Don't be so [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. That terrorist would have gladly killed those SEALS, and then went home and bragged.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahaha. This is EXACTLY what a person in the American army would do if they killed a terrorist. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

 

If someone is acting up, fighting you, or resisting arrest you have the right to do what you need to do.

 

The term Reasonable Force pops into the mind. If someone is mouthing off or acting up they can't just go and pop them in the mouth. That's not how it works. And this sounds like it was AFTER he was arrested, so there was no resisting involved and I presume since he is a terrorist that they won't let him walk around freely so he was probably hand cuffed.

Saru, that's just stupid. What he would have done has done has no bearing on the issue.

It should have all the care in the world. You don't punish innocent people for punishing guilty people. By that stupid logic, all jail guards and judges and juries should be arrest for "wrongly" imprisoning a poor murderer.

No. That's not what I'm saying at all.

 

Those Navy SEALS aren't a jury. They have no right to punish people. That man will be punished (likely with death or a long sentence) by a proper judge and a proper jury.

 

You clearly do not know much about the way military and law enforcment work do you? If someone is acting up, fighting you, or resisting arrest you have the right to do what you need to do. They did not hit him b/c they where punishing him they were restraining him. Both completely different.

We've been through this, I said I was assuming that this was after he was in custody.

Oh, no it wasn't after, he had complained about this after he was in custody but currently there has been no proof of the seals hitting him.

but currently there has been no proof of the seals hitting him.

and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

 

Weak evidence, but possible evidence nonetheless

but currently there has been no proof of the seals hitting him.

and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

 

Weak evidence, but possible evidence nonetheless

 

Prisoners have purposley hit their lip on something or something like the sort to make it look like they where abused, although i do not know if this was the case in this.

but currently there has been no proof of the seals hitting him.

and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

 

Weak evidence, but possible evidence nonetheless

 

Prisoners have purposley hit their lip on something or something like the sort to make it look like they where abused, although i do not know if this was the case in this.

 

Yeah, hence the possible. If it is true, then there's you're evidence, but first they have to prove that it WAS the SEALs

Yup. I agree with everyone here, in that I don't get why terrorists should be given more rights than Navy SEAL heroes. Why shouldn't Navy SEALS be allowed to bypass the law? I mean, they're obviously superhuman. I don't get it people... WTF...

Yup. I agree with everyone here, in that I don't get why terrorists should be given more rights than Navy SEAL heroes. Why shouldn't Navy SEALS be allowed to bypass the law? I mean, they're obviously superhuman. I don't get it people... WTF...

 

Because they broke the law!!!!!![/sarcasm]

And for your second point, I don't really know what to say, except that they are supposed to be afforded judicial rights like everyone else.

Don't misunderstand, military personnel have judicial rights, it's just that military judicial rights and civilian judicial rights are not always the same. If they were then there would be no need for Military Police, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command or the Judge Advocate General's Corps and all military crimes could be tried in civilian courts.

There's also the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I think that's what they go by for things like this.

Yup. I agree with everyone here, in that I don't get why terrorists should be given more rights than Navy SEAL heroes. Why shouldn't Navy SEALS be allowed to bypass the law? I mean, they're obviously superhuman. I don't get it people... WTF...

 

Because they broke the law!!!!!![/sarcasm]

 

 

[insert funny picture of Gregory House]

 

 

 

 

-----------------SARCASM

 

-----It's better than breaking the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, I just did that.

Rocco dont say anything in this thread, ever, from this point forward.

 

Please.

 

Ridiculous, a Navy SEAL, freshed him up. What's wrong ?

 

He broke the law ? Certain people are given certain responsibilities to break the law. The ones that we have to rely on, to do what we cant.

Calm down man. You think that the US Navy SEALS want to be associated with abusing prisoners? That's how these organizations recruit young kids into their ranks.

 

You seem to be forgetting that either way this terrorist fellow will probably get life in prison or the death penalty. It isn't like he's getting off because he got punched in the face. The fact is, the Navy SEALS broke the law, and they have to pay for it. That's the way this country works. The fact that it was a terrorist means nothing. They committed assault, then denied it, so they must be punished.

 

A five across the eyes is hardly abuse.

 

Don't compare this to Abu Ghraib.

 

Okay, sure, they committed "assault" they'll be tried by a military court martial, I'm unsure of the details, but judged by some of fairly like minded people, and if found what they/he did was necessary, then they'll be aquitted.

 

Then what ? You'll rant some more by "justice hasn't been served ?"

So you're allowed to bomb the enemy, but you're not allowed to punch them? lol

So you're allowed to bomb the enemy, but you're not allowed to punch them? lol

lulz! :mrgreen:

So you're allowed to bomb the enemy, but you're not allowed to punch them? lol

 

Some of those bombs kill civilians and really shouldn't be done. Really, to them America is looking pretty terroristy probably. Torture of prisoners? Check. Killing of civilians? Check. Invading their country? Check. Crazy [cabbage] like Abu Ghraib? Check.

So you're allowed to bomb the enemy, but you're not allowed to punch them? lol

Some of those bombs kill civilians and really shouldn't be done. Really, to them America is looking pretty terroristy probably. Torture of prisoners? Check. Killing of civilians? Check. Invading their country? Check. Crazy [cabbage] like Abu Ghraib? Check.

Some of those bombs kill civilians because some of those terrorists set themselves up in civilian areas trying to use the civilians as a shield. In a war, civilians are often collateral damage. It's a sad, unavoidable fact.

 

How many innocent French civilians died while the Allies were trying to remove the Nazi's during WWII? Did/do the French look upon England or America as "terrorists"? No, of course not. The unfortunate realities of war have been dimmed by two, and in some countries three , generations of people who have not had to witness such things and only read about them in history books. The vast majority of people today haven't the slightest comprehension of what war is actually like, myself included.

 

Men like Churchill and Roosevelt, who could make tough decisions for the good of not only their countries, but the world, no longer exist. Now public opinion and approval ratings are what drive political decisions. The SEALs accused of this crime will most likely be prosecuted, defended and judged by men who have never seen battle. Does that seem right?

We're not arguing about who's seem the true horrors of war or how civilians "have" to be killed in the process. I don't even know what you're trying to argue, but I will say this. The Navy SEALS didn't obey the law. Bam. If what they're being prosecuted for is real (I really don't trust FOX to give me my news), then they should obviously be tried for their actions. I don't care if people don't know what it's like to be in a war. People who go to war don't get to torture inmates, and we shouldn't condone that behavior because the majority doesn't know what it's like to right in a war.

Men like Churchill and Roosevelt, who could make tough decisions for the good of not only their countries, but the world, no longer exist. Now public opinion and approval ratings are what drive political decisions. The SEALs accused of this crime will most likely be prosecuted, defended and judged by men who have never seen battle. Does that seem right?

 

If these Marines did assault the detainee after capture then they weren't making a tactical decision that had pros and cons though, they were just beating a detainee. Your comparison doesn't work. If they weren't assaulting the guy or if it was necessary in order to catch him then they'll have no worries because they'll know they're innocent. Also because they're in the military I would presume they'll be judged be members of the military.

 

People seem to be reading more into this than they really need to, the marines either; A) comitted an assault or B ) punched a man in the process of detaining him. The fact that the people being accused are marines or that the man is a suspected terrorist is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case. This isn't a political decision or a witch-hunt against these guys, it is a matter of basic law and if they are innocent they will most likely be found not guilty, if they did commit an assault then they will most likely be found guily. That is the basic function of any legal system and it happens every day in most nations.

...but I will say this. The Navy SEALS didn't obey the law. Bam. If what they're being prosecuted for is real (I really don't trust FOX to give me my news), then they should obviously be tried for their actions.

Well, which is it? One minute you're saying for certain that they didn't obey the law, and the next you're questioning the source of the news report. Don't get me wrong, I don't trust Fox News any further than I could throw a car (I discussed Fox's less than stellar reporting practices back on, I think, page 2), but you can't automatically assume that the SEALs actually did this based off of one person's complaint and one news report.

 

People seem to be reading more into this than they really need to, the marines either; A) comitted an assault or B ) punched a man in the process of detaining him.

Or: C) He did it to himself while in custody and then accused the SEALs. It wouldn't be the first time, you know.

 

Everyone is quick to bring up laws and justice (one person even brought up the U.S. constitution) and begin sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches over this. Here's a founding ideal of the justice system no one has thought to bring forth yet (at least not in so many words): "Innocent until proven guilty". *Not* the other way around. Let's not all be so quick to condemn these men just yet.

 

Of course, when you consider the source of the news report, this event may not have even taken place...

Or: C) He did it to himself while in custody and then accused the SEALs. It wouldn't be the first time, you know.

 

Usually when somebody is arrested (I'm not sure about in military cases), their status is recorded. So if somebody is arrested with say a broken nose for example, it is recorded when they're processed. If that is the case in the military system then it can be easily proven whether it was done while he was in custody or not.

 

Everyone is quick to bring up laws and justice (one person even brought up the U.S. constitution) and begin sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches over this. Here's a founding ideal of the justice system no one has thought to bring forth yet (at least not in so many words): "Innocent until proven guilty". *Not* the other way around. Let's not all be so quick to condemn these men just yet.

 

I'm not condemning the men, I don't know whether they did it or not. My point is a basic matter of principle; nobody is above the law and that the rule of law applies in all cases regardless of who the victim or the perpetrator is. That is the point that has been made by many people in this thread.