3 US Navy seals Charged with Assault
Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
http://www.examiner.com/x-23473-Lexington-Military-Headlines-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d27-3-US-Navy-SEALs-Charged-with-Assault
{EXCERPT} Examiner.com... and turned over to Iraqi law enforcement or military police, to whom the "victim" made the allegations of abuse, and was then returned to US custody....
Naval Service Discussion/News/Info Exchange Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/all-things-navy
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
with our laws this report cannot be provided in
its entirety. However, you can read it in full
today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.
-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634
Military Personnel Database
http://www.amervets.com/library.htm
Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://www.amervets.com/share.htm
Public Information Office
http://www.13105320634.com
David E. Powell
killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
Mark Test
news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> If this is the guy who got caught at Fallujah after being part of the
> killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
It is.....and yes the case is BS.....yet our Pesident is allowing it to
happen.
How our spec forces still operate with this crap hanging over their heads
amazes me......
Mark
Dan
The cost of claiming to be civilized. Your being against civilization
says loads about you.
Dan
Arved Sandstrom
Why are special forces, umm, "special" in this regard? As a
non-"special" soldier/Marine/sailor/airman I wouldn't be allowed to put
the boots to a POW. It's news to me that SEALs have a dispensation to
beat up people in custody.
I'm not sure what "crap" it is that you're talking about, quite frankly.
AHS
David E. Powell
Consider the circumstances a minute. For all we know it happened
during the act of catching the guy, who had been part of a rather
grisly scene.
Arved Sandstrom
I considered that possibility. I don't think the prisoner's allegation
would have a lot of legs if he claimed that he was roughed up prior to
being secured. So rightly or wrongly the claim must be that he was beat
up in custody, not before it.
Furthermore, there's the matter of false official statements, which all
three of the accused made. Or I should say, it's claimed that they made
false official statements. That's quite serious, just like perjury in
civilian court. I don't see any good interpretations for that one.
And yeah, I know that this terrorist was involved in the nasty killing
of 4 Blackwater people in 2004. Unless any of those three SEALs had
actually been in Fallujah back then, and maybe even personally knew one
of the Blackwater victims, I'm afraid I don't see why that would be a
factor. It's not like cops arresting a child rapist here.
AHS
Alan Lothian
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your careful (and to my mind very wise) reservations regarding
"alleged", as in unproven, crimes noted.
<further snippaggio>
> It's not like cops arresting a child rapist here.
Nowhere in the western world are cops actually permitted to beat up
alleged child rapists, however great the temptation. Standard Operating
Procedure is to let other crims beat them up, once they're in custody.
But it still looks very, very bad when a guy appears in court limping,
with half his front teeth missing, and his face swollen unrecognizably.
Which is why you have Custody Sergeants, or whatever their equivalent
in Canada or the US may be. There must assuredly be an equivalent.
Of course, we could just let London's Metropolitan Police get to work.
They're allowed to shoot anyone they want, for whatever reason, with no
fear of prosecution or even career damage. If a British soldier had
behaved the way the Met behaves, he'd have been on trial for murder.
(Rightly, IMHO; I'm not saying he'd necessarily be convicted, although
it might be hard to get off the hook for shooting a man in the back for
carrying a chair-leg in a plastic bag.)
But the Met can dress up in Toytown soldier suits and go bang bang to
its heart's content. Heaven help you if you want the useless fuckers to
investigate your burgled house, of course. Sorry, as the son and
grandson of career police officers I feel a little strongly about this.
I know exactly what my late father would have said about this stuff,
and it wouldn't be fit for print even on UseNet.
Dammit, I just promised my next post would be on-topic. This post is
only marginally on-thread. Put it down to all that Pastis in the south
of France. Where quite heavily-armed gendarmes hardly ever shoot
anybody. Hardly ever, not even Arabs. Oh, well, maybe just the odd one
or two.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Mark Borgerson
says...
police are, the less often they have to shoot people.
On-Topic part: When I was stationed at NAVCOMMSTA Morocco in the
70's, the gendarmes in town usually carried submachine guns. I never
heard of one firing a shot in Kenitra. The weapon quelled any desire
for confrontation, the baton was applied as required. Gently, to
prod, more forcefully if things were getting heated. Gendarmes
always traveled in pairs.
