that WILL end the person's career over what appears to simply be a matter of how much force was used to bring in an enemy combatant alive and ready to stand trial is far more excessive than somewhat roughing up someone who is responsible for an atrocity.

We should all remember that SEALs are NOT police officers, they're not even military police. Their primary job is to identify and locate an enemy, close on him and kill him. They're very good at that. Assigning such troops to a police action either means that somebody has no clue what SEALs do, or that they felt the target of the operation would be a very difficult person to apprehend. If the latter, it would be moronic to expect that the target would be brought in completely unruffled. Further, such an individual would probably put up a fight-how would you subdue such an individual without causing permanent damage? A nice punch to the gut usually makes a person calm down quite a bit...

I agree - that makes sense. I just think there must be something more to the story -- there must have been some more severe wrongdoing if the case is going as far as it is. If it is indeed as benign as roughing up this guy a bit - then yeah, the prosecution is way excessive. It's pretty clear that we don't have all the facts -- so I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

[ctt1wbw]

Can anyone prove that this pile of shit was injured before being captured? I say he feel down a mound of sand or something. He has NO credibility yet we believe him?

[OreoCookie]

How about this is discussed in a court of law? Then it can be decided whether the charges have any merit.
Why are you taking this so personally, ctt1wbw?

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I just think there must be something more to the story -- there must have been some more severe wrongdoing if the case is going as far as it is.

I agree.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The individual's commander decides whether or not to pursue in cases where the individual is offered an Article 15, non-judicial punishment. It sounds like the SEALs got rough with very dangerous people and the commander wanted to "make a statement" about how his troops are supposed to behave. Unfortunately for the commander, he's got SEALs working for him, and "delicate and with political sensitivity" isn't part of their training. So they did the job and brought in someone with a busted lip...and the commander decided that a career-ending action was appropriate.

There are LOTS of alternatives. Extra duty, confinement to base, additional watch requirements, withholding of promotions. These are all things that are used every day to say "you didn't perform as professionally as I expect you to, and I want you to learn a lesson from this event." An Article 15 punishment is a FEDERAL CONVICTION, as effective in keeping someone from getting a decent job as doing a year in a federal prison. And the commander knows this-it's part of his job to know it.

Thanks! Yes, this whole thing seems quite odd, then.

[The Final Dakar]

This thread has nice classic array of responses.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How about this is discussed in a court of law? Then it can be decided whether the charges have any merit.
Why are you taking this so personally, ctt1wbw?

I agree.

I'm not. It just disqusts me that a terrorist says he was abused by Navy Seals and he is taken seriously. Charges are being brought against the Seals, but where are the charges against the terrorists for trying to kill and/or killing US troops?

[SpaceMonkey]

This earlier article has a bit more information:
Washington Times - Support swells for 3 accused SEALs

Apparently the abuse is charged to have taken place after Abed was in custody:

The Anbar-based SEALs arrived back in camp about 5 a.m. Abed stayed under guard several hours before he was transferred to Iraqi police, as was standard procedure.

It was during those several hours when Abed is said to have been assaulted.

The accusation came from the unit's master-at-arms, the sailor responsible for guarding Abed. He later told the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) that he saw Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe punch Abed in the stomach.

Petty Officer McCabe denies that he hit the detainee, setting up a confrontation with the master-at-arms, whose version seems certain to be challenged at a scheduled May court-martial in Norfolk, Va.

Sometime that morning, the platoon commander saw Abed with a bloody shirt, perhaps from a split lip. He conducted his own inquiry, during which all of the SEALs denied hitting Abed.

He forwarded the report up the chain of command, which then ordered the NCIS probe. It resulted in criminal charges against Petty Officer McCabe and two other SEALs brought by Army Maj. Gen. C.T. Cleveland, who heads the special operations component within U.S. Central Command.

[ort888]

How about someone post some more articles about this from a variety of sources. As the original article is written. It sounds completely stupid to bring these men up on charges at all. It seems like they are heros. So there is probably more going on here that we don't know about.

[The Final Dakar]

Why does the NCIS hate SEALs?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I'm not. It just disqusts me that a terrorist says he was abused by Navy Seals and he is taken seriously.

Who says the accusation came just from the detainee? I doubt charges would be brought forward if there wasn't evidence to suggest actual misconduct. And I seriously doubt it would make all the way to a military court if there wasn't substantial evidence.

These guys are professionals in the military, they know the rules. If they have indeed violated military laws and rules, they know what to expect. I'm not saying they're guilty, I'm saying that they should be treated in accordance with the law. They have their chance to defend themselves, they will have access to attorneys and a trial is not the same as a judgement.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Charges are being brought against the Seals, but where are the charges against the terrorists for trying to kill and/or killing US troops?

What if the Navy Seals were guilty of mistreating a prisoner, wouldn't that sully the reputation of all Seals?
The potential crimes of the detainee have nothing to do with the potential crimes that the Seals may have committed. Even if the detainee is guilty, it doesn't change the situation one bit.

[ctt1wbw]

So, you believe a terrorist versus Special Warfare guys? I don't.

[SpaceMonkey]

As mentioned in the link I quoted a little while ago, the accusation came from the SEAL unit's master-at-arms, not the detainee. So no need to worry about trusting the word of a terrorist over U.S. military personnel. Nevertheless, I would say that all credible accusations of abuse should be investigated to the extent required. For example, if the detainee simply said "he punched me in the face," then maybe not. If he said that and he suddenly has a black eye while in custody, then maybe so.

The fact that the Fox article doesn't mention that this supposedly happened while he was in custody, and not during capture, is...disturbing, even by Fox standards.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why does the NCIS hate SEALs?

Because Gibbs is a Marine.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

So, you believe a terrorist versus Special Warfare guys? I don't.

I believe in material evidence much more than I believe in testimony of witnesses.
In any case, it's not about what I believe in, but what the US military thinks. And I don't think the accusations wouldn't have made it that far without material evidence and independent testimony from witnesses.

You're being way too emotional and you convict one side (the potential victim is a terror suspect). The real issue has been raised by Glenn before: Seals aren't trained to be police. In short, they're not suitable for the job. This issue, however, transcends this particular incident.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why does the NCIS hate SEALs?

Cuz they don't solute officers when they walk in the room.

[dcmacdaddy]

As others have pointed out, the alleged assault took place after the terrorist was in custody. That would be a non-no by military standards, would it not?

ctt1wbw seems way too emotionally attached to this story to look at objectively. Soldiers are expected to be rough on the battlefield, special forces soldiers especially so, but off the battlefield they are expected to act with a certain level of decorum and professionalism. And, if these soldiers did what they are charged with then they most definitely did not act with decorum and professionalism.

The reason we treat prisoners with dignity and respect is two-fold. A: so that our soldiers will be treated humanely if/when they are captured. B: because not treating prisoners with dignity and respect makes us look bad. It makes us appear savage and brutal and not worthy of respect as a nation if we condone/encourage such behavior.

I find it encouraging that the person who reported the alleged assault was another SEAL. It was encouraging to see him step up and report his fellow soldiers, as if to say, "This behavior not professional. This behavior is not how we do things. We are better than this." Because we are better than that.

[ghporter]

dcmacdaddy brings up excellent points. However, if we didn't know that the alleged abuse occurred after the individual was in custody, what else isn't yet part of the story? Was he resisting being transported, or otherwise making a big fuss, or was he just sitting there when the SEAL allegedly came up and belted him? These are both possible, but incredibly different situations.

The specification of charges should include all the whens whys and wherefores; if that's ever released it would tell the tale-and whether or not the suspect being "roughed up" would be considered by a "reasonable person" to be part of the act of taking the person into custody or a bald-faced assault.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I believe in material evidence much more than I believe in testimony of witnesses.
In any case, it's not about what I believe in, but what the US military thinks. And I don't think the accusations wouldn't have made it that far without material evidence and independent testimony from witnesses.

You're being way too emotional and you convict one side (the potential victim is a terror suspect). The real issue has been raised by Glenn before: Seals aren't trained to be police. In short, they're not suitable for the job. This issue, however, transcends this particular incident.

