PDA

View Full Version : Not Change I can believe in!


KENTUCKYREDBONE
11-25-2009, 05:02 PM
Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
Tuesday , November 24, 2009

By Rowan Scarborough


ADVERTISEMENTNavy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment called an admiral's mast and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs two officers and an enlisted sailor have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

Crisco
11-25-2009, 05:13 PM
Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
Tuesday , November 24, 2009

By Rowan Scarborough


ADVERTISEMENTNavy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment called an admiral's mast and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs two officers and an enlisted sailor have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

I agree it's f'ed up but its nothing new. They started doing this under Bush.

County Mike
11-25-2009, 05:16 PM
All this for a fat lip? That's some serious BS right there. The guy has killed American's. He's lucky they didn't just shoot him and leave him in a hole somewhere.

Spiritwalker
11-25-2009, 05:52 PM
So maybe I am being dense here...

if the guy wsa injured while resisting.. don't care about him...

If he was beaten/assulted.. whatever while confined.. and not during an interrogation.. just for the "fun of it".. then I do have minor issues...

We are supposed to set the standard.

Crisco
11-25-2009, 05:53 PM
So maybe I am being dense here...

if the guy wsa injured while resisting.. don't care about him...

If he was beaten/assulted.. whatever while confined.. and not during an interrogation.. just for the "fun of it".. then I do have minor issues...

We are supposed to set the standard.

Well his people cut our peoples heads off. I think a good sock in the mouth is setting a much higher standard.

rearnakedchoke
11-25-2009, 06:14 PM
I don't understand the title of the thread ...

flo
11-25-2009, 06:31 PM
Yes, I agree this didn't start with the Obama administration. It makes my blood boil. It's been a PC war for a long time now, our troops are given ridiculous guidelines in combat situations, no wonder these conflicts drag on and on. Better minds than mine have suggested that under today's conditions we probably wouldn't have won WWII.

rockdawg21
11-25-2009, 07:22 PM
This all started with the Hippie movement. The hippies have started turning men into big pussies who have no balls and no spine. All this PC/tolerance crap needs to die along with these terrorists and anybody else who embraces that stupid ideology.

flo
11-25-2009, 08:17 PM
Read this - it's just the latest idiocracy in the PC-driven war:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6639450/British-troops-in-Iraq-had-to-let-attackers-go-free.html

Tyburn
11-25-2009, 10:04 PM
Well his people cut our peoples heads off. I think a good sock in the mouth is setting a much higher standard.

:laugh: sorry...that was an inappropriate giggle... :unsure-1:

NateR
11-26-2009, 01:43 AM
I think it's pure idiocy to be concerned about the human rights of known terrorists.

Obviously, our troops need to just shoot them all on sight and not put themselves at risk of getting prosecuted by capturing these terrorists alive.

Spiritwalker
11-26-2009, 02:03 AM
I think it's pure idiocy to be concerned about the human rights of known terrorists.

Obviously, our troops need to just shoot them all on sight and not put themselves at risk of getting prosecuted by capturing these terrorists alive.


No complaints here... Dead men tell no lies.

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 11:57 AM
I think it's pure idiocy to be concerned about the human rights of known terrorists.

Obviously, our troops need to just shoot them all on sight and not put themselves at risk of getting prosecuted by capturing these terrorists alive.

That would be classed as a war crime wouldnt it. :huh:

County Mike
11-26-2009, 12:13 PM
That would be classed as a war crime wouldnt it. :huh:

Not if the terrorist put up a fight. Instead of capturing the terrorist, just kill them in the struggle. Seems simpler to me.

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 12:18 PM
Not if the terrorist put up a fight. Instead of capturing the terrorist, just kill them in the struggle. Seems simpler to me.

If you were under orders to capture alive for judgement by trial...and you killed the suspect...then I suspect unless you could proove and have many witnesses saying there was a mass firefight or something...you'd probably find yourself facing disciplinary action.

