Here is a press release (and FAQs page) from Naval Station Norfolk about the court martial of the three Navy SEALs for charges related to alleged abuse of a detainee in US custody.  We previously covered the cases here and here.

New info. includes:

  • Only one of the three SEALs is charged with assault, the others are charged with false official statements, dereliction of duty, or impeding an official investigation.
  • The SEAL charged with assault is also charged with impeding an official investigation.
  • The convening authority for all three cases is Major General Charles T. Cleveland, U.S. Army, Special Operations Command Central.
  • Our very own Super Grover will in fact be trial counsel for all three cases

Arraignment is tomorrow (Dec. 7th) at 9 am for two of the three, as we previously reportedHereis also a link to what appears to be an infrequently updated docket for Naval Station Norfolk, the main page is here.  I say infrequently because Monday’s hearings in the SEAL cases don’t appear on it.

39 Responses to “Navy SEAL Courts Martial Press Release”

  1. Anonymous says:

    With all due respect to the Military Justice system, and to the commanders involved here, I really must ask: WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!?! If nothing else, the symbolism of this arraignment on 12/7 is staggering. The problem at the end of the day to me is this: It is all well and good for all of us to pontificate about how we believe in the UCMJ, and we believe justice will result, but this case puts us all in an impossible position. As a former defense counsel, I would realize I would have to go for the sympathy case, much as the media is now. As a former SJA, I realize the trial counsel has a case he cannot believe in (unlike almost every other case), and the SJA has one he has to have advised his Flag is not a good idea (although some reports say the SJA may have given incomplete/incorrect advice). From the outside, no matter whether there is a conviction or an acquittal, the military justice system loses – we either railroaded these patriots, or we rigged the system to get them free. No matter the outcome, no one in the public will believe in the fairness of the miljust system. Ultimately, we all lose.

  2. Reply says:

    There’s nothing “patriotic” about the allegations. Soldiers can’t abuse detainees. If your argument is that we can’t prosecute due to their counterterrorism function, we may as well throw out any MJ cases alleging detainee abuse.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I agree with “Reply” at 1246. Soldiers can’t abuse detainees. Equally true is that drivers cannot speed on the roadways. So, for every active duty officer out there on CAAFLog: If you drive to work (or drive at all) and you happen to be going over the speed limit please self report to your Chain of Command for violating the UCMJ. Speeding, under the right circumstances, could clearly be a solid Article 133 offense. Self reporting will permit the appropriate commander to decide if you will receive NJP or a Court-martial.

  4. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Anon 1516:

    While I would like to follow your logic, I think the better analogy is what would happen to a military officer if he punched a handcuffed man being led to an MBPD police crusier because he suspected the person of being a pedophile. Your answer may be that nothing should happen to him, but that only shows how wrong your logic is.

    Neither the identity of the victim, nor the identity of the offender, matter in either of these scenarios. In fact, the identity of the offender in this case makes it all the more important that someone look at these actions because our military is trying to instill a sense of the rule of law in Iraq (and Afghanistan). The US military can’t be walking around saying do as we say and not as we do. We have certain obligations under agreements signed with the nation of Iraq, international law, and international norms to investigate and punish mistreatment of detainees. Apparently someone in the Special Operations community (SOCCENT is the convening authority) believed some form of discipline was needed. That has always been the standard in military justice.

    What’s more, while yes the alleged assault may turn out to be very minor, how can the military ignore alleged acts to impede the investigation? While all this the normal course of military justice, I also firmly believe these apparently well decorated sailors should get their day in court and are entitled to the court-martial they requested–also the normal course of military justice.

  5. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    To add on to No Man’s comment, the question becomes, if we do nothing to these SEALs for these actions, where do we draw the line? What if they burned the guy with cigarettes? What if they broke his leg? What if they attached electrical wires to his genitals and threatened to electrocute him?

    A bop on the nose may be minor, but it’s still against the rules. And, perhaps the minor nature of the offense is why these guys were initially notified of NJP.

    As to the obstruction, etc, do we also say that SEALs don’t have to comply with investigations? Or do they get to decide which investigations to comply with, and if the investigation is “silly” they can just lie or ignore the process?

    Now, the SEALs are innocent until proven guilty by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And anyone who thinks that the spectre of jury nullification doesn’t loom above these cases has their heads in the sand. But I think it’s time to let the process play out.

    Finally, as to the speeding example, I don’t think that anyone would agree that if your commander asked you “Were you speeding” that you would be justified in lying to him, just because of the minor nature of the offense. We don’t have to self report but if asked we have two choices. Tell the truth or shut up. The SEALs allegedly chose to look behind door number 3 – and violate the UCMJ by lying.

  6. Cossio says:

    Reply: There’s nothing “patriotic” about the allegations. Soldiers can’t abuse detainees. If your argument is that we can’t prosecute due to their counterterrorism function, we may as well throw out any MJ cases alleging detainee abuse.