I dare you to tell a Seal he's not "trained" to be anything... Anyway, the whole case rests on the fact about this terrorists wounds. Which can't be proven when or where he got them, since he was captured on a battleground and not in a posh hotel room. The chances of getting wounds like this guy had are far greater in a battleground situation than in a hotel room.

I'm confused as to why, it seems to me, that everyone on this forum is questioning the story, which tells me they believe the terrorist and not the SpecWar guys.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As others have pointed out, the alleged assault took place after the terrorist was in custody. That would be a non-no by military standards, would it not?

ctt1wbw seems way too emotionally attached to this story to look at objectively. Soldiers are expected to be rough on the battlefield, special forces soldiers especially so, but off the battlefield they are expected to act with a certain level of decorum and professionalism. And, if these soldiers did what they are charged with then they most definitely did not act with decorum and professionalism.

The reason we treat prisoners with dignity and respect is two-fold. A: so that our soldiers will be treated humanely if/when they are captured. B: because not treating prisoners with dignity and respect makes us look bad. It makes us appear savage and brutal and not worthy of respect as a nation if we condone/encourage such behavior.

I find it encouraging that the person who reported the alleged assault was another SEAL. It was encouraging to see him step up and report his fellow soldiers, as if to say, "This behavior not professional. This behavior is not how we do things. We are better than this." Because we are better than that.

Dude. These people want to KILL you. That's their sole ****ing purpose in this life. They would rather kill you than look at you. Live it and learn it. Stop being so concerned about these pieces of shit terrorists. Man, you people kill me.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I dare you to tell a Seal he's not "trained" to be anything...

Way to misconstrue what I've said. I have said they're not trained to act as police. I have no idea how this can be read as `Seals aren't trained to be anything.' Especially if you take it into context with what Glenn has posted earlier (and I've taken reference to his post):

Originally Posted by ghporter

We should all remember that SEALs are NOT police officers, they're not even military police. Their primary job is to identify and locate an enemy, close on him and kill him. They're very good at that. Assigning such troops to a police action either means that somebody has no clue what SEALs do, or that they felt the target of the operation would be a very difficult person to apprehend.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Anyway, the whole case rests on the fact about this terrorists wounds. Which can't be proven when or where he got them, since he was captured on a battleground and not in a posh hotel room.

First of all, it seems that a fellow Seal (according to the article SpaceMonkey has posted, it was the unit's master of arms) has alerted their superiors of this incident so it's not just the wounds that have made the case.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

The chances of getting wounds like this guy had are far greater in a battleground situation than in a hotel room.

What you're saying here is basically `he could have fallen down the stairs,' knowing full-well that this is probably a lie. Why don't you continue to openly condone what the soldiers have been accused of like you did at the end of your initial post in this thread:

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw

He should have been beaten more just for the **** of it.

That would be more honest. Everything else is an attempt to circumvent the law because it `feels right to you.'

[ctt1wbw]

Okay, where's all the anger towards the terrorists? How about anger towards the Somalis who still hold that British couple hostage? There's a lot of misplaced anger here. It should be towards the terrorists and towards our own forces. Who really gives a flying **** if some terrorists were injured? At least he's off the battlefield and not making bombs to be used in blowing up churches and open air markets and stuff. My god, you guys need to get a grip on what's really going on.

We are dealing with people that would rather kill you than read these forums. Do you guys not understand that? I mean really, so some camel ****er got a fat lip? Who cares.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Dude. These people want to KILL you. That's their sole ****ing purpose in this life. They would rather kill you than look at you. Live it and learn it. Stop being so concerned about these pieces of shit terrorists. Man, you people kill me.

WW

You are really disconnected from reality here. I think it is safe to assume any enemy the US has ever fought has wanted to "kill us" so whether or not this particular enemy wants to kill us is irrelevant. What is relevant is behavior that is appropriate to a soldier. You served in the Navy--on a nuclear sub if I recall--and there were rules for proper behavior on your sub. And if a soldier acted out of line on your sub they would be disciplined. So, why is any of this a surprise to you.