In the Military, its called Court Marshall, In Buisness its called Civil Court or Industrial Tribuneral, in the Government its called A public enquiry or Criminal Court.

County Mike
11-26-2009, 12:24 PM
I call it "we shot back".

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 12:29 PM
I call it "we shot back".

Outstanding :laugh:

NateR
11-26-2009, 03:05 PM
If you were under orders to capture alive for judgement by trial...and you killed the suspect...then I suspect unless you could proove and have many witnesses saying there was a mass firefight or something...you'd probably find yourself facing disciplinary action.

In the Military, its called Court Marshall, In Buisness its called Civil Court or Industrial Tribuneral, in the Government its called A public enquiry or Criminal Court.

And who exactly would press charges? One of the other soldiers? I don't think so. The Iraqi citizens? They're going to be too happy that you rid them of a brutal murderer, so no. The terrorist? Well, he's dead, so no. The Liberal media? Of course they would, being that they are the true enemies of America; but fortunately Liberals are always cowards, so they will never put themselves at risk by being where the action is.

So, I'd say it's pretty safe to just shoot the terrorists on site and not allow the Liberals to continue to endanger America by giving these murderers more "human rights" than American citizens are allowed.

Spiritwalker
11-26-2009, 03:59 PM
Nate, Nate....NATE!!!!!

In the time I have been here... going on 3ish years now???

I have been accused of sucking up to you.. bashing your (comments) religion, and some other stuff that is usually on misunderstandings....

Let there be NO misunderstanding.....

OMG!!!!! U RL!!!! afair I have never found something posted by U that I would have to agree so much with!!!

asafp I would like to shake your hand, both for your opinions and that you stood up and served when many won't.


AMBW




The Liberal media? Of course they would, being that they are the true enemies of America; but fortunately Liberals are always cowards, so they will never put themselves at risk by being where the action is.


Liberals (media/politicians/general people) tend to be VERY liberal with their words.. horribly conservative with their actions.. that's for the "other people..

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 04:29 PM
And who exactly would press charges? One of the other soldiers? I don't think so.

If you disobeyed a superior officer...you'd probably get it in the head from them. I doubt it would end up in the media until AFTER you've been prosecuted.

This has nothing to do with Terrorism Mr Rosario, this is to do with following orders....or not following orders so to speak. Nevermind what that actually entails. The Military has a very explicit heirachical structure, with very specific rules regardless and irrespective of circumstance.

Do what your told, or you'll get into trouble. Its not rocket science. Deep philosophical discussion is mute. The subject matter is pretty much mute. If your ordered to capture someone alive and you kill them, you have failed. It doesnt matter whether they deserved to die, or whether anyone will miss them, or whether the world would be safer without them. Besides, The Military is not about Killing, its about defending. You make bloody sure your captive dies as a matter of your self defense...or else it will be seen as a war crime. It doesnt matter if you like it, or aggree with it. Free Thinking is not required. Its an Extreme J culture. Follow the Rules, or you'll end up in trouble.

Spiritwalker
11-26-2009, 04:59 PM
Do what your told, or you'll get into trouble. Its not rocket science. Deep philosophical discussion is mute.



I know a bunch of people that were ordered to pay a tax on tea... they didn't and look where they ended up... good topic for discussion

An illegal order is still an illegal order.... so that is something to discuss

If I am ordered to bring someone back alive.. but it's my life or theirs... guess who is coming out on the short end....

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 05:33 PM
1) I know a bunch of people that were ordered to pay a tax on tea... they didn't and look where they ended up... good topic for discussion

2) An illegal order is still an illegal order.... so that is something to discuss

If I am ordered to bring someone back alive.. but it's my life or theirs... guess who is coming out on the short end....

1) That wasnt in the Military was it? Do you know what they would do to Soldiers who refused to fight during the Great Wars? They shot them as Deserters on the grounds of treason. Try and keep within the framework of comparison

2) Really? Tell me something. During the Nazi war crimes...what was the status of the majority of those who received State Execution? Were they the ones GIVING the Orders...or the ones Carrying the Orders out. Also...an Illegal Order assume the Order has actually been given. Noone is asking those Soldiers to committ acts of cruelty...there is no order. This is not about the morality of following a dodgy order...its about not following a perfectly valid order, so that you may do something dodgy.