    Hey dirtbag, now that we know the truth how about you admit you were wrong and that the SEALs are being railroaded. I told you this is BS. They are 100x more patriotic then you’ll ever be.

    Anon you are right on the money. Apparently two SEALs are being court-martialed baecause they didn’t snitch or go with the made-up stories.

    I’d like to see what evidence the Government has to say this was false official statements. If the other team members stories didn’t jive then what freakin evidence is there !?!?

    I take back what I said about the wait-and-see approach. We have enough data to see that stench from the bench already.

    Everytime the Government charges “false statements” or “perjury” it makes me suspicious. Can’t tell you how many “false statement” charges are Garbage.

    Experianced JAGs know that “False Statements” is one of the most subjective charges in the UCMJ, right there with “Conspiracy” and “Attempts”

  7. Anonymous says:

    I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. Just because in THIS case the assault was relatively minor, if you simply allow folks to circumvent and ignore investigations and lie to investigators, then how would you EVER uncover assaults that weren’t relatively minor?

    The smart alec answer is, well, broken bones or whatnot, but if no investigation can ferret out what happens because of lies and impeding, and we don’t punish that, then we are back to saying, you get in a free lick, and not only do you get in a free lick, but you don’t have to be honest with us and if you want to actively try and stop us from telling the truth, feel free.

    This isn’t a “self reporting” requirement. If those three Sailors had said NOTHING, then there would be one charge against one Sailor, the assault. The other two could have simply asserted their right to remain silent. They chose, allegedly, to lie and impede the investigation.

    The times when FOS are “garbage” IMO is when someone says, did you do it, the person says no, and it’s charged as FOS. I think we should bring back the exculpatory no doctrine. But this isn’t that scenario. This is again allegedly active denial and misdirection, in addition to the assault.

    They could have taken the NJP process and pled their case to their superiors. They chose, yes, they chose to go forward under a different process. That is their right, but it doesn’t make them martyrs.

    I really have to wonder with folks who think we should ignore our own laws and treaties on treatment of prisoners, who they think they are and who they think we are. We are the United States. That may sound hokey, but we are supposed to do it right, do it better, and we are supposed to be as much as we can above the muck.

    You don’t get a free shot at a detainee and you dont get to lie about it afterwords. If they are innocent, I hope they are acquitted, if they are guilty, then I hope they are found so and given Art 15 type punishment because it is deserved.

  8. John Harwood says:

    Am I upset that one (or two or three) Navy SEALs punched a bad guy in the nose? In a word: no. Do I want servicemen abusing those in their custody? Also: no. And I don’t know where you draw the line – somewhere between a knock on the nose and electrodes on the genitals. Closer to the genitals than the nose, though.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Well, apparently you do want servicemen abusing those in their custody, provided it’s limited to somewhere between a knock on the nose and electrodes on the genitals.

  10. Cossio says:

    The facts is the more info that is coming out, the more its looking like Super Grover has his work cut out for him.

    We are assuming it was a punch in the nose. That could be, but what if it was from the “handling” of the suspect.

    Again, is it anymore of an “assault” when a police officer makes an arrest in the US? You guys ever watch “to catch a predator” or “COPs” ? Not exactly a PC action there, guys are tackled and thrown to the ground.

    IMO, these charges look more and more like BS.

    Oh, and this is apparently one of the false statements:

    FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

    The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

    “I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

    You Anons and the like arguing about “we need to follow blah, blah, blah.” Once again have the wrong attitude. These men are innocent until proven Guilty.

    Second if the FOS is based off of statements like the above then shame on you, shame on the CA, and shame on the SJA.

    I can’t believe what I am reading on this post. It appears however, that I finally nailed down the cause of our low moral and our lack of willingness to win the war. Wake up and realize this is a war, not a police action.

    Every comment against the SEALs I have read indicates that people think this is analogous to detaining a Criminal in the US. You people need to get your head examined.

    Finally the charge isn’t assault. Nope, it appears to be “willfully failing to safeguard a detainee” you know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like BS, and it sounds like a vague order that a detainee needs to be brought back in pristine condition.

    If this was a sane military, free of PC and UCI, you’ll expect that the commander and all involved in this farce to be sacked.

    Now I know the commander’s outstanding military record was shoved out there. I DON’T CARE.

    For one I find it atrocious that you people are digging his record while ignoring the SEALs records. For two the service record of the Commander preferring the charges are largely insignificant as many creeps and sell outs are running around with a chest full of Medals.

  11. Cossio says:

    That’s right you can quote me:

    “I don’t give a damn if it was Audie Muphy preferring the charges, willfully failing to safeguard a detainee who may have received a bloody lip and false official statements in that “the detainee appeared in good health, etc.” show the willingness of officers to throw anyone under the bus who doesn’t conform to the standards of the UN and the New World Order. The standard is that we treat everything as a police action with the intent that we bribe peace with US tax dollars and that we “win the hearts and minds of the people” that we are occupying. Never has such a strategy worked. And never will it ever work. All this serves is to embolden terrorist to make up allegations of abuse and to weaken the Military with prosecutions of well trained soldiers and to deter anyone from wanting to risk their lives in the service of this country when the country is willing to show its gratitude by having other “soldiers”, useful idiots, willing to appease the international community by throwing lower ranking men under the bus.”