And what you can't seem to get through your head is that the complaint did not come from the captured terrorist but from another SEAL. So, it would seem that there was someone there (another soldier) who felt the actions by the SEALs was not proper. Of course, none of what I just said matters as you have already shown you are bloodthirsty and don't care about proper behavior and just care about violence.

Personally I am quite glad you are no longer serving in our military as your attitude is more appropriate to a thug or mercenary than to a professional soldier. Your attitude does NOT represent what is best about American soldiers and as a citizen I am glad you are gone from our military service.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Okay, where's all the anger towards the terrorists?

Umm, you do realize it is possible to be angry at our enemy AND be angry at our soldiers for acting in an un-professional manner. The two attitudes are in no way mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Who really gives a flying **** if some terrorists were injured? At least he's off the battlefield and not making bombs to be used in blowing up churches and open air markets and stuff.

Your "anything goes" attitude is quite offensive and seems reflective of a savage, un-disciplined mindset. After reading your continued rants I am quite glad you are no longer serving in the US military.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

My god, you guys need to get a grip on what's really going on. We are dealing with people that would rather kill you than read these forums. Do you guys not understand that?

We understand. We know what's going on. The US is at war against an enemy that wants to kill us. Every enemy the US has ever fought has wanted to kill us.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I mean really, so some camel ****er got a fat lip? Who cares.

Who cares? Those of us citizens who think our soldiers should be professional and not engage in "anything goes" behavior. Those of us citizens who know that what makes this country great is our respect for the rule of law above all else. Those of us citizens who know that our behavior on the battlefield--in terms of our respect for the rule of law above all else--is as important, if not more important, that at any other time. Those of us citizens who know that if we don't maintain that respect for the rule of law above all else in the most trying of times then the rule of law has no value at any time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Can anyone prove that this pile of shit was injured before being captured? I say he feel down a mound of sand or something. He has NO credibility yet we believe him?

clearly, you don't understand what America stands for.

[Wiskedjak]

These soldiers should be glad they serve for a country where guilt is not presumed before a fair trial, even for the worst of the accused.

[ThinkInsane]

Please stop calling sailors soldiers.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

We are dealing with people that would rather kill you than read these forums. Do you guys not understand that? I mean really, so some camel ****er got a fat lip? Who cares.

Camel ****er? Having yourself a true colors moment it seems.

But to answer your question, apparently the SEAL Master-at-Arms who reported these guys cared. Perhaps you should take it up with him?

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Please stop calling sailors soldiers.

PC for military personnel?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

PC for military personnel?

Just a pet peeve. And I imagine it's quite offensive to the army

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This site navyseal.com refers to them as soldiers:

"The U.S. Navy SEALS is comprised of the most elite soldiers in all of the U.S. Armed Forces."

Of course, I don't think it's the official SEAL site.

Interesting question though- does one refer to a Navy commando unit as soldiers, or sailors? Are both appropriate? Personally, I always thought anyone serving in the armed forces could be referred to by the generic term "soldier" but I dunno.

[RobOnTheCape]

The SEALS are being prosecuted for among other things making false official statements. As we have seen too many times, lying about a crime is often times worse than the offense itself. This is even more true in the military.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Okay, where's all the anger towards the terrorists? How about anger towards the Somalis who still hold that British couple hostage? There's a lot of misplaced anger here.

Yes, there is. What does the Iraqi prisoner have to do with Somalis?
Venting frustration on someone who isn't involved is not going to help in any way. Especially when you don't even know if the detainee is guilty of what he has been accused of. You immediately identify a detainee with terrorist.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

We are dealing with people that would rather kill you than read these forums. Do you guys not understand that? I mean really, so some camel ****er got a fat lip? Who cares.

It all comes back at you: if you treat your prisoners as if they are deprived of all rights, American soldiers are more likely to be treated in the same way. You lose all moral leverage you may have had and basically paint a big fat bulls eye on your rear end.

The rules of the military are there for a reason and if a soldier (Seal or not) does not abide by them, he or she taints the reputation of all US soldiers.