See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:13 am, Mark Harvey said:

   Smethiing wrong with the petition site. Must be herds signing it!

2. #2
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:16 am, Michelle Malkin said:

   Worked for me.

3. #3
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:17 am, Gabe said:

   I tried to sign it also but am getting an “error” message.

4. #4
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:22 am, stillontheroad said:

   I am getting timed out so my guess is there are numbers of people trying to access and sign.

5. #5
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:27 am, Flyoverman said:

   Michelle, the time out shows your popularity.

   Consider the fact these SEAL’s have fewer rights at trial than the five little darlings Eric Holder and The One have decided to try in New York.

   Thats all you need to know to understand the Libveral mindset.

6. #6
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:28 am, WarEagle82 said:

   The petition site is getting SLAMMED. Try again and keep trying. These guys deserve our support!

   Server Error in ‘/ReportingEngine’ Application.
   Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to obtaining a connection from the pool. This may have occurred because all pooled connections were in use and max pool size was reached.

7. #7
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:29 am, Lindsay said:

   Lots of people trying to sign petition. Will try again later.
   Thanks, Michelle.

   Many thanks to Navy Seals (and all military) who keep our country safe.

8. #8
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:29 am, swede said:

   As I recall, the SEALs refused discipline and requested the court marshall. Perhaps they would prefer to vindicate themselves publically, once and for all. Will sign the petition though, if possible.

9. #9
   On December 11th, 2009 at 10:29 am, rocketman said:

   ***
   The Seals could have accepted the Captain’s Mast (Article 15 in the Army) hearing. But they asked for a full Court Martial–they felt this would give them a better chance to get justice.
   ***
   Somehow I don’t think the terrorist’s word would be accepted over one Seal’s testimony. But this judicial process is in motion–it would be COMMAND INFLUENCE to not finish it now.
   ***
   Like the wise man said, “Be careful what you ask for–you might just get it!”
   ***
   John Bibb
   ***

10. #10
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:31 am, tre said:

    I signed it with no problem.

    That terrorist is complaining about getting punched. He’s lucky to be alive.

11. #11
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:35 am, YTZGal said:

    Along with signing the petition, call your Congress critter and express your outrage. And if you’re on the East coast, try and attend a rally in support of the Seals. This whole episode makes me sick to my stomach.

12. #12
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am, purplepeep said:

    Yup, looks like a logjam to sign on – maybe the script could use a bit of tweaking to handle it, here’s a partial screenshot of the error page I’m getting:

    http://i48.tinypic.com/2r639mr.jpg

13. #13
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    Only in America can our previous POTUS and these brave Seals be the enemy. Sad, just very, very sad. I will sign when the rush is over.

    It should hurt to be a liberal.

14. #14
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am, Jvette said:

    Can’t sign now, the page keeps timing out. But, I will keep trying until I can.

    Oh and for the other soldiers and servicemen fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq…..

    Dead men tell no tales.

15. #15
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:42 am, WarEagle82 said:

    One of the “unintended consequences” of this nonsense is likely to be a “take no prisoners” attitude among troops.

    I mean, you can shoot the SOB without consequence but if you bruise his ego while delivering him to the cage you are toast.

    It doesn’t take an officer candidate to see where that leads.

16. #16
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am, Boomer said:

    Petition signed! The gross misconduct by the USN JAGs makes my blood boil. It is sad to say this is not the first time I have seen a case of prosecutorial misconduct in my 30+ year association with the US Military. I would refuse an Article 15 myself in the same situation, but then again I would probably not had the personal discipline the SEALS used to take the lying scumbag Jihadist alive.

17. #17
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:58 am, love2rumba said:

    Server Error in ‘/ReportingEngine’ Application.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to obtaining a connection from the pool. This may have occurred because all pooled connections were in use and max pool size was reached.

    As of 8am PST, I still cannot get in and sign the petition because of the quoted ‘error’ above. I will try again later..’just letting you know.

18. #18
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am, WarEagle82 said:

    Keep trying even if it is busy. You will get through eventually. These guys deserve our support just like those Marines did and that made an impact!

    IMHO the Armed Forces need about 2 lawyers total. One to draft unconditional surrender documents for our defeated foes to sign and the other to step in when the first one gets fragged…

19. #19
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:13 am, Flyoverman said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am, WarEagle82 said:

    ROTFLMAO

    Give yourself a “Hoooah” WE82.

20. #20
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Zheldon said:

    I had to keep trying. About four or so attempts and I got through.

21. #21
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:31 am, malkin_fan said:

    These men risk their lives and the Libtards basically spit on them.

    Their names should NEVER become public since they protect our nation but these ridiculous charges force their names out into the open, thus endangering their ENTIRE family.

    Who will chose to protect us when we treat them like this???????????

22. #22
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:33 am, tiredofit08 said:

    took a while but signed!! As a former military member this irks me to no end…what a crock….give em medals for the capture! It’s far more than this scumbag gave the men hanging from the bridge….

23. #23
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am, AlabamaMama said:

    For those who are still getting the “timed out” message, I used the link to the Human Events page in the first paragraph (the word “here”) rather than the second link (“sign the petition”) and got through right away.

24. #24
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:45 am, MacEamonn said:

    You are the person next in line above General Petraeus in the chain of command.

    Not to nitpick, but the last time I checked the following people (as a minimum) should be in the Chain of Command between the General and the Secratary of Defence: Army Chief of Staff, Secratary of the Army, The JCS, and the Chairman of the JCS.

    All of them have responsibility in this matter, as well as the Navy’s entire command structure all the way up to the CNO!

25. #25
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:56 am, MacEamonn said:

    Not to nitpick, but the last time I checked the following people (as a minimum) should be in the Chain of Command between the General and the Secratary of Defence: Army Chief of Staff, Secratary of the Army, The JCS, and the Chairman of the JCS.

    All of them have responsibility in this matter, as well as the Navy’s entire command structure all the way up to the CNO!

    PS: I forget to mention the one person who can make this all go away under his Constitutional Authority in Article II Section 2 Commander in Chief and Pardon, Barack H. Obama. Of course I wouldn’t hold my breath because this whole C@#$%F#$%(old military term I can’t use here) has the White House’s stench all over it. Can you say “Payback” for the Maersk Alabama incident?

26. #26
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:56 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    It just worked for me okay just now.

27. #27
    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am, Mark said:

    Keep trying…it took about 15 minutes of clicking at the first link (“here”), but it worked.

    and MacEamonn, if my last PME (AWC) was correct, outside of “JCS”, as Army Chief of Staff is the army rep on JCS, you arte correct. But now that I’m civilian (as I assume most are herre) we appeal to the civilian chief.

28. #28
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pm, Truesoldier said:

    First of all, this whole trial is just stupid! Why the hell are we giving crednece to an acusation by an enemy in the first place.

    Second, let’s say these SEALs did do what the terrorist claims, so what this is war! If he did not want to get hurt then he should have not taken up Jihad in the first place.

    Third, I served with some of the Blackwater guys in 2004 while I was in Iraq (I was an Army mechanic in charge of the convoy security vehicles for Ambassodor Breemer and Negroponte). The Blackwater guys I worked with, as well as the ones who were killed were former SEALs, SF and Delta Operators. These guys are all fellow service members that were mistreated by the enemy. It is one thing when a soldier falls in battle to the enemy, that is war. It is something completely different when the dead bodies are burned, dragged through the streets and then strung up on a bridge for all to see.

    When this happened the Blackwater guys I worked with had to go identify the bodies. They told me they couldn’t due to the condition of the bodies (it took DNA to get positive ID).

    So excuse me if I don’t have any sympathy for this bastard!

29. #29
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, atheling said:

    Tried about half a dozen times, but keep getting the error message. Will try later.

30. #30
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm, cheapseat said:

    AND THESE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO SAY THEY RESPECT THE MILITARY AND THE CIA. ANOTHER STORY TODAY IS ABOUT BLACKWATER GUARDS BEING DENEGRATED AND PUNISHED FOR PROTECTING AND WORKING WITH THE CIA IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. I’LL BET THOSE PANSY ASSED STATE DEPARTMENT WUSSES WERE DAMN GLAD TO HAVE THESE MEN GUARDING THEIR BUTTS WHEN THEY WERE TRAVELING THROUGH APACHE COUNTRY IN THOSE TWO AREAS.

31. #31
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:10 pm, corkie said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 11:45 am, MacEamonn said:

    Not to nitpick, but the last time I checked the following people (as a minimum) should be in the Chain of Command between the General and the Secratary of Defence: Army Chief of Staff, Secratary of the Army, The JCS, and the Chairman of the JCS.

    Good Lord, when was the last time you checked?

    I’m pretty sure that unified commanders (Petraeus is a unified commander as Central Command) have reported directly to the Secretary of Defense since the National Security Act of 1947. Even if the command structure doesn’t date back to 1947, their statement to Gates is still accurate.

    Here’s a command chart.

32. #32
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    I wish more people would go back and review the serious fallout that happened after the tail-hook investigation by Pat Schroeder; we lost many of our best/most experienced naval aviators which did NOTHING other than put our country at greater risk. It created a hole in our defense preparedness and can therefore only be considered as aid and comfort to the enemy.

    To me, this current witchhunt is even worse and is likely to do even more harm in the long run if it cannot be nipped in the bud by John Q Public.

    I’m ready to give the PC elitist jihadist boot licking commanders the hell they deserve for bringing any charges in the first place. That’s what these SEALS want and deserve from all of us.

33. #33
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Let’s see, John Kerry was a war hero for fragging himself and consorting with the enemy, and the SEALs are criminals for capturing a butcher alive.

    Yeah, Dems in charge.

34. #34
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm, happyscrapper said:

    I’ll wait a while and try again. Very encouraging to know so many are signing this! I still say…take.no.prisoners.

35. #35
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    This is a travesty and a miscarriage of justice!

    I just signed the petition.

36. #36
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, happyscrapper said:

    I just got in and signed. Keep trying.

37. #37
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, TigerLady said:

    Signed. God bless these men.

38. #38
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Gee, if only they were baby seals, the panty wadding hand-wringers would be up in arms over this!

39. #39
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, Hangfire said:

    Signed, no problem.

    I’d rather have one brother that was a Navy Seal than one hundred brothers in the Senate.

    Although, most Seals are a lot uglier than Bubbleheads…………

40. #40
    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm, greenfairie said:

    Done.

41. #41
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, Hangfire said:

    I’d rather have one brother that was a Navy Seal than one hundred brothers in the Senate.

    Outrage coming from Senator Jim Webb in 8,7,6,5,4… /SARC

42. #42
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:02 pm, frostrt said:

    Signed.

    Never mind the court martial; give them a medal for not killing the . . . can’t write it on here. Don’t want to get banned.

43. #43
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pm, tanksoldier said:

    I’m going to have to disagree with most here. I’m a retired career Soldier and NCO, and I have no love for Al Queda.

    They are alleged to have hit him AFTER the was a prisoner, not while capturing him, but it isn’t about the terrorist its about the maintenance of discipline.

    The SEALS are alleged to have coerced witnesses, lied to investigators and their commanders… AND failed to safeguard a prisoner in their custody.

    You cannot have a military force and fail to maintain discipline. The fact that there was a dirtbag terrorist involved doesn’t change the rules.

44. #44
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:34 pm, NC BLUE said:

    I just signed. Tank –you mustknow more than all who have posted here. Probably libs talking points.

45. #45
    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:36 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    tanksoldier said:

    But… if what you say is actually true then WHY would they decline a procedural disciplinary punishment and opt for a court martial? It seems that they are standing on principle so I’m standing with them.

46. #46
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:07 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    So who is going to bring charges against Barack H. Obama for killing Pakistani women and children when he orders Predator strikes across the border?

    I mean if punching out this terrorist scumbag is a court martial offense, then killing women and kiddies in Pakistan would seem to require charges as well…

47. #47
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm, tanksoldier said:

    I just signed. Tank –you mustknow more than all who have posted here. Probably libs talking points.

    Here’s the charge sheet. Read it for yourself:

    http://www.navy.mil/ChargeSheets.pdf

    That’s what they are alleged to have done: Dereliction of duty (not safeguarding the prisoner), Coercion of a witness, and making false official statements (lying to the investigator).

    Not saying they are guilty but their chain of command thinks there is enough evidence for the courts martial.

    …and for the record, neither the Secretary of Defense NOR any of the Joint Chiefs are actually in the chain of command. SECDEF can’t even give lawfully binding orders to service members.

48. #48
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm, tanksoldier said:

    But… if what you say is actually true then WHY would they decline a procedural disciplinary punishment and opt for a court martial? It seems that they are standing on principle so I’m standing with them.

    The burden of proof for an NJP proceeding (Mast for the Navy, Art 15 for the Army, Office Hours for the USMC) is whether the commander believes it is more likely than not that the accused is guilty. Essentially the same as the “preponderance of the evidence” required in lawsuits and other civil proceedings.

    A court-martial requires the “reasonable doubt” standard. So you might get referred under NJP for an alleged crime, but there isn’t enough evidence to support conviction at a trial by court martial. If that is the case and you have the guts to assert your right to trial often the case will get dropped. That’s PROBABLY what the SEALS were hoping would happen.

    A commander is supposed to go into an NJP hearing with an open mind. In theory the accused is innocent until judged guilty. HOWEVER, no commander refers a troop for NJP unless he’s pretty sure of their guilt. Everything happens in-house so the commander knows all about the case before the proceedings even start. Rarely is anything new brought up that changes the outcome of an NJP proceeding.

    So, their chain of command thinks that they are guilty enough for an NJP… AND the prosecuting JAG thinks there is enough for him to win at courts martial.

49. #49
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm, supersean said:

    This is a military trial… there should be no political intervention.

    That being said it is silly that the investigation into the SEALs giving the terrorist chumps a bloody lip was even brought up but if the SEALS lied during the investigation they DO deserve a reprimand for that.

50. #50
    On December 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm, tanksoldier said:

    Remember that the commander who initially decided all this is a SEAL officer himself. He’s been there and done that, probably with some of these very SEALs. A commander can’t KNOW about a breach of discipline and allow it to slide. There are lots of things commanders don’t “officially” know about, but once he is officially informed he HAS to act.

    They aren’t being tried for actions on the battlefield, they are being tried for actions back at base with the prisoner in a cell.

    Even so, people make mistakes and the SEALs are under a lot of stress.

    It’s possible to be found guilty at NJP but no punishment to be imposed, the sentence gets “suspended”. It’s a kind of warning. Even if the sentence is imposed NJP sentences aren’t that harsh… some money, a stripe, some of your free time.

    That’s probably what the commander had in mind when he refereed this incident for NJP: as a warning to the troop involved and his other SEALs to keep themselves under control… without ruining anyone’s career.

    However, when some bunkroll lawyer SEAL decided to push for the courts martial the commander couldn’t back down… that’s even worse for discipline.

51. #51
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, Regulus said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pm, tanksoldier said:

    You are in the minority, but you are not alone.

    Too many people have invested too much emotion into this matter, and don’t want to consider the larger issues involved: to them, the accused SEALs seem to be some kind of gods, not men. And that is where the problem lies.

    According to every news account I have read on this subject, the prosecution has yet to disclose the evidence that led to the charges. Without knowing what that evidence is, there is no way to assess how weak or strong it is. That alone recommends against a rush to judgment.

    Nor do we know who, other than the accuser himself, may be backing the abuse claim. It is likely, however, that there is at least one credible witness (an unidentified Petty Officer has been mentioned in this regard, and there may be one to three other SEALs who may testify as witnesses — although not necessarily for the prosecution).

    The existence of at least one credible witness is supported by the fact that the preliminary investigation led to charges. Otherwise, if all it took was the accusation of some al Qaeda type to lead to a prosecution, anyone and everyone who ever participated in the capture or custodial handling of such people would be either standing before an Admiral’s Mast or awaiting a court martial date.

    Everybody knows that it is de rigeur for captured terrorists to claim to have been abused. Accordingly, there must be safeguards in place to require more than the accuser’s say-so before charges are brought. And yet, despite the existence of such safeguards, the Navy appears to have found enough corroborating evidence to prosecute — to include a charge of lying to investigators — which again suggests the existence of at least one credible witness who doesn’t back up the SEALs’ account of what happened.

    Should we not wait to see what the evidence is, and what the witnesses have to say, before demanding that the charges be summarily dismissed? You don’t offer someone the choice of non-judicial punishment in lieu of court martial unless you believe that you’ve already got the accused dead-to-rights, just like civilian prosecutors don’t offer a plea bargain unless they are convinced that they can convict the accused of something worse.

    This prosecution may amount to nothing. Personally, I hope it does come up empty. I have zero desire to see men who have sacrificed so much to join the ranks of our elite be punished for something they did not do.

    At this point, because not all of the prosecution’s cards are on the table, it’s impossible to make the call either way. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the “gods, not men” point of view — in which case you don’t care about military discipline, or the need to maintain professionalism among our military personnel, or why we have a UCMJ.

    I challenge anyone to find the “Yeah, but he was a really bad guy so he deserved it” exception in the UCMJ when it comes to enforcing the military law requiring the safeguarding of prisoners and the requirement to tell the truth to military investigators. Go ahead. Read the whole code from front to back.

    And when you come up empty, ask yourself whether you really want a United States military that turns a blind eye to its own regulations based on hero-worship and the presumptive infallibility of false gods.

    The accused will get their day in court. They will be able to confront witnesses, rebut evidence against them, and offer witnesses and evidence of their own. I will join all other Americans in the fervent desire to see them acquitted of all charges. That’s how the system works.

    But if the prosecution wins … then the accused must — as military professionals who volunteered to be held subject to our military’s laws — be held accountable for what they have done. You can’t start carving out raw emotion-based exceptions to military discipline and expect to keep a professional force. And that goes double for officers and SOCOM personnel, upon whom the military places the highest standards of conduct.

52. #52
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pm, sunshinerbray said:

    WarEagle82 said:
    One of the “unintended consequences” of this nonsense is likely to be a “take no prisoners” attitude among troops.

    You are exactly right. I have a dear family friend fighting in Afghanistan right now, and and he says one of the phrases of English the detainees know is “I want a lawyer.”

53. #53
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Flyoverman said:

    However, when some bunkroll lawyer SEAL decided to push for the courts martial the commander couldn’t back down… that’s even worse for discipline.

    You speak of integrity. A SEAL, with integrity, who knows he is innocent would insist on a Courts Martial.

    I would. That SEAL’s integrity is more important than his career. No special operator wants a liar on his flank. Proof of his integrity is as important to that SEAL as his weapon.

    P.S. The characterization that the Commander cannot “back down” is a false one. The Commander has the obligation to grant that SEAL his request. It is that SEAL’s right under the UCMJ. No one has the right to drop charges and leave a cloud of doubt over that SEAL’s head.

54. #54
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    These guys smack each other around everyday. Maybe someone should find out what SCARS is. lol. The perp should be grateful they didnt bring him back into the grinder at Coronado and make him do Day1 of BUD/S, because one day there is more than an entire boot camp for other services.

    I havent read all the posts, but these guys arent under house arrest so theres nothing to free them from. They chose a Courts Martial instead of non-judicial punishment. So basically all we’re asking, is for the charges to be dismissed.

55. #55
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:32 pm, Dan Lee said:

    Signed it… I’d like to know why the Seals are on trial, & yet Pelosi,Reid,Dodd,Obama, & a host of other anti-Constitution traitors are still in Government?

56. #56
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, Dan Lee said:

    Hey I have an idea.. You know how they have the cell phone for soldiers projects? Well we could buy cheap little pistols, that barely work enough to qualify as a firearm, & grind off the serial numbers. Then we could mail them to these guys on the front lines. They can put on in the hand of every terrorist they find after they kill them.. That way we won’t have to feed them, house them, or put up with these circus trials..

