SEALs Face Court-Martial for Fat Lip

by Ryan on November 26, 2009

in Media Bias,Politics,The Iraq Front,War on Terror

More horror stories from the Obama Nation as three Navy SEALs on a special ops mission to seize wanted terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed are facing court martial for beating up Abed a little before bringing him in.  The mission, code named “Operation Amber” was designed to capture and bring to justice the man who is responsible for planning and organizing the killing, mutilation and public hanging of four Blackwater members back in 2004; events, if you remember, which sparked the long chain of events in Fallujah that year.

Abed gets to kill four people in such a fashion and set off a chain reaction which led to the deaths of thousands of militants and hundred of US Marines, but our focus is on a bloody lip?  How do we know Abed wasn’t resisting arrest?  I guess we’ll find out in the court martial.

Political correctness is killing people (ie Fort Hood) and is focusing our anger on the wrong enemies.  These SEALs should be getting medals, not facing court martial.  Warfare is not a police action; it is an act of war.  Yes there are rules, but they are not and should not be the same.  What message does this send to our enemies?  What message does this send to our special ops guys out in the field?  Do our soldiers really need to fear lawyers more than terrorists? 

If the Left wants to play this game then I can only make one suggestion to our troops:  if it’s more of a hassle to take them in and possibly face charges for your actions, then just kill them.  Though taking them in yields more intelligence and is more productive, our troops need to be thinking about the legal ramifications of their actions now – plant a gun, make up a story; anything to avoid the ACLU, right?  That’ll help our image around the world!

Obama can and should stop this right now by pardoning these guys.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates should also step in here.  General Petraeus should make a statement defending these guys.  Enough is enough.  The college pranks at Abu Graib were one thing, this is completely different and should be treated as such.

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Patrick November 26, 2009 at 1:16 pm

I read about this the other day, I thought it must be an early April fools joke, however its not. What are we coming to? Reading those caught on the battlefield their rights? Hell I thought you only had rights here as a citizen…. Its bad enough the ROE’s are so strict, that we can see a person coming across the border of Pak into Afgan, knowing he is carrying weapons with him but if the weapons are not visible we don’t stop them to avoid a incident :(


Dee November 27, 2009 at 11:04 am

Just to set the record straight…only one of the the three SEALs is being charged with assault. All three are being charged with “making a false official statement”, one is being charged with “dereliction of performance of duty”, and one with “impediment of an investigation”, all three declined “non-judicial punishment”, which is known as a captain’s mast, and have instead opted to lawyer up and face a full court martial. The charges were made by their SEAL commanding officer. Finally, lest you think this is “liberal media propaganda”, two of several sources for this info are the USN and Fox News…hardly part of “Obama Nation”. Dee


Mike November 27, 2009 at 11:47 am

We love you Dee but let’s be honest. You’ve never exactly set the record straight before and you didn’t do so this time either. Ryan made the point that soldiers are facing punishment for simply doing their job and that there is now more of an incentive for soldiers to kill enemy combatants than face legal action in a politically correct military culture. Nowhere did Ryan or Patrick claim that all three soldiers were facing assault or that the charges were’nt being made by a commanding officer, yet you decided to correct a statement they never made by citing the very source linked to. Sorry Dee, but you’re fact checking is more pathetic than something you’d find on MSNBC.

But since you love setting the record straight, maybe I’ll do the same. There are no quotes around the phrase liberal media propaganda.


Dee November 27, 2009 at 12:29 pm

The way some have throw the term around, there should be quotation marks around it. (Same goes for political correctness). The author claims, and I quote, “…three Navy SEALs on a special ops mission to seize wanted terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed are facing court martial for beating up Abed a little before bringing him in”. That is the statement that needed a little fact check. Again, quoting the author,”What message does this send to our special ops guys out in the field?” I would assume the message is if you lie on official reports, the USN considers it dishonorable…and will deal with it accordingly. I would venture a guess that 99.9% of the special ops guys in the field would consider lying dishonorable and would expect the Navy to deal with it. This concept, by the way…has been present in this countries uniformed services for centuries, so blaming it on Obama or PC or little elves for that matter is a specious argument, at best. Dee


Mike November 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm

That still doesn’t set the record straight Dee. The author did indeed write that “three Navy SEALs on a special ops mission to seize wanted terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed are facing court martial for beating up Abed a little before bringing him in.” The problem this raises for your little fact check is that the quote is true. The fact that one of the charges is for assault while another is for dereliction of duty doesn’t change the fact that “three Navy SEALs on a special ops mission to seize wanted terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed are facing court martial for beating up Abed a little before bringing him in.” All the charges stem from that incident. The statement was true.

You also claim the author needs to be fact checked for saying “what message does this send to our special ops guys out in the field?” That’s an argument Dee, not a statement of fact. You argue that lying is dishonorable while the author argues that being hauled in charges for giving a terrorist a bloody lip incentivizes killing enemy combatants rather than capturing them. Both arguments are reasonable, but not the subject of a fact check. Though after the Clinton Administration, Joe Wilson Plame, and Barney Frank, its nice to finally see a liberal on the record against lying.


Mike November 27, 2009 at 1:08 pm

I know this debate doesn’t show it, but we really do love having you around here Dee. You’re funny and keep us on our toes.


Dee November 28, 2009 at 9:45 am

…and I enjoy sparring with you guys…there’s three of you, right? Those numbers seem just about right to me …I could go slower, or you may want to reach out for one or two more guys! Not to put too fine a point on this, but,,,”That’s an argument Dee, not a statement of fact”. Hence the phrase “I would assume” right before my opinion. Additionally, using your own source to dispell the authors ambiguities…it’s called irony! Also, am I to assume (yet again) that unless someone agrees with every aspect of your position, they are to be branded a liberal? Here’s a “liberal” idea for you…I have no problem with our soldiers killing rather than capturing terrorists, in fact I would encourage it. I sometimes think the ROE the US military has been using the last 20 years were written by pre-teenage girls! Finally, “the Clinton Administration, Joe Wilson Plame, and Barney Frank”, have not cornered the market on dishonesty. Sadly, there is more than enough to go around on both sides of the aisle. Dee


Mike November 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm

No need to slow down Dee. I don’t think you’re reading the scoreboard too well. Then again, you are outnumbered. My point was that your disagreement with Ryan was nothing that was subject to a fact check because his statements were accurate. I’m glad you clarified your opposition on the point about the message this case sends to our troops as being a disagreement and not a factual correction.

To answer your question, one need not agree with every aspect of our positions to avoid being classified as a liberal, but when one has a track record of disagreeing with every aspect of all our positions, then I assume it’s safe to assume that the person is indeed a liberal.

Finally, the left has not cornered the market on dishonesty, but I think you’d agree that the right has a far better track record on holding their own accountable for dishonesty and other character flaws (Duke Cunningham, Mark Sanford) than the left.


Cancel reply

Reply to Dee:

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: