Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

[LMA]

Gotta love headlines, clearly the charges are not for capturing the terrorist ...but seems he had a bloody lip and the Navy SEALS are facing assault charges along with a couple other charges. I think these SEALs were wise to request a court martial rather than a captains-mast.

Wondering what your thougths are on this. Are we making it impossible for our guys to do their job? Or must our standards always be adherred to no matter what?


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

P.S. if this is the wrong area for this post just let me know where it should be

[antonio]

I bet the SEAL team regrets capping the wanker while they still had the chance.

Pity they didn't...

[zraver]

Really, putting our best warriors up on charges for punching a mass murderer?

FAIL

[Mihais]

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges

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

I know it's Fox,but somebody please tell me this is a bad joke.

[Bigfella]

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

I know it's Fox,but somebody please tell me this is a bad joke.

Headline is, story isn't. they are being charged for either assaulting a prisoner of allowing him to be assaulted. I'll leave it to the military folk here to nut out the detail, but I'm pretty sure this is against the rules for soldiers.

[S2]

My Thoughts

I'll refer to this comment posted to another thread.

[Mihais]

Headline is, story isn't. they are being charged for either assaulting a prisoner of allowing him to be assaulted. I'll leave it to the military folk here to nut out the detail, but I'm pretty sure this is against the rules for soldiers.

At a first glance you may seem correct.It is indeed forbidden to kill,wound or otherwise mishandle the prisoners.But this one is a manipulation of the system.The bastard probably punched himself in the face(the ''injury'' has healed in 1-2 days).As a result 3 elite SOF operators are out of action.Heck,they'd better quit using IED's because getting arrested is a more effective way of annihilating SOF.

[Stan187]

If he was getting rowdy, giving him a punch for compliance purposes is not abuse. There is still no article stating how significant the damage was, or the reasons that the SEALs are suspects, except for allegations by an irhabi murderer.

These guys need to be out with their unit hunting tangoes, not getting prosecuted on the accusations of a murdering slapdick.

[Rumrunner]

If he was getting rowdy, giving him a punch for compliance purposes is not abuse. There is still no article stating how significant the damage was, or the reasons that the SEALs are suspects, except for allegations by an irhabi murderer.

These guys need to be out with their unit hunting tangoes, not getting prosecuted on the accusations of a murdering slapdick.

They should have taken the cuffs off him, claimed he was trying to escape and then beat the living piss out of him. I'm sure nobody would have said a thing then.

It's sad to see this is going so far against the SEALS. I'm sure nothing will come of it in the end and I understand the message that the people in charge are trying to get across here, but these charges should not be pressed. Give it a week, everybody's 45-minute attention span will shift elsewhere and let the SEALS get back to work.

[antonio]

Give it a week, everybody's 45-minute attention span will shift elsewhere and let the SEALS get back to work.

Damn straight!

[Blue]

I'll refer to this comment posted to another thread.

Well said Sir! After serving as a Soldier and then as a civilian LEO, I can cite this very thing as one of the reasons I have not been a public servant for over 15 years now. How I miss the good ol' days.

The tragedy here is that this sets an example that may cause some to hesitate some other action due to fear of prosecution, that actually allows uneccessary harm to themselves or others.

[MIKEMUN]

Good brave soldiers can't say boo to a prisoner without being prosecuted(persecuted,more like).I understand that values need to be upheld but some cases are frankly ridiculous.

[Shek]

Gentlemen,

The UCMJ requires that commanders initiate any charges. Thus, it was another special operator, and most likely, SEAL, that decided to advance these charges. We don't know the facts of the case, and so what we are seeing is from the perspective of the defense (the prosecution cannot provide details when an active investigation/case is occurring).

Given that the commander went the non-judicial punishment route, he certainly saw the offenses requiring punishment, but something that didn't require any jail time and would result in most likely loss of rank and the end of chances for future promotions to senior NCO ranks. It was the choice of the SEALs involved to go with the all or nothing approach of having the charges referred to courts-martial.

Clearly the person involved isn't a nice guy. However, our fight is to protect our homeland and values, and so transgressing our own values is something we should demand that our commanders uphold, even if it pales in comparison to individuals who behave in ways that are antithetical to our own values. Rather than stoop to their level in some moral relativistic manner, let's maintain our dignity. Let the commander do his job - unless you can prove that he's acting in bad faith, let the due process of the UCMJ take its course, and it will be a victory for our values.

[Mihais]

Clearly the person involved isn't a nice guy. However, our fight is to protect our homeland and values, and so transgressing our own values is something we should demand that our commanders uphold, even if it pales in comparison to individuals who behave in ways that are antithetical to our own values. Rather than stoop to their level in some moral relativistic manner, let's maintain our dignity. Let the commander do his job - unless you can prove that he's acting in bad faith, let the due process of the UCMJ take its course, and it will be a victory for our values.

Given the situation it is indeed the best COA.
Sir,I understand you served as company commander.Did you encountered yourself,or heard from fellow officers of situations when troops were killed or injured due to restraint from fear of judicial punishment?
I've heard many complaints against the current ROE's,sometimes considered as the indirect cause of loss of life.Personally,so far I disagree with the ROE's to an extent,but nevertheless they're to be obeyed.

[Shek]

Given the situation it is indeed the best COA.
Sir,I understand you served as company commander.Did you encountered yourself,or heard from fellow officers of situations when troops were killed or injured due to restraint from fear of judicial punishment?
I've heard many complaints against the current ROE's,sometimes considered as the indirect cause of loss of life.Personally,so far I disagree with the ROE's to an extent,but nevertheless they're to be obeyed.

ROE is a commander's tool. It allows you to achieve desired effects - war is the extension of politics, and to divorce it from politics is to turn its purpose on its head. For example, in Iraq, many Army soldiers are on their third tour, and some their fourth. How many of them had to fight insurgents that were created by indiscriminate fire that injured or killed those who were non-combatants? This makes sense in the long-term, but because in the situation the short-term incentives ruled, and so soldiers would fire indiscriminately. A seemingly better choice in the short-term led to a suboptimal outcome in the long-run. This is where ROE comes in. At what level do you have to identify a target? Likely? Suspected? Known? What comprises hostile intent? This allows you to calibrate your responses to a level that balances self-protection and effects.

Furthermore, ROE contributes to mental health. If a soldier understands the law of land warfare, and how ROE is developed to remain consistent with this, then you can better prepare a soldier for the mental challenges that soldiering brings with it - you can be comfortable with your choice to take human life. Additionally, subsequent investigations that validate a soldier's actions can get them focusing on the future instead of questioning themselves looking back. In terms of troop safety, war is not just about bringing home the living body, but also the living mind/spirit.

Bottomline, people take the wrong approach to ROE - they see it as legalistic or moralistic, but tend not to see that there is great utility to framing the ROE to ensure that you can achieve the political effects that you desire. Because of this negative framing, they see it as unnecessarily constricting their choices. However, if you take the opposite approach, then it can be liberating. It highlights what you are allowed to do. For example, my former boss in my last assignment had just returned from Iraq. He was the first commander in a long time to authorize the use of Hellfire missiles in the Baghdad area. His peers told him he was done and would be relieved for the decision. His decision was affirmed - it was allowed under the ROE given the conditions/situation he faced. The other commanders had seen the ROE as restrictive and therefore didn't take the time to truly understand them. They simply assumed away what they could do and allowed themselves to be controlled by a negative perception.

From my experience, my soldiers clearly understood the requirement for target discrimination, but that they always had the right to self-defense. Because of emphasizing both, instead of spending time questioning whether they could defend themselves, they could use that additional time to confirm their target ID and the shoot/don't shoot decision. Also, because of our marksmanship training, they had the confidence that they could return fire with effects with a minimal amount of rounds (less collateral damage), and they could even further delay an engagement because they could achieve first shot group effects.

Thus, I'm not aware personally where ROE clearly induced friendly casualties, although I'm sure that they exist. But these casualties were purchased to achieve effects, which is exactly what our chosen profession is about. If it was simply about not becoming a casualty, then we'd be best off just not going to war, and then we could declare success. That may sound a bit flippant, but my larger point is that accepting risk is part of our business. We are authorized to take human life, and with that, we assume burdens that ensure that we use deadly force with the utmost care so as to preclude harming non-combatants when we can.