57. #57
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    and fyi ALWAYS capitalize “SEAL”

    SEA AIR AND LAND

58. #58
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm, swede said:

    Dan Lee said:
    I’d like to know why tThe Seals are on trial, & yet because Pelosi,Reid,Dodd,Obama, & a host of other anti-Constitution traitors are still in Government?

    Answer is inherent in the question, no?

59. #59
    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm, michiganmom said:

    Signed it. Anything to help our brave men and women in the services since the numb-nuts is DC dont care about them.

60. #60
    On December 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    Signed it.

    As a tank company commander, I had options other than Article 15 NJP to enforce discipline that wouldn’t have resulted in the SEALS allegedly involved opting for trial by courts-martial.

    At least Murtha hasn’t jumped up and condemned the SEALS like he did the Marines at Haditha,…

    …yet.

    ECS
    Captain, Armor
    United States Army (Retired)

61. #61
    On December 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pm, sbw999 said:

    Great idea Michelle…signed.

    When exactly did the US lose its mind that would make an arrest of these Seals possible???? Anybody who supports this disgusting prosecution is a despicable kowtowing traitor.

62. #62
    On December 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pm, Bruce said:

    No problems just now signing for myself, my wife, and my son. This is an OUTRAGE!

63. #63
    On December 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, Madam President said:

    I was FINALLY able to sign!

64. #64
    On December 11th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, corkie said:

    tanksoldier, good summary of NJP and court-martial.

    tanksoldier and Regulus, I definitely understand your thoughts about his, but please look at another dimension that’s involved here.

    First, I wish I had the confidence to contend that all convening authorities resist political pressures to proceed towards trial despite lacking a good probability for conviction, but this isn’t the case.

    Unfortunately, if the military doesn’t proceed towards trial then it appears as if they are ‘sweeping it under the rug’ or ‘covering it up.’ If the appearance of a cover up is unacceptable to the powers that be, then a trial results even if the legal case stinks.

    Second, political pressures can often force the hand of those, and only those, influenced by political pressures.

    So, you see? The only reason NOT to apply political pressure is due to concerns that the convening authority isn’t proceeding towards trial as a result of any political pressure yet will be influenced by political pressures to drop the charges.

    Overall, I’m comfortable with that risk. I’d much rather press an ethical convening authority hard in order to make sure that this case really should go to trial. And I’m comfortable with the risk that the convening authority will cave despite having sufficient evidence to get a conviction.

65. #65
    On December 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pm, Dan Lee said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm, swede said:

    Dan Lee said:
    I’d like to know why tThe Seals are on trial, & yet because Pelosi,Reid,Dodd,Obama, & a host of other anti-Constitution traitors are still in Government?

    Answer is inherent in the question, no?

    Was a rhetorical question Swede..

66. #66
    On December 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pm, tanksoldier said:

    No one has the right to drop charges and leave a cloud of doubt over that SEAL’s head.

    Happens all the time that an accused waives NJP and asserts their right to trial by courts martial, and the JAG decides that they don’t have enough for a conviction… and the charges get dropped, or they are convicted of a lesser charge to save face. All a commander needs to “reasonable believe” the accused is guilty is the testimony of a few of his NCOs or POs. At courts martial that won’t usually be enough to convince a court.

    Unfortunately, if the military doesn’t proceed towards trial then it appears as if they are ’sweeping it under the rug’ or ‘covering it up.’ If the appearance of a cover up is unacceptable to the powers that be, then a trial results even if the legal case stinks.

    That’s the thing, they are being TRIED. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. The accused will have their day in court, a court consisting of active duty officers (NOT lawyers) and a senior NCO or PO for the enlisted accused.

67. #67
    On December 11th, 2009 at 7:02 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 1:36 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    tanksoldier said:

    But… if what you say is actually true then WHY would they decline a procedural disciplinary punishment and opt for a court martial? It seems that they are standing on principle so I’m standing with them.