3) I know a bunch of people who lied to their citizens, and then lied to their Allies, and then lied to the world in order to create a governmental coup in some middle eastern country, on the basis of false and bad intelligence....and look what happened to them :ninja:

atomdanger
11-26-2009, 08:29 PM
*shrug*
They shouldn't be giving false statements.
Thats where the trouble starts.
Assault is nothing, giving an official false statement is a felony.

I am not saying I think these guys should get in trouble,
but why are these guys lying?
Say you roughed him up a little, nobody cares lol

Tyburn
11-26-2009, 08:33 PM
*shrug*
They shouldn't be giving false statements.
Thats where the trouble starts.
Assault is nothing, giving an official false statement is a felony.

I am not saying I think these guys should get in trouble,
but why are these guys lying?
Say you roughed him up a little, nobody cares lol

:laugh: thats probably true :laugh:

"He needed a kicking so I gave him one...sorry" is a thumbs up
"I did not have sexual relations with..." is a BIG thumbs down :ninja:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs LMAO Why is it always the Democrats??

Spiritwalker
11-26-2009, 10:01 PM
You said..
Do what your told, or you'll get into trouble. Its not rocket science. Deep philosophical discussion is mute.

That is not correct and is actually at the heart of MANY things...

My framework for comparison was what you said. Sorry I am not being simple minded.



1) That wasnt in the Military was it? Do you know what they would do to Soldiers who refused to fight during the Great Wars? They shot them as Deserters on the grounds of treason. Try and keep within the framework of comparison

well.. if you call a King setting down a law, "military".. then sure.. but actually it's quite worse..

As far as the "great wars" (a phrase I hate)...that was then.. this is now..And I am sure people were killed for refusing to fight. But that is different from killing someone that you set out to capture..going by your framework of comparison



2) Really? Tell me something. During the Nazi war crimes...what was the status of the majority of those who received State Execution? Were they the ones GIVING the Orders...or the ones Carrying the Orders out. Also...an Illegal Order assume the Order has actually been given. Noone is asking those Soldiers to committ acts of cruelty...there is no order. This is not about the morality of following a dodgy order...its about not following a perfectly valid order, so that you may do something dodgy.

Dave.. your twisting your on points to fit what you want to say. You just implied that the soldiers of Nazi Germany who shot and killed jews, homosexuals and other "inferior" peoples did the right thing cause they were ordered to do so.

3) I know a bunch of people who lied to their citizens, and then lied to their Allies, and then lied to the world in order to create a governmental coup in some middle eastern country, on the basis of false and bad intelligence....and look what happened to them :ninja:

So "we" lied to you? Like your government has never done the same..???

As far as "a governmental coup in some middle eastern country, on the basis of false and bad intelligence"

Look at them now.. much better than before...and a person that was a mass murderer and tried to plan an assassination was killed....

atomdanger
11-27-2009, 12:01 AM
:laugh: thats probably true :laugh:

"He needed a kicking so I gave him one...sorry" is a thumbs up
"I did not have sexual relations with..." is a BIG thumbs down :ninja:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs LMAO Why is it always the Democrats??


Exactly, people respect honesty.

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 12:03 AM
1) well.. if you call a King setting down a law, "military".. then sure.. but actually it's quite worse..

2) As far as the "great wars" (a phrase I hate)...that was then..

3) this is now..And I am sure people were killed for refusing to fight. But that is different from killing someone that you set out to capture..going by your framework of comparison





4) Dave.. your twisting your on points to fit what you want to say. You just implied that the soldiers of Nazi Germany who shot and killed jews, homosexuals and other "inferior" peoples did the right thing cause they were ordered to do so.



5) So "we" lied to you? Like your government has never done the same..???

