They are punished because they broke the law. No, punching the terrorist isn't comparable to what the terrorist did at all, but the law is what it is.

I was wondering if the OP would be so kind as to rename the title Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges Against a Captured Most-Wanted Charges so that it isn't so misleading. Reading it again makes it sound like they captured the guy and in the process hit him and were charged for that.

They should face assault charges if, you know, they're guilty of assault. We'll know if they're guilty of assault if they're taken to court, and by the court's legal analysis. That's the beauty of the rule of law, and why America's justice system, as flawed as it is, is still far more wonderful and fair than many around the world. I'm sorry that many of you people are willing to throw the rule of law out based on the people, and who you think are the "worst of the worst," but that's not how a fair justice system works. You commit a crime, you are charged with said crime, and you are given your time in court. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. Given that many people in Guantanamo are still not given their time in court and might not ever be given it, this doesn't always apply, but that's how it works.

 

I'm sorry that because you think they did something horrible that you believe they should be treated differently in the rule of law, and it's kind of pathetic. I guess we should go back to the days of Kings and Queens.

[bleep] the law, this guy got what he deserved. Just think about it. If Osama is captured, they're going to [bleep]ing DECAPITATE the bastard, and they certainly won't be in trouble for it.

No they wouldn't, because then America would lose it's vaunted 'holier than thou' status. I find it laughable all the people advocating that we should do exactly unto them as they did to us. It just propogates a useless cycle of violence that in the end nobody gains anything from.

 

That 'holier than thou' status was lost the instant we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I stopped reading at "www.foxnews.com".

[bleep] the law, this guy got what he deserved. Just think about it. If Osama is captured, they're going to [bleep]ing DECAPITATE the bastard, and they certainly won't be in trouble for it.

No they wouldn't, because then America would lose it's vaunted 'holier than thou' status. I find it laughable all the people advocating that we should do exactly unto them as they did to us. It just propogates a useless cycle of violence that in the end nobody gains anything from.

 

That 'holier than thou' status was lost the instant we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Don't even start ultima, we can debate this over Steam if you want.

I stopped reading at "www.foxnews.com".

 

Then get the hell outa here instead of spamming useless flames for a stereotype...

I don't get what is wrong here.

 

Soldiers are supposed to uphold American laws and values. By breaking American laws, they committed a crime and must be punished. The fact that the victim was a criminal means nothing.

Yes he does. He has no rights. Especially an international criminal high up on the Most Wanted List. Damn, you gotta be bad to be on that list.

I stopped reading at "www.foxnews.com".

 

Then get the hell outa here instead of spamming useless flames for a stereotype...

He just said he stopped reading after noticing the site name for an honestly biased news network. You're the one getting mad and telling him to get the hell out. He was flaming?

 

It's a shame so many political threads turn into a debate on whether or not Fox is fair or not.

I don't get what is wrong here.

 

Soldiers are supposed to uphold American laws and values. By breaking American laws, they committed a crime and must be punished. The fact that the victim was a criminal means nothing.

 

If someone killed your family and a cop arrested him and the killer was on the most wanted list, but the killer had a bloody lip because the cop was getting him under control the cop should be punished? No, he killed your family and i think you would say screw the law hes a cold blooded murderer, this is what it is like the terriorst killed gaurds mutilated their bodies dragged them in a street and hung them on a bridge for all to see and you say he has rights! He lost his rights, it sickens me that the terriorst gets special treatment and get the seals charged.

In the grand scheme of things, if you zoom out and take a look at the big picture, what the SEALs did was wrong. If you're going to take the law into your own hands (deviate from your command) then make sure nobody finds out, for Pete's sake. It's terrible since the terrorist deserved what he got, but I'm not sure anyone in the combat-level military rank is in the position to decide who deserves what punishment.

I don't get what is wrong here.

 

Soldiers are supposed to uphold American laws and values. By breaking American laws, they committed a crime and must be punished. The fact that the victim was a criminal means nothing.

 

If someone killed your family and a cop arrested him and the killer was on the most wanted list, but the killer had a bloody lip because the cop was getting him under control the cop should be punished? No, he killed your family and i think you would say screw the law hes a cold blooded murderer, this is what it is like the terriorst killed gaurds mutilated their bodies dragged them in a street and hung them on a bridge for all to see and you say he has rights! He lost his rights, it sickens me that the terriorst gets special treatment and get the seals charged.

That's irrelevant, because the SEALS weren't getting him under control when they punched him (I think?). And everyone has rights, that''s how America was founded.

 

Besides that, you're missing the point.

 

How does it look when the savior country mistreats its prisoners? We're all up on our high horse, but we should be okay with letting our soldiers beat up captured criminals?

A simple punch to get a terriorist under control is nothing, and he was being captured when he was punched, cops hit people all the time when they are arresting people to get them under control for their safety and the polices safety.

A simple punch to get a terriorist under control is nothing

It is something, it's against the law and assault.

and he was being captured when he was punched, cops hit people all the time when they are arresting people to get them under control for their safety and the polices safety.

I don't think cops punch people in the face all the time.

Well, I guess we could go to Glenn Beck's America, where war crimes are fun:

 

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911250011

 

That seems to be what a seemingly high number on here are doing, and have long advocated. "Just shoot them in the head!" "The terrorists got what they deserved, who cares what the SEALs did!"

 

It's almost like if the SEALs killed them themselves, you people wouldn't have a problem with it. No wonder America got away with torture and no one cares.

These kind of instances feed directly into the extremist anti-western propaganda that is produced by groups like Al Qaeda. These people already portray things in a way that makes western forces look like brutal, oppressive occupiers who want to rape murder and pillage islamic nations. That is why it's so important that they're seen to hold themselves to the letter of the law and if a law was broken there should be a punishment. To excuse people give extremist groups great propaganda and helps them to recruit more young disillusioned kids to fight their fight, this so-called War on Terror won't be won or lost on the battlefield, people need to believe that what is being offered to them by the western forces is better than what is on offer from the extremists and giving forces a free reign to do as they please will never allow that to happen.

 

Now in this specific case, there has to be a distinction made; was he punched during capture or after capture? There is obviously a subtle difference between the two - if the incident happened during an attempt to capture and it was neccessary to punch the guy to get him then okay, there might be a grey area. If it was after the guy had been captured and was subddued then it is assault under the letter of the law.

 

This kind of brings me on to another thing, the hysteria created when the issue of terrorism is brought up. People seem to think that it's alright to completely ignore the rule of law that nations have had for hundreds of years when it comes to terrorist suspects. People talk about how western-style democracy is the ideal - with our fair and transparent legal systems and human rights however, we're basically trying export those ideals to the nations we have liberated. Yet we then go and throw the=ose very ideals out the window with things like Guantanamo Bay. We don't even put the guys into a position where we can bring them to justice because of their "enemy combatant" status - they should (on a case by case basis) be dealt with as common criminals or as war criminals but instead we make up a legal position to get things all our own way but we ignore how badly that position looks on the outside and how it again feeds into the hands of the extremists.

 

Sorry I've went off on a mini-rant and veered a bit off-topic but it really all does tie together in the grand scheme of how things.

The law was broken though, so the charges are reasonable. I want to know exactly what happened that made one of the SEALs punch him in the face though. Naturally, Ahmed should be charged for what crimes he's done. If the law has been broken, then basically, those who have been indicted should face those charges as such.

 

1_man_army does bring up a good point though, was he punched during or after the capture? There's no proof as to either side in this case, and one man's word vs another's is a tricky situation to defuse. And as a last note, those we capture in another country should have a right to decide where they will face those charges, whether it be in their own country or their captors.

The law was broken though, so the charges are reasonable. I want to know exactly what happened that made one of the SEALs punch him in the face though. Naturally, Ahmed should be charged for what crimes he's done. If the law has been broken, then basically, those who have been indicted should face those charges as such.

 

1_man_army does bring up a good point though, was he punched BEFORE or AFTER the capture? There's no proof as to either side in this case, and one man's word vs another's is a tricky situation to defuse.

It's more than that, it also brings up the question of whether or not the punch was necessary if it was before he was captured. Did the SEALs just wail on him when he put his hands up, or was he struggling to get away when they hit him?

 

The case won't hold up unless there's more evidence than this.

 

Exactly. If it was an unnecessary punch, then yeah, a simple assault charge is in order, nothing more, nothing less. If the terrorist fought back, then by all means, no charges should be filed against the SEALs in the first place.

[bleep] the law, this guy got what he deserved. Just think about it. If Osama is captured, they're going to [bleep]ing DECAPITATE the bastard, and they certainly won't be in trouble for it.

No they wouldn't, because then America would lose it's vaunted 'holier than thou' status. I find it laughable all the people advocating that we should do exactly unto them as they did to us. It just propogates a useless cycle of violence that in the end nobody gains anything from.

 

I agree with this. If America wants to take the moral high-ground, they have to do things by the book.

The law was broken though, so the charges are reasonable. I want to know exactly what happened that made one of the SEALs punch him in the face though. Naturally, Ahmed should be charged for what crimes he's done. If the law has been broken, then basically, those who have been indicted should face those charges as such.

 

1_man_army does bring up a good point though, was he punched BEFORE or AFTER the capture? There's no proof as to either side in this case, and one man's word vs another's is a tricky situation to defuse.

It's more than that, it also brings up the question of whether or not the punch was necessary if it was before he was captured. Did the SEALs just wail on him when he put his hands up, or was he struggling to get away when they hit him?

 

The case won't hold up unless there's more evidence than this.

 

Exactly. If it was an unnecessary punch, then yeah, a simple assault charge is in order, nothing more, nothing less. If the terrorist fought back, then by all means, no charges should be filed against the SEALs in the first place.

On the news show they said that the the punch was to control him, an elite seal group would not wail on a terriorist, there alot more disaplined than that.

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

America isn't the moral kingdom, it's the imperialist empire. If you want to change that, fine, but it's just propaganda.

 

Secondly, this man was a criminal who planned the death of over 3000 people. REMEMBER THAT. He deserves nothing but pain and anguish.

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

America isn't the moral kingdom, it's the imperialist empire. If you want to change that, fine, but it's just propaganda.

 

Secondly, this man was a criminal who planned the death of over 3000 people. REMEMBER THAT. He deserves nothing but pain and anguish.

 

We're well aware of what he planned. "An eye for an eye, and we're all blind". Remember that. To torture him to no end makes us no better. We need to just do this by the book, and punish him through the courts instead of through barbaric tortures.

 

This place never was a moral kingdom. All this country has is a fair and just legal system in place. Let me put it this way: Let's say you stole from someone. Would you like them to steal back from you, and more?

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

America isn't the moral kingdom, it's the imperialist empire. If you want to change that, fine, but it's just propaganda.

 

Secondly, this man was a criminal who planned the death of over 3000 people. REMEMBER THAT. He deserves nothing but pain and anguish.

 

Maybe he deserves nothing but pain and anguish; I certainly don't want to be the one to determine that, nor do I believe I have the capacity to make it. However, do you know what I know for a fact that he deserves? A fair trial.

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

America isn't the moral kingdom, it's the imperialist empire. If you want to change that, fine, but it's just propaganda.

 

Secondly, this man was a criminal who planned the death of over 3000 people. REMEMBER THAT. He deserves nothing but pain and anguish.

 

Maybe he deserves nothing but pain and anguish; I certainly don't want to be the one to determine that, nor do I believe I have the capacity to make it. However, do you know what I know for a fact that he deserves? A fair trial.

Who knows, there's always that microscopic chance he's innocent.

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

America isn't the moral kingdom, it's the imperialist empire. If you want to change that, fine, but it's just propaganda.

 

Secondly, this man was a criminal who planned the death of over 3000 people. REMEMBER THAT. He deserves nothing but pain and anguish.

 

Maybe he deserves nothing but pain and anguish; I certainly don't want to be the one to determine that, nor do I believe I have the capacity to make it. However, do you know what I know for a fact that he deserves? A fair trial.

Was he already convicted? Either way, my posts still stands if he's found guilty.

 

And not everybody can be a judge. Okay. Some can.

 

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

America isn't the moral kingdom, it's the imperialist empire. If you want to change that, fine, but it's just propaganda.

 

Secondly, this man was a criminal who planned the death of over 3000 people. REMEMBER THAT. He deserves nothing but pain and anguish.

No, you're looking at it wrong. He has rights just like you an me, it says so in the Declaration of Independence. Nothing takes that away from him.

 

And its not like this guy Ahmed woke up every morning thinking "Ooh, looks like a good day to be evil!". He was a man with a cause, and happened to have a different way of supporting his cause than what we Westerners think is acceptable. Nothing else. He's not a monster. He's someone who doesn't agree with us and expresses it through violence.

Well, he picked a wrong cause and the totally wrong way of doing it. I really don't think ANYWHERE murdering innocent civilians is an acceptable way to achieve your goals. And the Declaration of Independence should adapt, like all things.

 

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

America isn't the moral kingdom, it's the imperialist empire. If you want to change that, fine, but it's just propaganda.

 

Secondly, this man was a criminal who planned the death of over 3000 people. REMEMBER THAT. He deserves nothing but pain and anguish.

 

We're well aware of what he planned. "An eye for an eye, and we're all blind". Remember that. To torture him to no end makes us no better. We need to just do this by the book, and punish him through the courts instead of through barbaric tortures.

 

This place never was a moral kingdom. All this country has is a fair and just legal system in place. Let me put it this way: Let's say you stole from someone. Would you like them to steal back from you, and more?

Innocent > Innocent = Guilty (> means does a crime against them.)

Innocent > Guilty = Innocent

 

That's how it should work. An eye for an eye makes the guilty blind. The punish-do'ers don't become guilty, there's no reason for that.

We never tried it with a stable judicial system like ours.

 

I think you're thinking about "Innocent until proven guilty" which is nothing what my post said.