    Along with your question…the next one should be, if they committed each of the acts tanksoldier describes, then why were they ONLY going to get essentially an Article 15 rather than a Court Martial from the start?

    Command Influence and piling on since they wanted a Court Martial?

68. #68
    On December 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On December 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, Regulus said:

    I will join all other Americans in the fervent desire to see them acquitted of all charges. That’s how the system works.

    Unless you are a Marine named Chessani. Then you get hauled before venue after venue without regard to previous rulings, trial outcomes or acquittals.

69. #69
    On December 11th, 2009 at 7:31 pm, corkie said:

    That’s the thing, they are being TRIED. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. The accused will have their day in court, a court consisting of active duty officers (NOT lawyers) and a senior NCO or PO for the enlisted accused.

    What??

    So if I was a prosecutor it would be ok for me to try you for molesting a child simply because you’ll have your day in court – a court consisting of a jury of your peers?????

    There’s nothing wrong with trying to get the charges dropped. Let’s see how much the convening authority believes in this case.

70. #70
    On December 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm, swede said:

    Dan Lee said:
    Was a rhetorical question Swede..

    I know, just having some fun with the semantics.

71. #71
    On December 11th, 2009 at 10:31 pm, prendad said:

    Petition signed with pleasure. It is the absolute least I can do. I am embarassed about what is happening to our troops.
    This political BS has gone FAR ENOUGH. Free these men and stop giving terrorist murderers special treatment. It is time to MAN-UP here without idiot politician’s intervention into affairs that they are completely ignorant about. It is easy to sit in an armchair and wax eloquent about the “rights” of terrorists. It is quite another to take to the battlefield, hunt them down while risking your life, capture them, bring them back alive to face justice, and then have some ninny trump up a list of idiotic charges against you.
    I was in the Navy for almost 30 years. I made a few honest mistakes and I took my lumps for them. But, I never, never could have done my job with a herd of jag lawyers, politicians, and reporters second-guessing every frigging move I made, every command I gave, and every action I took on a daily basis. This is the travesty today’s military men have to live with. Trying to fight a war where the rules change by the hour is idiocy. There is only one true rule of war. Win, at any cost, or suffer the ultimate consequence. . .defeat and subjugation and death at the hands of your enemy.
    Are you prepared to defend America and it’s citizens against our enemies, foreign and domestic President Obama? Are you prepared to do what President Truman did if need be? I wonder.

72. #72
    On December 12th, 2009 at 8:53 am, jangar said:

    Dear Secretary Gates…

    …I’m afraid, has gone to the dark side, or is well on his way. No longer does he speak in absolutes, but is sounding more like The One who is over him.

73. #73
    On December 12th, 2009 at 10:40 am, 24Klady said:

    How they can convince anyone to reenlist is beyond me. Their own cic talks in riddles about winning this war so I’ve said since early summer – bring them home, leave both countries to fight it out amongst themselves, but destroy every airfield, building, piece of equipment that cannot be brought home and leave the whole area to sandflies.

    I can’t imagine what it costs to train a SEAL but it has to be staggering. To uphold their reputation is priceless. God bless and keep all that are serving safe.

    Going over now to sign the petition.

74. #74
    On December 12th, 2009 at 11:46 am, Hulka said:

    neither the Secretary of Defense NOR any of the Joint Chiefs are actually in the chain of command. SECDEF can’t even give lawfully binding orders to service members.

    Tanksoldier, please clarify: Under the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1968, weren’t the theater CINCs placed under the command of the Sec Def? That would mean the theater CINCs work for, are under the command of, the Sec Def, not their service-specific Chief of Staff or Secretariat.

    This would mean the theater CINC does not need approval from his service chief, or the CJCS, but only the Sec Def when planning and conducting operations. That would mean the Sec Def gives the theater CINC orders. Right?

    Thanks.

75. #75
    On December 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm, corkie said:

    Hulka,

    I think Goldwater-Nichols was in 1986 and adjusted the powers of the Joint Chiefs, but you’re definitely right about the theater CINCs reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense now (although I don’t think they’re called CINCs anymore).