As far as "a governmental coup in some middle eastern country, on the basis of false and bad intelligence"

Look at them now.. much better than before...and a person that was a mass murderer and tried to plan an assassination was killed....

1) A Monarchy is not the same as Martial Law. England has been rulled by Both since her conception...infact England has also been a Republic. King George was clinically insane...as in, had mental health issues. He was a King, a King is a Soverign Ruller put in place by Birthright, which is Given by GOD. Yes, Monarchic Government is a Dictatorship, but its a far cry from a Military Dictatorship. That happens when Martial Law is declared, as was, Halfway through the Republic within the first decade of life FREE from the Monarch. The corrupt Government was forceably Disbanded by The Grand Protectorate of England. His name was Mr Cromwell. The SAME guy who Led the Parliamentarians and beat the Royalists during the Civil war...was within the Decade a Military dictator. He would have lined the collony members up, and shot them all in the head. That would have solved the problem. He was of course more then 100 years before his time. (England had its civil war before you) THAT is Government run by the Military. Its happened in the Classics, its happened in England....and if you think you dislike your Government now...pray you NEVER suffer under Martial Law. THEN you would know true Tyranny.

2) :huh:

3) I suspect they would still do it now. But the point was, that that is military discipline...The comparisson was not, again, about the substance, but about the rule. You break the rules, you pay the price. You refuse to do your duty, you die...that could be refusing to fight...or breaking other rules like When you Commander wants the subject you just murdered alive...he meant, DONT bring him back in a bodybag. :rolleyes:

4) again. its not about the substance its about the rules. WHO is responsible for the deaths of the Jews and Homosexuals. Those who DID the killing, OR those who made the Orders. Forget right and wrong for a moment and follow logic...WHAT is the illegality? issuing an illegal order...or following an order?

the answer is, giving the illegal order. Following the order is pardonable (well at least on a legal level. Those who got done for war crimes...probably never actually did much killing. For a start, the Germans made the homenation police forces do much of the work (under the guise of new employers) and secondly...have you not heard the infamous account of a German who was present when a load of Jews were executed in a mass grave infront of one of the Nazi Cabinet...who...lets say...had a weak stomach following the carrying out of his own orders :huh: I can try and get names if you wish...but I remember watching a documentary about it.

Again....I am not disscussing, or giving my personal views on the morality, I am not condoning, nor condemning, I am not talking about rights and wrongs, about spiritual implications. I am talking about apportioning objective legal responsibility...and I am talking about rules in the way of orders...you either follow them, or you disobey.

5) oh aye, our Government was just as bad as yours in that affaire, since for a moment we were a mere extention of your Secretary of State department dealing solely in foreign affairs on your behalf.

You have a jab at me when I speak objectively about legal responsibility for the holocaust...and then suddenly with Iraq...its ends justifies the means???

Again...how do you know my grounds are even on a moral basis? What?? you think I believe you should have let a dictator committ Genocide?? You think my objection is based on the fact that you lied, or twisted the truth??

Your Wrong. MY objection to the Invasion of Iraq, had nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong to go to war, and nothing to do with whether Saddam was really a threat or not. Its not about morality at all.

Its about the rules, once again. I would have been in favour of the war, had the United States actually followed procedure properly. I'm disgusted because of the complete and total disregard for International Law, I'm disgusted that when the United Nations failed to Sanction something, YOU went ahead and did it anyway. THATS my boggle. Without a yes the answer was no...so what did you guys do? disobeyed...and thats what this is all about...stop muddying the water with morals and ethics, when whilst debatable, that wont save you from a court marshall or a bullet. Lets talk about the legal laws regarding war, what is permitted, what is not permitted, orders given, and apportioning of blame for those orders, and the consequences of disobeying. THATS what this whole thing is all about.

You will find its cut and dry, and incredibly simple...Terribly Enlightenmentesque...its a case of logic. Did Soldier follow Order, yes or no. If the answer is no, guess whose to blame, the soldier. If the answer is yes...then was the order legal, if the answer is no, then there is no case, if the answer is yes, its the commander that has to answer.

