1st Seal acquitted of "brutality" charges

[raider1]

I am ecstatic over the acquittal of the first SEAL to stand court martial for the alleged "Brutality" on the terror suspect...

This is what I was wondering though... Has anyone heard or has anything been said about the background of the "whistleblower?" I can't shake this feeling that at some point (or points) he tried to be a SEAL, but washed out, was bitter about it, and when he saw what he thought was a chance to "get even" he took it.... IDK for sure, I was just wondering if anyone out there knows or has heard about it...

 

[LancasterBomber]

I am ecstatic over the acquittal of the first SEAL to stand court martial for the alleged "Brutality" on the terror suspect...

This is what I was wondering though... Has anyone heard or has anything been said about the background of the "whistleblower?" I can't shake this feeling that at some point (or points) he tried to be a SEAL, but washed out, was bitter about it, and when he saw what he thought was a chance to "get even" he took it.... IDK for sure, I was just wondering if anyone out there knows or has heard about it...

But defence counsel claimed that the witness's story was not backed up by anyone else who had been in the room. They suggested that Mr Abed might have inflicted a wound on himself to implicate American troops in violence, saying that photographs showed he had a cut on his lip but no signs of injuries anywhere else.

I've heard better defence counsel arguments in high school debating contests.

 

[chrisdef]

I am ecstatic over the acquittal of the first SEAL to stand court martial for the alleged "Brutality" on the terror suspect...

This is what I was wondering though... Has anyone heard or has anything been said about the background of the "whistleblower?" I can't shake this feeling that at some point (or points) he tried to be a SEAL, but washed out, was bitter about it, and when he saw what he thought was a chance to "get even" he took it.... IDK for sure, I was just wondering if anyone out there knows or has heard about it...

Sounds more like your bitter about something to me.
Its not exactly a big secret alot of horrible things have been done by US troops and that quite often they get away with it. Abu Ghraib would be one of the biggest and most public yet despite a bunch of deaths of people in custody and the whole torture thing the majority of people got away with no punishment at all.
It wouldnt surpise me if it happened just like the witness said it did.

 

[StevoJH]

Sounds more like your bitter about something to me.
Its not exactly a big secret alot of horrible things have been done by US troops and that quite often they get away with it. Abu Ghraib would be one of the biggest and most public yet despite a bunch of deaths of people in custody and the whole torture thing the majority of people got away with no punishment at all.
It wouldnt surpise me if it happened just like the witness said it did.

Agreed. Remember a while back when the US refused to let US Servicemen be tried by the Hague? Its ok for everyone else to be tried by the hague, but apparrently the US is too good.

 

[chrisdef]

Agreed. Remember a while back when the US refused to let US Servicemen be tried by the Hague? Its ok for everyone else to be tried by the hague, but apparrently the US is too good.

Yeah that is pathetic. As far as im concerned the US should be excluded from alot of things untill they decide they are actually apart of the world and not above the rest of us.

 

[Gremlin29]

Yeah that is pathetic. As far as im concerned the US should be excluded from alot of things untill they decide they are actually apart of the world and not above the rest of us.

As far as most Americans are concerned exclussion from alot of things would be a welcome change.

 

[chrisdef]

As far as most Americans are concerned exclussion from alot of things would be a welcome change.

Since when? You guys are the first to butt into anything even if your told to stay out of it.
But i guess that could be your govt and not what most Americans actually want, maybe you guys in the US should actually tell your govt that.

 

[OPSSG]

Since when? You guys are the first to butt into anything even if your told to stay out of it.
But i guess that could be your govt and not what most Americans actually want, maybe you guys in the US should actually tell your govt that.

For some reason that I am not entirely clear, you are not happy with American foreign and defence policies. I will not comment on that. However, you are trying to personalise a discussion on a country at an individual level in your reply to another American forum member. This sort of approach is not usually appreciated as it is entirely inter-subjective and it becomes an opportunity to vent your unnamed frustrations.

If you personalise discussions, forum members of other nationalities will eventually react. IMO, personalising discussions on policies of countries the way you are doing will eventually turn this discussion into a pissing contest - unless it that is your aim. Read the forum rules and dial back your responses before posting again.

