Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Is it just me, or is this crap getting more and more common with our new President????

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist - Iraq | War | Map - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html?test=latestnews)

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

March 31, 2004: Iraqis chant anti-American slogans as the charred and mutilated bodies of U.S. contractors hang from a bridge over the Euphrates River in Fallujah, Iraq.

Navy 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.

If they were offered an Article 15, it doesn't sound like the charges are too terribly serious.

I would guess that the making a false statement is what pissed off the brass more than any assault charges. I really doubt Obama had much to do with the decision to charge them. I don't like Obama either, but I suspect he has more to do.

NJP has zero to do with President-directed discipline. The SEALs rightly asked to convene a court-martial instead. They're gonna roll their dice with their peers reviewing the facts of the case. I would do the same thing.

NJP has zero to do with President-directed discipline. The SEALs rightly asked to convene a court-martial instead. They're gonna roll their dice with their peers reviewing the facts of the case. I would do the same thing.

The problem is that military courts martial have an uncommon rate of conviction, higher than civilian courts. And they will be more than likely be judged by regular Naval officers, not other SEALS.

Again, I bet it's going to be the untruthfulness that bites them in the ***. Even in the Army a long time ago, forgiveness wasn't that hard to get, but if you lied and they caught you, your *** was in a real sling.

They may well slide on the assault and other charges, but if they were caught making a false official report, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. Just like in police work, lying is a no no.

The problem is that military courts martial have an uncommon rate of conviction, higher than civilian courts. And they will be more than likely be judged by regular Naval officers, not other SEALS.

They may well slide on the assault and other charges, but if they were caught making a false official report, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. Just like in police work, lying is a no no.

I would guess it's their attorneys that pushed for the court-martial as opposed to NJP. They obviously know the case better than we do. Here's hoping it works out in their favor. :cheers:

I would guess it's their attorneys that pushed for the court-martial as opposed to NJP. They obviously know the case better than we do. Here's hoping it works out in their favor. :cheers:

Me too. Those guys are real heroes. I hate to see them get in a bind over something stupid.

I think there's been a lot of whackiness going on ever since I read the book "Warlord" : Amazon.com: Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy (9781416524274): Ilario Pantano, Malcolm McConnell: Books

That was during GWB's administration.

Why does it sound like some of you guys are assuming that they did lie? :nono:

I know Barry isn't directly involved, it just seems like a pattern. Closing Gitmo, giving them miranda rights, importing them to New York for trials, investigating the CIA, failing to make a decision on troop deployment, and then allowing these guys to use our own system against us. Seems like the tide is shifting and we're giving the advantage to the enemy.

I also see some irony in the fact this guy is complaining about inhumane treatment because of a fat lip. Shortly after he tortures, mutilates and hangs four Americans.

Why does it sound like some of you guys are assuming that they did lie? :nono:

My experience has been that when they go after someone for lying, it's because they caught them red handed. I've never seen anyone charged with that w/o substantial evidence. Just a he said, he said is too hard to prove and the military doesn't have a history of charging people w/o a pretty airtight case. They don't play to the media like some local prosecutors. If they say they filed false reports, I have little doubt they have documents to prove it. And again, a lot of our experience comes from the police and prosecutors dancing to the tune of the media. The military doesn't play that game.

I have some minimal experience with military discipline, but I sat in on a couple of meetings of commanders (and was briefed on the content and outcome of several more) who were deciding whether or not to bring charges against soldiers and the burden of proof was a whole lot heavier than what I've seen with some grand juries. They were reluctant to go after their own if the act was in the line of duty and there was the least bit of good faith involved in the action. I've seen some amazing stuff forgiven. But again, lie to them and they will kick your ***.

On the other side of the issue is, I've also seen them get pissed when they offered a soldier an Article 15 (Navy Captain's Mast) and it was turned down. I recall one soldier in particular who would have lost one stripe and half of one month's pay go for the court martial and lose three stripes and 1/2 of three months pay for an insubordination issue. And this guy thought he had the moral high ground on it and would win. Offering an Article 15 is always optional and is generally a way of saying, we're pissed, but not that pissed. Turn it down at your peril because you are NOT being judged by your peers like civilian court is at least supposed to be. You are going to be judged by several officers, O-4's and above

I'm not putting these guys down at all, as I said they are real heroes. But on the surface (from looking at the charges), at least it appears they did something not all that horrible, but then tried to cover it up. Nobody probably really cares about the assault.

I also see some irony in the fact this guy is complaining about inhumane treatment because of a fat lip. Shortly after he tortures, mutilates and hangs four Americans.

How's that different from what police deal with everyday?

Maybe they're hoping the witness statements won't hold up. I see 3 fellow SEALs are on the list.

Maybe they're hoping the witness statements won't hold up. I see 3 fellow SEALs are on the list.

Three fellow SEALS are testifying against them?

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.

I don't know how well that'll work for the prosecution. Unit cohesion being what it is and all...

Here's a clip with the attorney for one of the SEALs:

'International Show Trial' - Video - FOXNews.com (http://video.foxnews.com/11929348/international-show-trial)

I don't know how well that'll work for the prosecution. Unit cohesion being what it is and all...

Fear of perjury generally overcomes cohesion when push comes to shove. Will they be willing to put their careers on the line if they have to lie to defend them?

The attorney doesn't sound like he knows much about the case. He also never addressed the false report allegation either. And I sure never heard of offering someone an Article 15, have them refuse it and then the commander say the hell with it and just issue a letter of reprimand like the attorney suggested. That might have been the end result if they had taken the Article 15, but it won't be now.

I hope these guys come out okay, I'll say that again. But from what I've seen so far and based on my experience (admittedly a long time ago), I think they would have probably been better off taking the Admiral's Mast. The military command does not like to look foolish chances are they'll hammer these men if found guilty now. It's pretty rare that you'll come out ahead by refusing the Article 15.

Fear of perjury generally overcomes cohesion when push comes to shove.
From a Marine Corps perspective, I disagree. I would further surmise that elite units including and comparable to the SEALs would not speak ill of their brethren unless it were very egregious circumstances. That seems to be the nature of the beast - especially when having worked together in real world operations.


Will they be willing to put their careers on the line if they have to lie to defend them?
Based upon my above statement, I would say so. However, not knowing the men personally, we won't know until the court martial is complete.


The attorney doesn't sound like he knows much about the case. He also never addressed the false report allegation either. And I sure never heard of offering someone an Article 15, have them refuse it and then the commander say the hell with it and just issue a letter of reprimand like the attorney suggested. That might have been the end result if they had taken the Article 15, but it won't be now.
I thought the attorney referenced that the letter of admonishment should have been the limit of any discipline instead of career-ending NJP. I'll have to go back and listen to it again to be sure.

It's disappointing that CentCom and SOCOM convened this to begin with. I'd be interested to see whom specifically did the investigation and where the decision was made to charge these men.

In the end, it sucks we have to wait until January....

I figure they should have given them a medal, but for once i like the media involvement in this, because i'm sure it's going to (or already has so i read...) cause some high priced lawyer to take the case for free just to get the press coverage...cases like this are better than buying a commercial for a good lawyer.

From a Marine Corps perspective, I disagree. I would further surmise that elite units including and comparable to the SEALs would not speak ill of their brethren unless it were very egregious circumstances. That seems to be the nature of the beast - especially when having worked together in real world operations.


Based upon my above statement, I would say so. However, not knowing the men personally, we won't know until the court martial is complete.


I thought the attorney referenced that the letter of admonishment should have been the limit of any discipline instead of career-ending NJP. I'll have to go back and listen to it again to be sure.

It's disappointing that CentCom and SOCOM convened this to begin with. I'd be interested to see whom specifically did the investigation and where the decision was made to charge these men.

In the end, it sucks we have to wait until January....

This is a general (or do they call it admiral in the Navy?) court martial, not just an inquiry where they can say they didn't see anything. Standing up for someone is one thing, going to federal prison to cover up what they did is another.

I still bet that the false report is what set this off. Nobody, even SEAL command don't want to be lied to. I've seen a lot, and I mean a lot of things forgiven as a result of combat as long as the people involved were forthright in telling what happened. The last thing any commander will tolerate is to go in defense of his people only to find out they were untruthful with him. But I've seen firsthand some defense of soldiers who were "overenthusiastic" to say the very least after an enemy ambush or engagement. Some of that would have been first page stuff on the NYT had it gotten out and it didn't. And we weren't "elite units", we were grunts. I also know a false or even misleading official report would have gotten us a general court martial in a heartbeat.

All we can do is pray it ends well.

All we can do is pray it ends well.

:iagree:

I'm down with that. :biggrin5:

Today's the day for the SEALs.

Show of Support - Video - FOXNews.com (http://video.foxnews.com/12295139/show-of-support)

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/view290257r3691701383.html

Navy SEALs accused of abusing Iraq detainee have courts-martial set, vow to defend charges -- latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-navy-seals,0,2686361.story)

Trial dates are set for next month.

The 3rd SEAL hasn't been arraigned yet.

Prosecution still hasn't complete disclosure of the evidence.