Obama prosecutes 3 navy seals who captured terrorist

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't condone torture but you have some asshole that may have killed friends, I think a punch in the face is harmless in war. Torture and excessive beating is an entirely different thing.

What we think is good and bad isn't really at issue, the law is what is relevant, and I fail to see how punching a prisoner doesn't qualify as assault.

That being said - judges have sentencing discretion and in jury trials the jury is always completely free to fail to convict for any reason. The law is not absolute - but the proper place for finding exceptions to the law in particular cases is in a courtroom by a judge and/or jury - not in Congress.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Soldiers are not police officers. Two different missions and a completely different set of rules. Therefore your comparison does not apply.

The above is a matter of opinion and I don't really care for yours.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Soldiers are not police officers. Two different missions and a completely different set of rules. Therefore your comparison does not apply.

The above is a matter of opinion and I don't really care for yours.

At least my opinion is informed.

 

[Coyote]

Soldiers are not police officers. Two different missions and a completely different set of rules. Therefore your comparison does not apply.

The above is a matter of opinion and I don't really care for yours.

....I think your hole just got deeper....

 

[Munin]

Soldiers are not police officers. Two different missions and a completely different set of rules. Therefore your comparison does not apply.

Interesting view, you are suggesting that soldiers do not have to abide by US laws (or Iraqi laws: the country they operate in)?


If soldiers would suspect a US citizen in the US of terrorist activities, should they be able to beat the crap out of him?

So when it comes to terrorism, is it a crime or an act of war? Or both?
I find it very hard to make the distinction these days:

a) An american blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.

b) A foreign Muslim blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.


So what are a) and b) ? Crimes? 1 crime and 1 act of war?

And if so, what makes the difference between the crime and the act of war?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Soldiers are not police officers. Two different missions and a completely different set of rules. Therefore your comparison does not apply.

Interesting view, you are suggesting that soldiers do not have to abide by US laws (or Iraqi laws: the country they operate in)?


If soldiers would suspect a US citizen in the US of terrorist activities, should they be able to beat the crap out of him?

So when it comes to terrorism, is it a crime or an act of war? Or both?
I find it very hard to make the distinction these days:

a) An american blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.

b) A foreign Muslim blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.


So what are a) and b) ? Crimes? 1 crime and 1 act of war?

And if so, what makes the difference between the crime and the act of war?

The difference in your scenarios is simple. One is an act committed by a US citizen and the other by an enemy combatant. That is the difference.

And to answer the first question. No. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow soldiers to take action against the US citizenry.

 

[bodecea]

I also read an article on the Navy Seals.

They were the ones asking for the Court Martial. They wanted to prove that they were inocent of any wrongdoing.

They probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist from Command but they opted for the Courts Martial.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist - Iraq | War | Map - FOXNews.com

Smart move on their part....I have to say.

And what are Congressmen doing getting involved with a military trial?

 

[Angelhair]

Whose side is Obama on anyway???????

 

[MaggieMae]

Some above do not understand how a court-martial convening authority operates and what the procedures are that govern the authority. The chain of command of the accused have levied charges pending investigation. The next step, if it has not happened already, is an Article 32 hearing. Read more here Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) - ART. 32. INVESTIGATION.

But..but..but...I thought "Obama" did it. Isn't that what the fair and balanced report says?

 

[Munin]

Soldiers are not police officers. Two different missions and a completely different set of rules. Therefore your comparison does not apply.

Interesting view, you are suggesting that soldiers do not have to abide by US laws (or Iraqi laws: the country they operate in)?


If soldiers would suspect a US citizen in the US of terrorist activities, should they be able to beat the crap out of him?

So when it comes to terrorism, is it a crime or an act of war? Or both?
I find it very hard to make the distinction these days:

a) An american blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.

b) A foreign Muslim blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.


So what are a) and b) ? Crimes? 1 crime and 1 act of war?

And if so, what makes the difference between the crime and the act of war?

The difference in your scenarios is simple. One is an act committed by a US citizen and the other by an enemy combatant. That is the difference.

And to answer the first question. No. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow soldiers to take action against the US citizenry.

So what makes him a terrorist and the American a criminal?

The fact that you re foreign/muslim determines that you re terrorist? And the fact that you re american makes you a criminal instead of a terrorist?

If a foreigner would steal something in the US would he be given a different punishment as well? You don't give a foreign thief a different name now do you?

 

[MaggieMae]

you know....you cons never cease to amaze me with the absolute silliness that comes off your typing fingers........

why blame obama and eric holder..........what a bunch of dung! they are being tried in military court....it has nothing to do with eric holder charging them?????????????????