 

[chrisdef]

For some reason that I am not entirely clear, you are not happy with American foreign and defence policies. I will not comment on that. However, you are trying to personalise a discussion on a country at an individual level in your reply to another American forum member. This sort of approach is not usually appreciated as it is entirely inter-subjective and it becomes an opportunity to vent your unnamed frustrations.

If you personalise discussions, forum members of other nationalities will eventually react. IMO, personalising discussions on policies of countries the way you are doing will eventually turn this discussion into a pissing contest - unless it that is your aim. Read the forum rules and dial back your responses before posting again.

??? Where did i personalise anything? I said GUYS as in Americans. Maybe i should of been more specific but i thought it was quite obvious.

And im sorry if Americans dont like it (if thats what your worried about) but facts are facts its not like im making up random insults or anything. I really dont understand your objection.
Are you saying we cant discuss facts that may cause others to be upset? I realize web sites arent a democracy and we really have no free speach but its abit sad if you want us to ignore things just so we dont upset the American majority.

Im honestly not trying to cause trouble or an argument so feel free to delete these posts but i will say its pretty bad to stop people commenting on touchy subjects incase someone reacts, if someone does react badly they get banned or whatever, pretty simple. You shouldnt stop the discussions being had incase childish people cant control themselves.

 

[Bonza]

??? Where did i personalise anything? I said GUYS as in Americans. Maybe i should of been more specific but i thought it was quite obvious.

And im sorry if Americans dont like it (if thats what your worried about) but facts are facts its not like im making up random insults or anything. I really dont understand your objection.
Are you saying we cant discuss facts that may cause others to be upset? I realize web sites arent a democracy and we really have no free speach but its abit sad if you want us to ignore things just so we dont upset the American majority.

Im honestly not trying to cause trouble or an argument so feel free to delete these posts but i will say its pretty bad to stop people commenting on touchy subjects incase someone reacts, if someone does react badly they get banned or whatever, pretty simple. You shouldnt stop the discussions being had incase childish people cant control themselves.

Well mate, generally we try to steer away from political discussions (and yours sounds like a political contention, yes?) on this forum for the precise reason that it inevitably gets out of hand and causes tempers to flare. Because this is a military forum, the focus is on military rather than political or moral issues - and while I'm aware that morality, politics and the military are inevitably intertwined and would love for some issues to be able to be discussed maturely on the forums, it's not really the right place for it and tends to derail promising conversations into massive arguments. Fair enough?

I don't think you were trying to personalise things (you did, after all, draw the distinction between the people and the government) but I hope you understand why issues such as the ones being discussed often have a short shelf life on the forums.

 

[chrisdef]

Well mate, generally we try to steer away from political discussions (and yours sounds like a political contention, yes?) on this forum for the precise reason that it inevitably gets out of hand and causes tempers to flare. Because this is a military forum, the focus is on military rather than political or moral issues - and while I'm aware that morality, politics and the military are inevitably intertwined and would love for some issues to be able to be discussed maturely on the forums, it's not really the right place for it and tends to derail promising conversations into massive arguments. Fair enough?

I don't think you were trying to personalise things (you did, after all, draw the distinction between the people and the government) but I hope you understand why issues such as the ones being discussed often have a short shelf life on the forums.

Fair enough and thank you for your explanation.

I think the thread should be locked then as i dont see the point of it. Does the OP just want everyone to give a big thumbs up or something? If there is going to be any discussion on the subject there will almost surely be disagreements on political or moral grounds so may as well lock it now.

 

[chrisdef]

I just want to add too while i do have some problems with some of there policies i have no problem with American's in general (i have been there, nice place with lots of nice people) and im not trying to pick on the US or its citizen's just for the sake of it.

 

[Bonza]

Fair enough and thank you for your explanation.

I think the thread should be locked then as i dont see the point of it. Does the OP just want everyone to give a big thumbs up or something? If there is going to be any discussion on the subject there will almost surely be disagreements on political or moral grounds so may as well lock it now.

Not sure mate, but I think the OP's implication that the "whistleblower" had some vendetta against the Navy SEALs isn't much of a thing to say without any information, seems like an effort to diminish the credibility of the charges.

That said this is exactly the sort of topic that can go south very quickly... lots of strong opinions. I agree with you, in that arguments would almost certainly be on the basis of moral or political grounds. I'm sure the mods are keeping their eyes on it.

 

[Gremlin29]

??? Where did i personalise anything? I said GUYS as in Americans. Maybe i should of been more specific but i thought it was quite obvious.

And im sorry if Americans dont like it (if thats what your worried about) but facts are facts its not like im making up random insults or anything. I really dont understand your objection.
Are you saying we cant discuss facts that may cause others to be upset? I realize web sites arent a democracy and we really have no free speach but its abit sad if you want us to ignore things just so we dont upset the American majority.

Im honestly not trying to cause trouble or an argument so feel free to delete these posts but i will say its pretty bad to stop people commenting on touchy subjects incase someone reacts, if someone does react badly they get banned or whatever, pretty simple. You shouldnt stop the discussions being had incase childish people cant control themselves.

Unless you were in the room with the SEAL's which I highly doubt, you have NO FACTS and that, is a fact. They should be grateful these detainee's aren't getting the treatment they give? If one gives no quarter, should one expect it?

 

[chrisdef]

Unless you were in the room with the SEAL's which I highly doubt, you have NO FACTS and that, is a fact. They should be grateful these detainee's aren't getting the treatment they give? If one gives no quarter, should one expect it?

Just as was said this thread should of been deleted, oh well i tried.

Nope i wasnt in the room but neither was the original OP so should he not of posted it?

The FACT is whether you like it or not plenty of people involved in bad things from the US have got away without any punishment, its just as likely this guy did to, maybe he didnt but you dont know that either unless you where there.

And sure you can act like the terrorist's but if you act like them you basically are one, so take your pick follow the rules of the world the US is a signatory too such as the Geneva conventions, or be a terrorist state doing the same things terrorists do. You cant have it both way's.

 

[Gremlin29]

Just as was said this thread should of been deleted, oh well i tried.

Nope i wasnt in the room but neither was the original OP so should he not of posted it?

The FACT is whether you like it or not plenty of people involved in bad things from the US have got away without any punishment, its just as likely this guy did to, maybe he didnt but you dont know that either unless you where there.

And sure you can act like the terrorist's but if you act like them you basically are one, so take your pick follow the rules of the world the US is a signatory too such as the Geneva conventions, or be a terrorist state doing the same things terrorists do. You cant have it both way's.

It is my understanding that this individual doesn't/didn't qualify as a protected person under the Geneva Convention that the US signed, he did not represent a government, was not wearing a uniform or otherwise distinctive device etc or in short, does not fall into the protected category as detailed in the agreement. Be that as it may, we can surely discuss the Geneva Convention as it applies to this story, it may be more appropriate to the topic than pointing out the imperfections of the US and it's dealings abroad. Personally, I think the Geneva Convention is something we should never have signed, none of our POW's since it's signing have been afforded the protections it promises but that could be a totally different topic so I digress.

In this case, since we weren't involved in the reported act we have to take someone's word for what happened. Personally I'd choose the SEAL's version of the story; they are known for many things and unscrupulous isn't one of those things which is, something we can not say about the individual who claims he was beaten up.

 

[chrisdef]

It is my understanding that this individual doesn't/didn't qualify as a protected person under the Geneva Convention that the US signed, he did not represent a government, was not wearing a uniform or otherwise distinctive device etc or in short, does not fall into the protected category as detailed in the agreement. Be that as it may, we can surely discuss the Geneva Convention as it applies to this story, it may be more appropriate to the topic than pointing out the imperfections of the US and it's dealings abroad. Personally, I think the Geneva Convention is something we should never have signed, none of our POW's since it's signing have been afforded the protections it promises but that could be a totally different topic so I digress.

In this case, since we weren't involved in the reported act we have to take someone's word for what happened. Personally I'd choose the SEAL's version of the story; they are known for many things and unscrupulous isn't one of those things which is, something we can not say about the individual who claims he was beaten up.

The claims of them not being covered under the Geneva conventions are basically an attempt by the US to get around its moral obligations.
As far as i can see (you welcome to check for yourself) there is no "unlawfull combatants" article in the Conventions, that is a made up term by the US.
Legally they need to either be classified as POW's or as Civilians.

Otherwise it also opens up the argument that basically anyone with a gun who isnt in a uniform from the Coalition side including contractors are also "unlawfull combatants" and have no rights.

The other point to make is many people high in the military connected with Abu Ghraib have admitted upto 90% of people who went through there (and other US facilities) turned out to be innocent civilians anyway. Again do a simple search and you will many quotes yourself.

And lastly yes, i admit generally ide be likely to believe a SEAL over a random guy in the street BUT when so many other well respected people have lied (and got away with it) about other bad things that have happened i wont believe things that easy anymore.

Thats what happens when you do bad things and ruin your reputation.

 

[Gremlin29]

We aren't discussing Abu Ghraib, completely different time, circumstance and type of people involved. The GC I through IV clearly describes who is, and is not a protected person which is what the GC is all about. In this case in particular, the invididual in question was not a protected person.

There are many people that are well respected that have done nothing to earn the respect they receive. SEAL's on the other hand, have done much to EARN the respect they have, at least by the people that have a modicom of understanding of what it takes to become one in the first place.

Going back to the GC, it has many flaws in it's language, and is a poorly constructed group of documents. The intent is to protect non-combatants ie civlians, and to setup a minimum standard of care for POW's. Unfortunately when lawyers get their hands on documents it becomes an excercise in what they can convey is the actual meaning of a particular word and how it may alter the most common interprutation of what it means, versus what it's intended purposes was.

Otherwise it also opens up the argument that basically anyone with a gun who isnt in a uniform from the Coalition side including contractors are also "unlawfull combatants" and have no rights.

This is not correct. Under the GC these persons are protected because they are represented by a contracting party, in another contracting parties country and the GC is very clear on this.

 

[chrisdef]

We aren't discussing Abu Ghraib, completely different time, circumstance and type of people involved. The GC I through IV clearly describes who is, and is not a protected person which is what the GC is all about. In this case in particular, the invididual in question was not a protected person.

Everyone is a protected person, that is the point of it. Otherwise they would specifically make a section on "unlawfull combatants". The difference back when it was written was most "unlawfull combatants" where on the US side (ie French resistance ect).
And Simply ignoring Abu Ghraib is quite sad, so despite numerous disgusting things happening there including rape and torture your 100% sure it could never of happened in this case just because it was a different time and place?

There are many people that are well respected that have done nothing to earn the respect they receive. SEAL's on the other hand, have done much to EARN the respect they have, at least by the people that have a modicom of understanding of what it takes to become one in the first place.

LOL how does being an elite soldier deserve any respect on Moral grounds? I totally respect them as soldier's and would never want to get into a fight with them. But that has no bearing on whether they are morally good people or not. Especially in the middle of a war zone, and with most Americans under the delusional belief they are getting revenge for 9/11.

This is not correct. Under the GC these persons are protected because they are represented by a contracting party, in another contracting parties country and the GC is very clear on this

And how exactly is it possible for any civilian resistance groups to ever to fight back then? I dont see how in the midle of a war they are going to be able to be "represented by a contracting party, in another contracting parties country "?

 

[Gremlin29]

Everyone is a protected person, that is the point of it. Otherwise they would specifically make a section on "unlawfull combatants". The difference back when it was written was most "unlawfull combatants" where on the US side (ie French resistance ect).
And Simply ignoring Abu Ghraib is quite sad, so despite numerous disgusting things happening there including rape and torture your 100% sure it could never of happened in this case just because it was a different time and place?

I'm curious, with the brain trust involved in writing these articles, wouldn't they have been smart enough to have simply stated that "everyone" was a protected person?

Not sure if you understand this or not but the US did not write the GC, blame the Swiss. And yes, there's a vast gulf between National Guard MP's, and Navy SEAL's. Do you seriously not know this?

LOL how does being an elite soldier deserve any respect on Moral grounds? I totally respect them as soldier's and would never want to get into a fight with them. But that has no bearing on whether they are morally good people or not. Especially in the middle of a war zone, and with most Americans under the delusional belief they are getting revenge for 9/11.

The fact that you would ask such a question shows your ignorance in the matter, I see no value in responding it would be well beyond your comprehension.

Am I supposed to be taken aback by your anti-American sentiment? I'm not. I know many don't like the US for what we do, I'm quite comfortable with that.

And how exactly is it possible for any civilian resistance groups to ever to fight back then? I dont see how in the midle of a war they are going to be able to be "represented by a contracting party, in another contracting parties country "?

I'm disappointed. You obviously haven't even bothered reading the articles of the GC. Preventing armed civilians from uprising following hostilities is one of it's aims, and it's very clear in the articles and supporting documents as to that intent.