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 12:08 AM
Exactly, people respect honesty.

Thats true. Its also a matter of legality here aswell. Its about a procedure that has to be followed. You give a statement, you tell the truth, if its bad you end up in trouble. BUT if you lie, and get found out...the trouble becomes multiple...not only is there the original problem...but now thats compounded by the breach of protocol...being beauracratic in administering justice, which is the nature of most things (the military in an organised setting...not necc on the field) means that they might see a breach as worse then the original crime. They can cope with misbehavior...but they really dispise being taken for a ride over it.

plus...any ommision of truth makes you look guilty...even when you might not be. There is a chance that these guys are innocent...but because they lied...maybe for some other reason, maybe truely out of fear just to distance themselves from an investigation that might clear them...they now look fully guilty, of the full crime by default....and thats not a good place to be in.

atomdanger
11-27-2009, 01:02 AM
Thats true. Its also a matter of legality here aswell. Its about a procedure that has to be followed. You give a statement, you tell the truth, if its bad you end up in trouble. BUT if you lie, and get found out...the trouble becomes multiple...not only is there the original problem...but now thats compounded by the breach of protocol...being beauracratic in administering justice, which is the nature of most things (the military in an organised setting...not necc on the field) means that they might see a breach as worse then the original crime. They can cope with misbehavior...but they really dispise being taken for a ride over it.

plus...any ommision of truth makes you look guilty...even when you might not be. There is a chance that these guys are innocent...but because they lied...maybe for some other reason, maybe truely out of fear just to distance themselves from an investigation that might clear them...they now look fully guilty, of the full crime by default....and thats not a good place to be in.

Good point, once you're caught lying your credibility goes out the window,
now that people know they're liars, they can't beleive them.

NateR
11-27-2009, 01:19 AM
If you disobeyed a superior officer...you'd probably get it in the head from them. I doubt it would end up in the media until AFTER you've been prosecuted.

This has nothing to do with Terrorism Mr Rosario, this is to do with following orders....or not following orders so to speak. Nevermind what that actually entails. The Military has a very explicit heirachical structure, with very specific rules regardless and irrespective of circumstance.

Do what your told, or you'll get into trouble. Its not rocket science. Deep philosophical discussion is mute. The subject matter is pretty much mute. If your ordered to capture someone alive and you kill them, you have failed. It doesnt matter whether they deserved to die, or whether anyone will miss them, or whether the world would be safer without them. Besides, The Military is not about Killing, its about defending. You make bloody sure your captive dies as a matter of your self defense...or else it will be seen as a war crime. It doesnt matter if you like it, or aggree with it. Free Thinking is not required. Its an Extreme J culture. Follow the Rules, or you'll end up in trouble.

Dave, I served in the US Army for 10 years. How long did you serve? Oh, that's right. :rolleyes: So maybe you shouldn't be lecturing me on how the military hierarchy works.

NateR
11-27-2009, 01:28 AM
Nate, Nate....NATE!!!!!

In the time I have been here... going on 3ish years now???

I have been accused of sucking up to you.. bashing your (comments) religion, and some other stuff that is usually on misunderstandings....

Let there be NO misunderstanding.....

OMG!!!!! U RL!!!! afair I have never found something posted by U that I would have to agree so much with!!!

asafp I would like to shake your hand, both for your opinions and that you stood up and served when many won't.


AMBW







Liberals (media/politicians/general people) tend to be VERY liberal with their words.. horribly conservative with their actions.. that's for the "other people..