They rely on the spin and the fact that dummies will only get as far as Obama... in the OP and, failing to actually R.E.A.D any further, will add another Nobama notch in their belts. It's the reason the NewConJobs are winning the battle. Logic, common sense, and therefore comprehension is sadly lacking these days.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Interesting view, you are suggesting that soldiers do not have to abide by US laws (or Iraqi laws: the country they operate in)?


If soldiers would suspect a US citizen in the US of terrorist activities, should they be able to beat the crap out of him?

So when it comes to terrorism, is it a crime or an act of war? Or both?
I find it very hard to make the distinction these days:

a) An american blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.

b) A foreign Muslim blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.


So what are a) and b) ? Crimes? 1 crime and 1 act of war?

And if so, what makes the difference between the crime and the act of war?

The difference in your scenarios is simple. One is an act committed by a US citizen and the other by an enemy combatant. That is the difference.

And to answer the first question. No. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow soldiers to take action against the US citizenry.

So what makes him a terrorist and the American a criminal?

The fact that you re foreign/muslim determines that you re terrorist? And the fact that you re american makes you a criminal instead of a terrorist?

You are getting words mixed up. You can be both a US citizen and a terrorist. You can be an enemy combatant and a terrorist. The difference is that US citizens are afforded rights that enemy combatants are not, simply because of their citizenship. That is the difference.
The fucker in the OP is an enemy combatant and a terrorist. That doesn't mean that we should afford him any rights, whatsoever.

 

[Munin]

The difference in your scenarios is simple. One is an act committed by a US citizen and the other by an enemy combatant. That is the difference.

And to answer the first question. No. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow soldiers to take action against the US citizenry.

So what makes him a terrorist and the American a criminal?

The fact that you re foreign/muslim determines that you re terrorist? And the fact that you re american makes you a criminal instead of a terrorist?

You are getting words mixed up. You can be both a US citizen and a terrorist. You can be an enemy combatant and a terrorist. The difference is that US citizens are afforded rights that enemy combatants are not, simply because of their citizenship. That is the difference.
The fucker in the OP is an enemy combatant and a terrorist. That doesn't mean that we should afford him any rights, whatsoever.

Weird, it s kind of confusing. I used to think that terrorists are criminals (and I still think that they are), but appearantly there is a distinction. If an american citizen blows up a bomb in a appertment he commits a crime, as a result he is a criminal. If a foreign person should do the same, he would also be committing a crime. I really see no difference between a foreign criminal being jailed in the US and a terrorist being jailed in the US (other than the probably religious motivation of the terrorist).

If this happened before 9/11 I would think that all these people would just be jailed in an american prison, I really see no reason why it should be that much different right now. How do you think terrorists were treated before 9/11?

 

[xotoxi]

The fucker in the OP is an enemy combatant and a terrorist. That doesn't mean that we should afford him any rights, whatsoever.

Why is the fucker in the OP an enemy combatant and a terrorist? What defined him as a terrorist?

Had he just been a militant in a building who had run out of ammo (an enemy combatant) and was captured, would he have more rights than someone who'd hung and mutilated Blackwater guys? In the latter example, would he be a POW? And are POWs given specific rights, such as protection from assault?

I'm just trying to understand the nuances, because if POWs are supposed to be treated a certain way, than the fucker in the OP would have to not be defined as a POW in order for his treatment to be appropriate.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The fucker in the OP is an enemy combatant and a terrorist. That doesn't mean that we should afford him any rights, whatsoever.

Why is the fucker in the OP an enemy combatant and a terrorist? What defined him as a terrorist?

Had he just been a militant in a building who had run out of ammo (an enemy combatant) and was captured, would he have more rights than someone who'd hung and mutilated Blackwater guys? In the latter example, would he be a POW? And are POWs given specific rights, such as protection from assault?

I'm just trying to understand the nuances, because if POWs are supposed to be treated a certain way, than the fucker in the OP would have to not be defined as a POW in order for his treatment to be appropriate.

You are over thinking it. Its as simple as this guy was the enemy and this SEAL was pissed about something. Maybe the towel head said something, spit on him, anything really. The SEAL hit him and to me that is acceptable. This is a fucking war. Right and wrong becomes real murky when you are getting shot at.

 

[xotoxi]

The fucker in the OP is an enemy combatant and a terrorist. That doesn't mean that we should afford him any rights, whatsoever.

Why is the fucker in the OP an enemy combatant and a terrorist? What defined him as a terrorist?

Had he just been a militant in a building who had run out of ammo (an enemy combatant) and was captured, would he have more rights than someone who'd hung and mutilated Blackwater guys? In the latter example, would he be a POW? And are POWs given specific rights, such as protection from assault?

I'm just trying to understand the nuances, because if POWs are supposed to be treated a certain way, than the fucker in the OP would have to not be defined as a POW in order for his treatment to be appropriate.

You are over thinking it. Its as simple as this guy was the enemy and this SEAL was pissed about something. Maybe the towel head said something, spit on him, anything really. The SEAL hit him and to me that is acceptable. This is a fucking war. Right and wrong becomes real murky when you are getting shot at.

You have a point.

If we were talking about organized and drawn out torture, that would be another story.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Why is the fucker in the OP an enemy combatant and a terrorist? What defined him as a terrorist?

Had he just been a militant in a building who had run out of ammo (an enemy combatant) and was captured, would he have more rights than someone who'd hung and mutilated Blackwater guys? In the latter example, would he be a POW? And are POWs given specific rights, such as protection from assault?

I'm just trying to understand the nuances, because if POWs are supposed to be treated a certain way, than the fucker in the OP would have to not be defined as a POW in order for his treatment to be appropriate.

You are over thinking it. Its as simple as this guy was the enemy and this SEAL was pissed about something. Maybe the towel head said something, spit on him, anything really. The SEAL hit him and to me that is acceptable. This is a fucking war. Right and wrong becomes real murky when you are getting shot at.

You have a point.

If we were talking about organized and drawn out torture, that would be another story.

Exactly. What we at home fail to realize is the mentality that you have to take on in theater. When you are trying to stay alive, its tough to show compassion to the enemy.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Soldiers are not police officers. Two different missions and a completely different set of rules. Therefore your comparison does not apply.

Interesting view, you are suggesting that soldiers do not have to abide by US laws (or Iraqi laws: the country they operate in)?


If soldiers would suspect a US citizen in the US of terrorist activities, should they be able to beat the crap out of him?

So when it comes to terrorism, is it a crime or an act of war? Or both?
I find it very hard to make the distinction these days:

a) An american blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.

b) A foreign Muslim blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.


So what are a) and b) ? Crimes? 1 crime and 1 act of war?

And if so, what makes the difference between the crime and the act of war?

The difference in your scenarios is simple. One is an act committed by a US citizen and the other by an enemy combatant. That is the difference.

And to answer the first question. No. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow soldiers to take action against the US citizenry.

The Constitution does not distinguish between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens except with regards to qualification for the Presidency and incorporation via the 14th amendment.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Interesting view, you are suggesting that soldiers do not have to abide by US laws (or Iraqi laws: the country they operate in)?


If soldiers would suspect a US citizen in the US of terrorist activities, should they be able to beat the crap out of him?

So when it comes to terrorism, is it a crime or an act of war? Or both?
I find it very hard to make the distinction these days:

a) An american blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.

b) A foreign Muslim blows up an appartment block in the US with home made explosives.


So what are a) and b) ? Crimes? 1 crime and 1 act of war?

And if so, what makes the difference between the crime and the act of war?

The difference in your scenarios is simple. One is an act committed by a US citizen and the other by an enemy combatant. That is the difference.

And to answer the first question. No. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow soldiers to take action against the US citizenry.

The Constitution does not distinguish between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens except with regards to qualification for the Presidency and incorporation via the 14th amendment.

Are you really suggesting that enemy combatants should be afforded Constitutional rights?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The difference in your scenarios is simple. One is an act committed by a US citizen and the other by an enemy combatant. That is the difference.

And to answer the first question. No. Posse Comitatus doesn't allow soldiers to take action against the US citizenry.

The Constitution does not distinguish between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens except with regards to qualification for the Presidency and incorporation via the 14th amendment.

Are you really suggesting that enemy combatants should be afforded Constitutional rights?

The Constitution was written with all the exceptions it needs. For instance, the 5th amendment reads:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So yes - obviously, the Founders thought of all the exceptions they wanted having to do with war, that's why they wrote them.


And the UCMJ is clear on the issue. If one assaults a "person" - one is guilty of assault. It doesn't say "persons other than enemy combatants" or "U.S. citizens", it just says "person".


Not to mention the obvious fact that making false official statements isn't a crime with a terrorist as a victim at all - the United States People are the victims of that crime. I fail to see why you think it should be OK to lie to investigators.