    And good catch regarding tanksoldier’s claim about the Secretary of Defense not being in the chain of command at all (I missed it). That is definitely incorrect.

76. #76
    On December 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm, shooter said:

    Going be these obama inspired rules, we would have to ‘Courts Martial’ EVERY COP ever in a car chase in the USofA,( and 98% of all the other arrests).
    You ever see a car chase that does NOT end with cops roughing up the runner????

    Imagine for a moment if we allowed every criminal to make accusations like this… just on the streets of America.

    But the worst of the worst terrorist can accuse a SEAL of hitting him in the stomach, somehow getting a fat lip from that, and some one actually listened to him?
    Is this OBAMARULE # 6?

    Yeah, lets let this ‘rule’ take precedent on our streets as well.

    WHO?
    WHO could do this to our troops? A SEAL?
    WHO?
    .
    .
    Where would this be if President G. W. BUSH were in office today?
    Thrown out with the trash which made the accusation.

77. #77
    On December 13th, 2009 at 8:26 am, gunslingerpatriot said:

    The one issue that has been implied on this thread is why the SEALS are requesting a SCM vice NJP.

    For each person that has faced the possibilty of going through NJP or requesting an SCM, they each have their own reasons. In my case (June 1996), after seeing the new CO, a previous charge dismissed at XOI by him, and the number of personnel that were suddenly going to Captain’s Mast within two weeks of him assuming command-the answer became obvious.

    Every TAD/TDY was written up (I was the last one), PO1′s without a blemish on their records and a few others were charged with a offenses that were quickly dismissed at the “Chief’s Disicplinary Review Board”. The sad thing is that there was no CDRB’s being held at that time.

    So when your XO (new CO) states that he’s going to bust you the first time he gets the chance, the crow on your sleeve is a joke and that you are the most pathetic ‘Corpsman he’s ever seen at a previous XOI. The answer becomes obvious and you get the situation away from him and into the hands of a disinterested third party to handle it. Several times the prosecutor wanted to drop the case and yet the command wasn’t willing to do it. Even my attorneys couldn’t understand why the command was still going forward and I told them this is why I didn’t want the NJP.

    In the end, I was vindicated and yet still paid a price with an adverse evaluation that followed me for the rest of my career.

    If I had to go through it all over again, I would still choose the SCM and protect my patient despite being used as a pawn by “Spike”.

    GSP

78. #78
    On December 13th, 2009 at 9:57 am, Hulka said:

    Thanks, corkie.

79. #79
    On December 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am, corkie said:

    That’s the thing, they are being TRIED. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. The accused will have their day in court, a court consisting of active duty officers (NOT lawyers) and a senior NCO or PO for the enlisted accused.

    I have to say that this statement really bothers me.

    Think about the Duke lacrosse players.

    Just because they weren’t going to be denied their day in court doesn’t mean that it was ok to allow Mike Nifong to move foward with a trial.

80. #80
    On December 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm, Major O said:

    What goes unsaid all too often is that this is the MO of the enemy and it is working to great effect: use the liberties that the West champions against them and when you’ve gained the majority, promptly dismiss with those liberties for the Westerners. When it happens, recognize it for what it is.

    I was listening to a show today and the host (himself a committed Christian scholar, pastor, and American) mentioned that he wrote a respected Muslim scholar to get his take on why the “Muslim world” was outraged/upset by the minaret ban in Switzerland since in countries run by Muslims, other religions are not allowed ANY religious freedom, by and large. On what grounds could Muslim’s complain about the lack of “religious liberty”? The Muslim scholar’s response was (paraphrasing) “the outrage was over the inconsistency of the West: we say we’re for liberty, but then we deny them the freedom to build a type of mosque in Switzerland. At least in Saudi Arabia, for example, they don’t advertise religious freedom, so there’s no ‘hypocrisy’ to be outraged over.”

    This is their mindset. Use the tools of Western civilization, esp “civil rights” to their advantage and crow about injustice up until such time as you own the joint and then throw the former bums out and deny them the liberties you once clamored for yourself.

    Cliche, I know, but as has been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and on a smaller level, this reeks of the same insanity.