Thanks. :cool:

I've always found that many Liberals look upon those who serve in the military with disdain. They consider them mental midgets who are paid to follow orders and die because they have absolutely no other prospects in life. This is why Liberal politicians have no respect for the sacrifice that our troops make (I would say that those who claim to are just liars, but all Liberals are liars) and also why our troops tend to be very conservative in their political views. Conservatives know what it means to sacrifice for the greater good, Liberals just know how to take what others have worked hard for.

donaldbreland
11-27-2009, 05:53 AM
What?????? Terrorists shouldn't have any rights. For those of you that think it is cruel to beat a terrorist or torture him until he gives information. You are the same people that is making our country fight wars like we do and it's people like you that give criminals less time then they deserve and they end up killing someone or raping a child. it is people like you that are killing our soldiers. Grow some Balls and stand up and fight for our Country. These men and women are dieing for our rights and damn it lets fight for there rights. We should all show up at the court house on the day of the trial and protest and let them know we will not leave until this case is thrown out. Stand up and fight back. NOW.

County Mike
11-27-2009, 11:07 AM
Dave makes me laugh. :)

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 12:13 PM
Dave, I served in the US Army for 10 years. How long did you serve? Oh, that's right. :rolleyes: So maybe you shouldn't be lecturing me on how the military hierarchy works.

Tell me im wrong then :huh::laugh:

Is anything I wrote in that post factually wrong Mr Rosario :huh:

Now if we want to talk about Military ethics, thats an entirely different matter...one in which I know a great deal about after plenty of disscussions with a person who taught at West Point :)

Spiritwalker
11-27-2009, 07:22 PM
What?????? Terrorists shouldn't have any rights. For those of you that think it is cruel to beat a terrorist or torture him until he gives information. You are the same people that is making our country fight wars like we do and it's people like you that give criminals less time then they deserve and they end up killing someone or raping a child. it is people like you that are killing our soldiers. Grow some Balls and stand up and fight for our Country. These men and women are dieing for our rights and damn it lets fight for there rights. We should all show up at the court house on the day of the trial and protest and let them know we will not leave until this case is thrown out. Stand up and fight back. NOW.


Agreed.. If someone attacks me... "it's on"....it ends how it ends.

But should someone attack me... and when they are on the ground...legally/morally.. it's done. To continue to inflict damage when there is no threat.. that's wrong.

If the military takes a prisoner and the person, the person is continued to be assaulted.. That makes them wrong. That's not how the US should be.

Now torture for information.. is a completely different thread....

Spiritwalker
11-27-2009, 07:26 PM
Tell me im wrong then :huh::laugh:

Is anything I wrote in that post factually wrong Mr Rosario :huh:

Now if we want to talk about Military ethics, thats an entirely different matter...one in which I know a great deal about after plenty of disscussions with a person who taught at West Point :)


You need more "real world" experience.
ethics is not a "right or wrong" matter.

Try this...

Define the difference between morally and ethics

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 07:34 PM
Dave makes me laugh. :)

sometimes I even crack myself up :ashamed:

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 07:37 PM
You need more "real world" experience.
ethics is not a "right or wrong" matter.

Try this...

Define the difference between morally and ethics

Morality is Ethics handed down via a Higher power. Ethics, is a code of conduct losely aggreed upon by many. Often the words are used interchangebly, because the end result without deep analysis on a day to day basis is the same.

For example...Utilitarianism, is Ethics, but Right and Wrong in terms of a religious perspecitve is Morality.

I suspect I have alot more "real world" experiences then you presuppose

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 07:38 PM
Now torture for information.. is a completely different thread....

oh, I'm all in favour of that.

Spiritwalker
11-27-2009, 10:11 PM
Morality is Ethics handed down via a Higher power. Ethics, is a code of conduct losely aggreed upon by many. Often the words are used interchangebly, because the end result without deep analysis on a day to day basis is the same.

For example...Utilitarianism, is Ethics, but Right and Wrong in terms of a religious perspecitve is Morality.

I suspect I have alot more "real world" experiences then you presuppose

You know.. I guess it's possible... you do live and breath...

but the way your text comes across to me is very "finger waggy".. to me.

Tyburn
11-27-2009, 10:13 PM
You know.. I guess it's possible... you do live and breath...

but the way your text comes across to me is very "finger waggy".. to me.

:laugh::ashamed: Noone has ever described me as "finger waggy" before :blink:

I love you too :w00t: