Look it really is simple and I would like to see how those who served in the military weigh in on my position. You keep mentioning the need for me to research the role & responsibility of a court martial convening authority… I respond I’ve lived it… have you?

Recap: There MUST NOT be outside interference on our military command structure. This DOES impact the integrity AND effectiveness of our operational capabilities. If the SEALs are innocent it will come out in their trial… no harm no foul and thanks to the support of those like Michelle Malkin they are getting representation not commonly afforded to our men & women in uniform.

Recap: I AM NOT debating the facts on this case… I am questioning why the validity of this case is being debated without access to the facts.. WE DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS so how can WE DEBATE the FACTS?

Do you know that they did more than punch the prisoner? I do not so I cannot debate this with you.

Do you know that they did not lie or attempt to cover up their actions? I do not so I cannot debate this with you.

I pray that they did not perform the deeds they are charged with, are found not guilty and return to their honorable service of killing or capturing the bad guys.

On December 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am, supersean said:

The analogy I am using to support my case is that if you are WRONGLY charged with murder but lie to investigators.

I’ve always understood the point that you’re trying to make.

Are you claiming to KNOW that they lied to the investigators? Speak up if you are.

If not, then your point doesn’t counter anything I’m saying.

2. Lets not make this a personal issue and debate the issue at hand. Rather continue to pry on who I am and my military service(Ive shared here many times before)discuss your points and lets debate them.

YOU used your previous position of command responsibility to enhance your own credibility by stating,

If you were in a position of command responsibility like I was, you would appreciate my main point…

You stated that MM and many commenters couldn’t appreciate your main point simply because they’d never had command responsibility.

If you retract this statement, then I will gladly stop asking you to describe your command responsibility.

I appreciate your time in the military and don’t doubt that you had leadership responsibilities as an officer. However, I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to claim that others on here aren’t qualified to discuss a topic simply because they were never a commanding officer of a military unit – especially since I don’t think you ever commanded a unit.

Certainly, you would agree that former JAG officers would be qualified to discuss this – even if they’ve never had command responsibility. Right?

I NEVER said that they lied (or did anything wrong to the prisoners) I am simply discussing the merits of charges being raised against them.

Do you have access to the investigation documents? If not, then how the heck are you able to comment on the merits of the charges being raised against them.

Nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody on here is trying to claim that lying to investigators isn’t a chargeable offense.

Is that your only point? Are you merely claiming that lying to investigators is a UCMJ violation?

Would it make you happy if every commenter on here acknowledged that fact prior to making their points?

Now, did you research the responsibilities of a court martial convening authority? Do you now understand that they have to determine if the evidence of the violation warrants a court martial? Do you understand that this is true even if the suspected violation is lying to investigators?

I am concerned that a charge being run UP the chain of command is being debated here on the blogsphere.

Why? It’s a silly concern.

I do NOT think this is the forum to question it

I think this is the perfect forum to question it.

(nor do I blame Michelle directly for this unravelling but this is another thread IMHO)

It’s great that you don’t blame Michelle for unraveling something which hasn’t been unraveled.

share YOUR experience that would counter my points.

Experience doesn’t counter points of fact!!!

The facts and analysis that I’m providing stand on their own.

I would gladly share my experience if we differed in opinion, but I’m still trying to get you to admit facts.

1. your post #47 shows that YOU are unable to comrehend the concepts I am relaying. The analogy I am using to support my case is that if you are WRONGLY charged with murder but lie to investigators.

2. Lets not make this a personal issue and debate the issue at hand. Rather continue to pry on who I am and my military service(Ive shared here many times before)discuss your points and lets debate them.

3. The charges against the SEALs were brought up because they are being accused of lying during the course of the investigation. I NEVER said that they lied (or did anything wrong to the prisoners) I am simply discussing the merits of charges being raised against them.

4. I am concerned that a charge being run UP the chain of command is being debated here on the blogsphere. I do NOT think this is the forum to question it (nor do I blame Michelle directly for this unravelling but this is another thread IMHO) Rather that you shouting insults…. debate this point if you disagree also share YOUR experience that would counter my points. That is the beauty and the value of this forum!

On December 21st, 2009 at 9:59 am, supersean said:

If you do everything you should do with honor on the battlefield but lie or make false statements during the course of an investigation to cover up for a buddy or minimize a perceived misdeed this is what can be referred to as selective honor.

YOU DON’T KNOW THAT THEY LIED OR COVERED UP ANYTHING!

On December 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am, supersean said:

If the SEALs did the right thing on the battlefield but lied or attempted to cover up when the investigation occurred…. there is clear and unwavering guidance as to how this investigation is to move UP the chain of command.

This is a stupid sentence.

That’s like stating, “IF the suspect murdered the victim, then it’s ok to prosecute him.”

How does that first IF get determined?

prosecutor discretion not applicable in the USMJ

Are you insane? You’re 100% WRONG about this.

Please do all of us here a favor and research the responsibilities of a court-martial convening authority before you post another comment.

Convening authorities have to determine whether or not there’s enough evidence to ethically prosecute a case (to proceed with a court martial). Such determinations may be highly influenced by political pressures. That’s what’s at stake here.

If the general public or the political spectrum is allowed to interfere with the USMJ process…

Where the heck have you been all your life? Are you honestly attempting to claim that the “political spectrum” has never influenced a convening authority?

what Michelle or any other commenter feels is not fair WILL become an unraveling of one of the most critical aspects of our nations military… the effectiveness of the chain of command.

Hogwash.

You’re embarrassing yourself by claiming that Michelle Malkin “WILL” unravel the effectiveness of the military chain of command. Feel free to retract this statement.

And again, please provide us some specifics about your position of command responsibility.

To define this portion of my post

you cannot serve with honor only when you want to

One of the proudest attributes of the men & women who serve our country is the honor and integrity they display in their service. If you do everything you should do with honor on the battlefield but lie or make false statements during the course of an investigation to cover up for a buddy or minimize a perceived misdeed this is what can be referred to as selective honor.

You must be honest and serve with integrity at all times. Anyone who has served in any capacity has seen this in action.

Well.. reading comprehension is obviously not your skill set. Let me make it a bit simpler for you… also read Article 107.

If the SEALs did the right thing on the battlefield but lied or attempted to cover up when the investigation occurred…. there is clear and unwavering guidance as to how this investigation is to move UP the chain of command.

If the general public or the political spectrum is allowed to interfere with the USMJ process… what Michelle or any other commenter feels is not fair WILL become an unraveling of one of the most critical aspects of our nations military… the effectiveness of the chain of command. Like I said in my previous post I think it is appropriate to highlight that the case is occurring and provide a link to the SEALs defense fund.

Also.. you and other here keep bringing up the Duke Lacrosse cases as a reference to how there can be a wrongly prosecuted politically motivated case (which the Duke case was) but this is an apples to maple syrup comparison as prosecutor discretion not applicable in the USMJ. Different justice system… different set of rules.

I had 6 years in the USN 2 as an enlisted 4 as an officer in various logistics roles…. and you?

What the heck is this supposed to mean?

you would appreciate my main point that if the guys lied during the investigation…Article 107 lies the frame work for what punishment would be appropriate for them and you cannot serve with honor only when you want to.

That sentence doesn’t even make sense.

And why shouldn’t this matter be debated? It’s a good think the Duke lacrosse case was debated here and elsewhere. A politically motivated case was derailed. If this case is politically motivated (and you DON’T know that it isn’t), then it needs to be derailed.

Since your throwing your professional opinion around, please provide us some specifics about your position of command responsibility.

In my personal and profession opinion this matter should not be debated in the blogsphere. Michelle can bring up the point and offer assistance to those involved but no one should make this a political discussion

On December 18th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, ssnark said:

You have to have lived with military justice to understand that the operative word is justice, and not law

Really? Because I have lived with military justice, and I don’t understand why the heck justice would be a more operative word than law. Please attempt to explain what the heck you meant.

The Duke Lacrosse team was caught up in a legal system. Which operates under a different set of circumstances than a military justice system as is apparent by the various Haditha verdicts

Not at all. Both cases have authorities making the decision to prosecute, and that’s what is at issue here.

I really don’t understand this mentality.

You have to have lived with military justice to understand that the operative word is justice, and not law

I’m happy that people didn’t feel this way about the men of the Duke lacrosse team.

The Duke Lacrosse team was caught up in a legal system. Which operates under a different set of circumstances than a military justice system as is apparent by the various Haditha verdicts

Too many military issues are influenced by politics all the time. Why should there be any reason to believe that this issue is any different? Actually, given the fact that “prisoner treatment” issues are currently a ‘hot button’ for the military, it should be assumed that it’s impossible for this case to not be politically influenced.

A good point and unfortunately politics (especially racial politics) was the driving force to unfairly convict the Duke LAX team in the court of public opinion and three guys nearly had their lives ruined by various associated indivuduals.

Unfortunately I suspect this might happen to the three Seals and pray that I am wrong. I will currently give these three guys the benefit of the doubt until the evidence dictates otherwise.

GSP

On December 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm, Dan Lee said:

Tell me why if Bin Laden & his group were actually responsible for 9/11, the FBI does not accuse him of it here?

Great question. The only possible answer is that Bin Laden & his group are lying about being actually responsible for 9/11.