On my last trip to Paris, I noticed that the Gendarmes there were
always in pairs, too. But they usually stayed about 15 meters
apart. I can think of several reasons for that---including
bombs, grenades, etc. It also let them observe how people were
reacting to their partner from another angle.
Mark Borgerson
William Black
> But the Met can dress up in Toytown soldier suits and go bang bang to
> its heart's content. Heaven help you if you want the useless fuckers to
> investigate your burgled house, of course. Sorry, as the son and
> grandson of career police officers I feel a little strongly about this.
> I know exactly what my late father would have said about this stuff,
> and it wouldn't be fit for print even on UseNet.
And you wonder why I like to live in North Yorkshire, where the cops
still do foot patrols, always turn up even if it was just your shed
that got broken into and we still don't have any speed cameras in the
county...
Mind you, we don't have any fast roads either...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.257c5f37d...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <291120091620418270%alanl...@mac.com>, alanl...@mac.com
> says...
>> In article <D3vQm.53963$Db2.50035@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
>> <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Your careful (and to my mind very wise) reservations regarding
>> "alleged", as in unproven, crimes noted.
>>
>> <further snippaggio>
>>
>> > It's not like cops arresting a child rapist here.
>>
>> Nowhere in the western world are cops actually permitted to beat up
>> alleged child rapists, however great the temptation. Standard Operating
>> Procedure is to let other crims beat them up, once they're in custody.
(oh,that is really fair...)
>> But it still looks very, very bad when a guy appears in court limping,
>> with half his front teeth missing, and his face swollen unrecognizably.
>> Which is why you have Custody Sergeants, or whatever their equivalent
>> in Canada or the US may be. There must assuredly be an equivalent.
Modern US police dpeartments use video cameras in virtually all places
inside the jails.They record the handling of prisoners to preclude charges
of prisoner abuse.Also,police patrol cars have dashcameras recording the
apprehension of many suspects,both video and audio.
Many suspects damage themselves in order to claim abuse.
The videos put that to rest quickly.
>>
>> Of course, we could just let London's Metropolitan Police get to work.
>> They're allowed to shoot anyone they want, for whatever reason, with no
>> fear of prosecution or even career damage. If a British soldier had
>> behaved the way the Met behaves, he'd have been on trial for murder.
>> (Rightly, IMHO; I'm not saying he'd necessarily be convicted, although
>> it might be hard to get off the hook for shooting a man in the back for
>> carrying a chair-leg in a plastic bag.)
>>
>> But the Met can dress up in Toytown soldier suits and go bang bang to
>> its heart's content. Heaven help you if you want the useless fuckers to
>> investigate your burgled house, of course. Sorry, as the son and
>> grandson of career police officers I feel a little strongly about this.
>> I know exactly what my late father would have said about this stuff,
>> and it wouldn't be fit for print even on UseNet.
>>
Police everywhere are pretty much after-the-fact report filers.
Not much on investigations.
>> Dammit, I just promised my next post would be on-topic. This post is
>> only marginally on-thread. Put it down to all that Pastis in the south
>> of France. Where quite heavily-armed gendarmes hardly ever shoot
>> anybody. Hardly ever, not even Arabs. Oh, well, maybe just the odd one
>> or two.
>>
> Perhaps there's a correlation----the more heavily-armed the visible
> police are, the less often they have to shoot people.
>
> On-Topic part: When I was stationed at NAVCOMMSTA Morocco in the
> 70's, the gendarmes in town usually carried submachine guns. I never
> heard of one firing a shot in Kenitra. The weapon quelled any desire
> for confrontation, the baton was applied as required. Gently, to
> prod, more forcefully if things were getting heated. Gendarmes
> always traveled in pairs.
Many US police now use TASERs.
It takes the fight out of most suspects,unless drugs are involved.
>
> On my last trip to Paris, I noticed that the Gendarmes there were
> always in pairs, too. But they usually stayed about 15 meters
> apart. I can think of several reasons for that---including
> bombs, grenades, etc. It also let them observe how people were
> reacting to their partner from another angle.
>
>
> Mark Borgerson
>
>
>
One important point is that Navy SEALs are not "police",they are soldiers.
they capture prisoners under some terrible conditions.
US police do use violence to subdue unwilling suspects,and some perps do
get pretty banged up resisting arrest.Just watch COPS on Fox.
This SEAL prosecution is just Obama's anti-America,anti-military tactics.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Arved Sandstrom
[ SNIP ]
> This SEAL prosecution is just Obama's anti-America,anti-military tactics.
That's just plain silly. Seems to me that, in the distorted Beckite
world-view you have, if Obama had been involved, he would have pushed
for a CM right away. Instead this was headed for an NJP until the SEALs
*themselves* requested courts-martial.
I have to say this - I'm grateful that when I was in the Marines that
none of us had to believe that we were doing anything but defending the
country and the Constitution. Because it would be sickening to think
that we were defending subversive lackwits like you.
AHS
Ray O'Hara
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.257c5f37d...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <291120091620418270%alanl...@mac.com>, alanl...@mac.com
> says...
>> In article <D3vQm.53963$Db2.50035@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
>> <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Your careful (and to my mind very wise) reservations regarding
>> "alleged", as in unproven, crimes noted.
>>
>> <further snippaggio>
>>
>> > It's not like cops arresting a child rapist here.
>>
>> Nowhere in the western world are cops actually permitted to beat up
>> alleged child rapists, however great the temptation.
a couple of years ago a man grabbed a gun and killed a Providence Cop while
escaping from the Police station.
when he was rtecaptured he was all banged up. two black eyes, broken nose,
split lips and just beat to crap.
everybody just thought he was lucky to be taken alive. no one listened if he
made a complaint, because they obviously kicked the ever lovin bejesus out
of him.
Kerryn Offord
This might be a natural and understandable reaction, but it is still
criminal assault....
If the defendant had chosen to, he could have laid a complaint... If
"people didn't listen" if he laid a complaint suggests there is one law
for Police and another for everyone else.. Not a good sign.
Just think.. how would you feel if the police that wanted to talk to you
decided to beat you up.. and nobody wanted to listen to your complaint....
Alan Lothian
<jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
<snippaggio>
> One important point is that Navy SEALs are not "police",they are soldiers.
> they capture prisoners under some terrible conditions.
This is quite true; personally I will await the judgement of the Court
Martial before making any judgement of my own. I note that it is
famously said (and in more than one country) that if you're guilty,
you're much better off in a civilian court; if you're innocent, you
will likely get a better deal from a CM. I note, also, that the SEALs
in question demanded a CM. Long tradition of that in the RN.
>
> US police do use violence to subdue unwilling suspects,and some perps do
> get pretty banged up resisting arrest.Just watch COPS on Fox.
I try to avoid watching Fox. But I lived with cops all through my
childhood, adolescence and early adulthood.
>
>
>
> This SEAL prosecution is just Obama's anti-America,anti-military tactics.
Jim, it really has nothing to do with Obama. As others have pointed
out, he is way too far up the chain of command, as in, the top. Du
calme, mon brave, as they say in the south of France.
Let's see what happens. There's a difference between hot blood and cold
blood, but I do not, and I rpt not, prejudge. They'll have a fair
trial.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <Xns9CD2BB41AB066jyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>, Jim Yanik
IIRC the whole affair happened on another President's watch. The
question then is "what took so long"?
Richard Casady
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have to say this - I'm grateful that when I was in the Marines that
>none of us had to believe that we were doing anything but defending the
>country and the Constitution. Because it would be sickening to think
>that we were defending subversive lackwits like you.
I think you are simply wrong. There has never been a time or place
with a shortage of fuckwits.
Casady
Jim Yanik
news:301120091352100768%alanl...@mac.com:
> In article <Xns9CD2BB41AB066...@216.168.3.44>, Jim Yanik
><jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
><snippaggio>
>
>
>> One important point is that Navy SEALs are not "police",they are
>> soldiers. they capture prisoners under some terrible conditions.
>
>
> This is quite true; personally I will await the judgement of the Court
> Martial before making any judgement of my own. I note that it is
> famously said (and in more than one country) that if you're guilty,
> you're much better off in a civilian court; if you're innocent, you
> will likely get a better deal from a CM. I note, also, that the SEALs
> in question demanded a CM. Long tradition of that in the RN.
in any civilian trial,your jury consists of schmucks who can't come up with
a decent excuse to not serve and know little,while in a CM,you get
closer to true "peers" who understand the military.
>>
>> US police do use violence to subdue unwilling suspects,and some perps
>> do get pretty banged up resisting arrest.Just watch COPS on Fox.
>
> I try to avoid watching Fox.
Too bad.You'd get info that the other networks -omit- or underplay.
(now,I don't have Fox News[no cable],I get a local Fox affiliate.there's a
difference.)
Do you LIKE not being told as much as possible on a subject?
Letting others determine what you "need to know"?
> But I lived with cops all through my
> childhood, adolescence and early adulthood.
>>
>>
>>
>> This SEAL prosecution is just Obama's anti-America,anti-military
>> tactics.
>
> Jim, it really has nothing to do with Obama. As others have pointed
> out, he is way too far up the chain of command, as in, the top. Du
> calme, mon brave, as they say in the south of France.
Ah,but there you are wrong.
AG Holder does not have the authority to move a military trial to civilian
courts,only Obama has that authority.This is straight from the top.
>
> Let's see what happens. There's a difference between hot blood and
> cold blood, but I do not, and I rpt not, prejudge. They'll have a fair
> trial.
>
you might try reading some of Andrew C. McCarthy's articles on trying enemy
combatants,found on National Review Online and Townhall.com.
He's a former federal prosecutor,and has worked on some of these cases,has
a great deal of knowledge and background on the subject.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
>
> I have to say this - I'm grateful that when I was in the Marines that
> none of us had to believe that we were doing anything but defending the
> country and the Constitution.
Where did you defend the country and the Constitution?
--
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in
>news:301120091352100768%alanl...@mac.com:
>
>> In article <Xns9CD2BB41AB066...@216.168.3.44>, Jim Yanik
>><jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>
>><snippaggio>
>>
>>
>>> One important point is that Navy SEALs are not "police",they are
>>> soldiers. they capture prisoners under some terrible conditions.
>>
>>
>> This is quite true; personally I will await the judgement of the Court
>> Martial before making any judgement of my own. I note that it is
>> famously said (and in more than one country) that if you're guilty,
>> you're much better off in a civilian court; if you're innocent, you
>> will likely get a better deal from a CM. I note, also, that the SEALs
>> in question demanded a CM. Long tradition of that in the RN.
>
>
>in any civilian trial,your jury consists of schmucks who can't come up with
>a decent excuse to not serve and know little,while in a CM,you get
>closer to true "peers" who understand the military.
>
>>>
>>> US police do use violence to subdue unwilling suspects,and some perps
>>> do get pretty banged up resisting arrest.Just watch COPS on Fox.
>>
>> I try to avoid watching Fox.
>
>Too bad.You'd get info that the other networks -omit- or underplay.
>(now,I don't have Fox News[no cable],I get a local Fox affiliate.there's a
>difference.)
>
>Do you LIKE not being told as much as possible on a subject?
>Letting others determine what you "need to know"?
<s>
That is rather the problem with Fox, isn't it? They have far too
much deliberately false analysis masquerading as news.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:20:22 -0600, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:301120091352100768%alanl...@mac.com:
>
> >> In article <Xns9CD2BB41AB066jyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>, Jim Yanik
Then their "news" people cite the "analysis" as a news source. After
enough people ask the straight news people on other sources, those
sources add whatever the original "analysis" was to their own news,
thereby giving the off ramblings of a psychopath credence in the
"real" news.
Mark Test
news:v6kQm.31054$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
up
while they are doing their duty says much about our civilization.
Mark
Mark Test
news:FzkQm.53899$Db2.23572@edtnps83...
> Mark Test wrote:
>> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>> If this is the guy who got caught at Fallujah after being part of the
>>> killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
>>
>> It is.....and yes the case is BS.....yet our Pesident is allowing it to
>> happen.
>>
>> How our spec forces still operate with this crap hanging over their heads
>> amazes me......
>>
>> Mark
>
> Why are special forces, umm, "special" in this regard? As a non-"special"
> soldier/Marine/sailor/airman I wouldn't be allowed to put the boots to a
> POW. It's news to me that SEALs have a dispensation to beat up people in
> custody.
>
dragging
their burnt corpses through the streets.....
> I'm not sure what "crap" it is that you're talking about, quite frankly.
>
See above for what "crap" I'm talking about.
Mark
Jack Linthicum
> "Dan" <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:v6kQm.31054$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>
> > Mark Test wrote:
> >>news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> If this is the guy who got caught at Fallujah after being part of the
> >>> killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
>
> >> It is.....and yes the case is BS.....yet our Pesident is allowing it to
> >> happen.
>
> >> How our spec forces still operate with this crap hanging over their heads
> >> amazes me......
>
> >> Mark
>
> > The cost of claiming to be civilized. Your being against civilization
> > says loads about you.
>
> Punching a terrorist has nothing to do with civilization. Locking soldiers
> up
> while they are doing their duty says much about our civilization.
>
> Mark
Slight difference of opinion
"All three have refused to submit to non-judicial punishment, which
may be viewed as just as good as admitting they were guilty; hence,
the arraignment."
http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2009/11/justice-for-3-navy-seals-charged-with-assault.html
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
I wonder if anyone who has had the duty of carrying out a task based
on discipline and order would want any or all of these three in his
command.
William Black
>
> "All three have refused to submit to non-judicial punishment, which
> may be viewed as just as good as admitting they were guilty; hence,
> the arraignment."
In the UK it's usually viewed as exactly the opposite as refusing the
'CO's board' is tantamount to saying you don't trust your superior to
deal with you in an equitable manner.
I would have thought that anyone going for a court martial expects to be
found not guilty.
Jim Yanik
news:J6VQm.41320$ky1....@newsfe14.iad:
the present US administration has already demonstrated it's willingness to
toss it's own people "under the bus",a complete lack of loyalty and
morality.
anything to conceal their true beliefs.
Jim Yanik
> "Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FzkQm.53899$Db2.23572@edtnps83...
>> Mark Test wrote:
>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
>>>> If this is the guy who got caught at Fallujah after being part of
>>>> the killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
>>>
>>> It is.....and yes the case is BS.....yet our Pesident is allowing it
>>> to happen.
>>>
>>> How our spec forces still operate with this crap hanging over their
>>> heads amazes me......
>>>
>>> Mark
>>
>> Why are special forces, umm, "special" in this regard? As a
>> non-"special" soldier/Marine/sailor/airman I wouldn't be allowed to
>> put the boots to a POW. It's news to me that SEALs have a
>> dispensation to beat up people in custody.
WHO says they actually did "beat up" this guy?
Ya think he couldn't have deliberately hurt himself so he could claim
abuse? US prisoners do it all the time,that's why modern holding cells and
areas have video/audio monitors recording the prisoners.
They show this stuff on TV all the time;shows like COPS,Jail,etc.
You see guys and gals banging their faces into walls,or punching
themselves,falling down because they're drunk or high.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a standard part of Jihadi Training 101 to
deliberately injure ones self while in custody for the purpose of making
abuse claims.
surrender so you don't get killed,then bash up your face and howl "abuse".
Just to cause dissention and trouble,a POLITICAL strategy.
>>
> Put the event in context.....a fat lip for murdering 4 US civilians
> and dragging
> their burnt corpses through the streets.....
>
>> I'm not sure what "crap" it is that you're talking about, quite
>> frankly.
>>
> See above for what "crap" I'm talking about.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
Kerryn Offord
And yet there is on record at least one case where (IIRC) a group of
SEALs beat up a prisoner so badly that he died...
So there is the possibility that there is a real case to answer...
Jack Linthicum
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > "Mark Test" <mgt...@gtek.biz> wrote in
> >news:q9VQm.9602$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad:
>
> >>news:FzkQm.53899$Db2.23572@edtnps83...
> >>> Mark Test wrote:
There are enough cases of SEALs being imitated by people who act the
way these three did that I wonder if the real thing feels an
obligation to act according to the rep. Note that three others, two
officers and one EM are the witnesses.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> "Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FzkQm.53899$Db2.23572@edtnps83...
>
>>Mark Test wrote:
>>
>>>"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>If this is the guy who got caught at Fallujah after being part of the
>>>>killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
>>>
>>>It is.....and yes the case is BS.....yet our Pesident is allowing it to
>>>happen.
>>>
>>>How our spec forces still operate with this crap hanging over their heads
>>>amazes me......
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>Why are special forces, umm, "special" in this regard? As a non-"special"
>>soldier/Marine/sailor/airman I wouldn't be allowed to put the boots to a
>>POW. It's news to me that SEALs have a dispensation to beat up people in
>>custody.
>>
>
> Put the event in context.....a fat lip for murdering 4 US civilians and
> dragging
> their burnt corpses through the streets.....
It wasn't 4 U.S. civilians, it was 4 armed U.S. mercenaries (PMCs).
It wasn't murder, it was defense of their homeland.
And see how quickly you defend *any* action by U.S. military, here SEALs and PMCs.
SEALs train *specifically* to kill civilians and to leave no witnesses that U.S.
military were involved, to ensure so-called "plausible deniability" of any U.S.
involvement in murdering civilians. Whatever they can get away with, without
arousing the ire of the American people.
You have no honor, son.
>
> Mark
Jim Yanik
news:hf1dpf$1coo$2...@adenine.netfront.net:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Mark Test" <mgt...@gtek.biz> wrote in
>> news:q9VQm.9602$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad:
>>
>>> "Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FzkQm.53899$Db2.23572@edtnps83...
>>>> Mark Test wrote:
>>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.
>>>>> co m...
a serious case,resulted in a fatality.
>
> So there is the possibility that there is a real case to answer...
>
Not for a busted lip. Not what I would consider a "real case".
IMO,that's not even a "beating".
Alan Lothian
<jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>snippaggio>
> >
>
> Not for a busted lip. Not what I would consider a "real case".
> IMO,that's not even a "beating".
Let's wait and see what the court decides, Jim. That's what it's for.
Arved Sandstrom
[ SNIP ]
> the present US administration has already demonstrated it's willingness to
> toss it's own people "under the bus",a complete lack of loyalty and
> morality.
>
> anything to conceal their true beliefs.
You say that about the present administration as if you're surprised and
shocked, Jim. Have you ever known an administration, _any_ government
whatsoever, that hasn't made a habit of stiffing people as required?
AHS
Jim Yanik
> In article <Xns9CD3B400B222E...@216.168.3.44>, Jim Yanik
><jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>snippaggio>
>> >
>>
>> Not for a busted lip. Not what I would consider a "real case".
>> IMO,that's not even a "beating".
>
> Let's wait and see what the court decides, Jim. That's what it's for.
>
courts often don't decide things properly or even justly.
Witness the US Supreme Court Kelo decision.
Jack Linthicum
> Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote innews:011220090048304032%alanl...@mac.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9CD3B400B222Ejyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>, Jim Yanik
> ><jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
> >>snippaggio>
>
> >> Not for a busted lip. Not what I would consider a "real case".
> >> IMO,that's not even a "beating".
>
> > Let's wait and see what the court decides, Jim. That's what it's for.
>
> courts often don't decide things properly or even justly.
>
> Witness the US Supreme Court Kelo decision.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com
Oh, now you are rating the Supremes? 5-4, as usual. But not some of
the ones where they changed a law? Aren't you the little liberal.
Mark Test
news:sfKdnZD8iaf-1YnW...@supernews.com...
> Mark Test wrote:
>> "Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:FzkQm.53899$Db2.23572@edtnps83...
>>
>>>Mark Test wrote:
>>>
>>>>"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>If this is the guy who got caught at Fallujah after being part of the
>>>>>killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
>>>>
>>>>It is.....and yes the case is BS.....yet our Pesident is allowing it to
>>>>happen.
>>>>
>>>>How our spec forces still operate with this crap hanging over their
>>>>heads
>>>>amazes me......
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>>
>>>Why are special forces, umm, "special" in this regard? As a non-"special"
>>>soldier/Marine/sailor/airman I wouldn't be allowed to put the boots to a
>>>POW. It's news to me that SEALs have a dispensation to beat up people in
>>>custody.
>>>
>>
>> Put the event in context.....a fat lip for murdering 4 US civilians and
>> dragging
>> their burnt corpses through the streets.....
>
> It wasn't 4 U.S. civilians, it was 4 armed U.S. mercenaries (PMCs).
>
> It wasn't murder, it was defense of their homeland.
>
So, men who surrender, or are no longer a threat can be murdered?
> And see how quickly you defend *any* action by U.S. military, here SEALs
> and PMCs.
>
Well, I am an American...
> SEALs train *specifically* to kill civilians and to leave no witnesses
> that U.S.
> military were involved, to ensure so-called "plausible deniability" of any
> U.S.
> involvement in murdering civilians. Whatever they can get away with,
> without
> arousing the ire of the American people.
>
OMG....you know nothing of spec ops....
> You have no honor, son.
>
Honor? I'm talking about justice....and protecting military personnel.
BTW, are you defending any of the 9-11 defendants for the upcoming
"circus" trial?
Mark
Mark Test
news:hf19ig$bcr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
>>
>> "All three have refused to submit to non-judicial punishment, which
>> may be viewed as just as good as admitting they were guilty; hence,
>> the arraignment."
>
> In the UK it's usually viewed as exactly the opposite as refusing the
> 'CO's board' is tantamount to saying you don't trust your superior to deal
> with you in an equitable manner.
>
> I would have thought that anyone going for a court martial expects to be
> found not guilty.
>
Mark
Mark Test
news:31597a95-62bc-4d89...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Slight difference of opinion
==============================================
Um, excuse me...but if one chooses to go to an artical 15...(aka NJP)..
YOU ARE GUILTY!!!!! It's punishment....not a trial....the UCMJ limits
how much punishment your CO can give you.....
So, them not going the NJP route speaks volumes....
Mark
Kerryn Offord
The US Military have done it....
The guy in the sleeping bag...
The wounded guy that Marine shot....
<SNIP>
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Wrong again, they were private military.
Mark Test
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixH5l82hbCz1NXqc3wVvpf7xR5WAD9CBAE6G1
Blackwater founder Prince feels thrown under bus
By MIKE BAKER (AP) - 1 hour ago
RALEIGH, N.C. - The man who built Blackwater USA into one of the world's
most respected and reviled defense contractors feels that he was thrown
under the bus after serving the nation's security interests for years.
Mark
.
Jack Linthicum
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in messagenews:AYGdndq7yLrBLYvW...@supernews.com...
>
> > Mark Test wrote:
> >> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> >>news:sfKdnZD8iaf-1YnW...@supernews.com...
>
> >>>Mark Test wrote:
>
> >>>>news:FzkQm.53899$Db2.23572@edtnps83...
>
> >>>>>Mark Test wrote:
>
> >>>>>>news:2bca9e05-089e-49ec...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>If this is the guy who got caught at Fallujah after being part of the
> >>>>>>>killing of those four guys, this case is such horse crap.
>
> >>>>>>It is.....and yes the case is BS.....yet our Pesident is allowing it
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>>happen.
>
> >>>>>>How our spec forces still operate with this crap hanging over their
> >>>>>>heads
> >>>>>>amazes me......
>
> >>>>>>Mark
>
> >>>>>Why are special forces, umm, "special" in this regard? As a
> >>>>>non-"special" soldier/Marine/sailor/airman I wouldn't be allowed to put
> >>>>>the boots to a POW. It's news to me that SEALs have a dispensation to
> >>>>>beat up people in custody.
>
> >>>>Put the event in context.....a fat lip for murdering 4 US civilians and
> >>>>dragging
> >>>>their burnt corpses through the streets.....
>
> >>>It wasn't 4 U.S. civilians, it was 4 armed U.S. mercenaries (PMCs).
>
> >> They were not miltary.
>
> > Wrong again, they were private military.
>
> Blackwater founder Prince feels thrown under bus
> By MIKE BAKER (AP) - 1 hour ago
>
> RALEIGH, N.C. - The man who built Blackwater USA into one of the world's
> most respected and reviled defense contractors feels that he was thrown
> under the bus after serving the nation's security interests for years.
>
> Mark
> .
"Serving" at a rate of something like $1 billion a year. Now the tap
has run dry and his heavy conservative commitment is a burden rather
than a ticket to the dance. Prince family is Amway, by the way, in
case you missed the connection.
"Staunchly conservative, Erik Prince has donated hundreds of thousands
of dollars to the Republican Party, religious groups, and conservative
organizations (often through the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation),
including the American Enterprise Institute and the Alliance Defense
Fund."
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Blackwater_Worldwide
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Tell it to Blackwater:
www.blackwaterusa.com
Son, how can you be so misguided, delusional, and a downright liar?
> Mark
> .
Mark Test
news:31597a95-62bc-4d89...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Slight difference of opinion
Mark Test
news:hf19ig$bcr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>
>> "All three have refused to submit to non-judicial punishment, which
>> may be viewed as just as good as admitting they were guilty; hence,
>> the arraignment."
>
> In the UK it's usually viewed as exactly the opposite as refusing the
> 'CO's board' is tantamount to saying you don't trust your superior to deal
> with you in an equitable manner.
>
> I would have thought that anyone going for a court martial expects to be
> found not guilty.
>
Mark Test
news:31597a95-62bc-4d89...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Slight difference of opinion
Mark Test
news:n4ehh5t6orqo787ko...@4ax.com...
> "Mark Test" <mgt...@gtek.biz> wrote:
>
> :
> :Um, excuse me...but if one chooses to go to an artical 15...(aka NJP)..
> :YOU ARE GUILTY!!!!! It's punishment....not a trial....the UCMJ limits
> :how much punishment your CO can give you.....
>
> Nope. The CO can simply say "nothing to see here" (although that
> usually happens during the XO's screening).
>
Concur.....
> :
> :So, them not going the NJP route speaks volumes....
> :
>
> I really wish people who don't have a clue about this would just STFU.
>
Really? When a sailor refuses NJP and requests a courts-martial what does
that imply?
Mark
BlackBeard
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:n4ehh5t6orqo787ko...@4ax.com...
Well when I was in everybody knew... If you are guilty, take the
mast. If you are innocent, request a CM. With a CM you have due
process, not so with a mast.
BB
Mark Test
> "Mark Test" <mgt...@gtek.biz> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :news:n4ehh5t6orqo787ko...@4ax.com...
> :> "Mark Test" <mgt...@gtek.biz> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :Um, excuse me...but if one chooses to go to an artical 15...(aka
> NJP)..
> :> :YOU ARE GUILTY!!!!! It's punishment....not a trial....the UCMJ limits
> :> :how much punishment your CO can give you.....
> :> :
> :>
> :> Nope. The CO can simply say "nothing to see here" (although that
> :> usually happens during the XO's screening).
> :>
> :
> :Concur.....
> :
>
> days. It happens.
>
> :> :
> :> :So, them not going the NJP route speaks volumes....
> :> :
> :>
> :> I really wish people who don't have a clue about this would just STFU.
> :>
> :
> :Really? When a sailor refuses NJP and requests a courts-martial what does
> :that imply?
>
> Not a bloody thing, usually, since there are a number of reasons why
> someone might do so. All it really 'implies' is that they think that
> they can get a better outcome by doing that. The reason they think
> they can get a better outcome may or may not have anything to do with
> actual guilt.
>
> Just by the way, NJP is indeed 'punishment', but you appear to have
> missed the 'NJ' part of the acronym. Accepting NJP doesn't mean
> you're 'guilty' any more than accepting a Court does. In fact, there
> is a large part of the Navy that has no choice but to accept NJP. Are
> they all guilty?
>
That's how I was taught....here's why...1) the sailor is placed on report,
ie., he did commit an offense. 2) the DRB then reviews the charge(s), and
then makes sure the paperwork is in order....then makes a recommnedation
to the CO....3) XOI goes down.....makes recommendation to CO....4) finally,
Mast....
Now, one can argue that innocent sailors get written up....in my 24 years
NEVER saw that.....When I chaired DRB's I tried to make sure the
punishment fit the offense, sent the right signal to the crew, and tailored
it to the sailor....ie., a good sailor who screwed up once deserved a break,
whereas
the dirt bag that was always in the mess....harsher punishment.
My point is that the NJP process is there to fairly tailor the punisment for
minor offenses to ensure good order and discipline. It's primary purpose
has nothing to do with finding guilt....and yes, many a case was thrown out
due to petty spats among crew members.....or an over zealous officer,
didn't mean the sailor was "innoncent" just that he didn't deserve to be
punished.
Mark