  12. Larry the Cucumber says:

    I’ve noticed lots of comments referring to the Seals having 3 choices, confess, shut up, or lie (inferring these accused’s chose the only illegal option).

    “We don’t have to self report but if asked we have two choices. Tell the truth or shut up.”

    “This isn’t a “self reporting” requirement. If those three Sailors had said NOTHING, then there would be one charge against one Sailor, the assault. The other two could have simply asserted their right to remain silent. They chose, allegedly, to lie and impede the investigation.”

    Isn’t this the exact scenario contemplated in US v. Miranda? Shouldn’t we cut these Accused’s some slack because of the position they were put in? Did their CC even tell them they had option #2?

  13. Cossio says:

    Interesting,

    What would be interesting, depending on the facts, how the Supreme Court’s opinion will be concerning the recent Miranda esque cases on its docket will have any bearing on this, and future court-martials. It looks like that this case is on the fast track though. I would like to see how the Navy is going to workout bringing this guy in to testify, if they’re thinking about it.

    Although some facts still need to be developed, the fact is that they had a written statement. This would indicate that they were advised their rights, at least on paper – most have to sign the blocks indicating they know their rights, (but see the upcomming Supreme Court Decision from the Florida Case) this would indicate that they were probably questioned by Investigators, not their CC.

    Still though, most of us in the loop know a BS 92 charge “failure to safegaurd a detainee” and a BS 107 FOS when we see it.

    Which the facts are indicating this too be. Especially if the FOS is based of a statement “he appeared to be in good health” or similar statements that Super Grover will have a hard time proving that the SEALs knew to be false, let alone whether the SEALs “failed” to “safegaurd” anybody.

    Now here is the issue. First, we are assuming that “failure to safegaurd a detainee” is a 92 chrge based off of….????

    Don’t know. Does the Navy have regs on this? I hope they are not talking about some obscure DoD directive.

    If it is a 92 charge, is the order a written order? Was it punitive in nature? Or was it just a policy?

    That’s the big question for me, was it a 92 based off of what reg?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Dereliction of Duty doesn’t require a reg or a written order, punitive or not. But I guess you knew that, since you’re “in the loop.”

  15. Anonymous says:

    “Isn’t this the exact scenario contemplated in US v. Miranda? Shouldn’t we cut these Accused’s some slack because of the position they were put in? Did their CC even tell them they had option #2?”

    I’m assuming they were given their article 31 rights which are more protective and expansive than Miranda. So seems to me they were informed of everything RE: Miranda and more. If they weren’t then obviously that will be addressed in pretrial motions and that charge should go away.

    You certainly though don’t have to be told…don’t lie. I don’t Miranda or Article 31 require anyone to say, and if you lie, that’s bad.

    If you feel several valid offenses has been committed, sure you can cut slack. You can offer them a deal, you can give slack on sentencing, or…you can offer NJP. Yes not prosecuting is always an option but the commander makes the call at the end of the day.

  16. Anonymous says:

    “Does the Navy have regs on this? I hope they are not talking about some obscure DoD directive.”

    Close, they are talking about dereliction of duty.

    OK, close may have been too strong a word…how about not even in the ballpark?

  17. Cossio says:

    Anonymous: Dereliction of Duty doesn’t require a reg or a written order, punitive or not. But I guess you knew that, since you’re “in the loop.”

    I wasn’t sure if they were charging it under dereliction of duty or violation of a written order under Article 92.

    But now that you mention it dummy, why don’t you go back and read Article 92 UCMJ, the part where it says “knowledge” (something you lack):

    ————————————

    3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

    (a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.

    (b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.

    (c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.

    (d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.

    ————————————

    Tell me know-it-all, how is the Gov going to prove the above elements based on the SEALs “duty” to “safegaurd” a terrorist without some sort of “regulation, training or operating manual, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.” ?

  18. Cossio says:

    Oh, I get it, Super Grover’s gonna walk in there and say “They should’ve known better beyond a reasonable doubt, we don’t need a reg, everyone here knows when you pickup a terrorist they shouldn’t have any injuries, case closed”. Brilliant. 10-1 odds the Navy will pull out some form of regulation to show they were derelict.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Not sure how anon at 1024’s comment says anything about the knowledge requirement for dereliction. (S)he said dereliction doesn’t require a reg or written order, (s)he didn’t say that it doesn’t require the government to prove knowledge. Nice zinger with the “dummy” comment, though.

  20. Cossio says:

    This is were I have the problem:

    3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

    (a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.

    It has to be written down somewhere, so the Navy will have to rely on sometype of reg/order/SOP, whatever.

    The only other option is “custom of the service”, which will be hard to sell. The whole thing is hard to sell.

    In addition if it is through neglect, the max is 3 months, willful it’s 6 months and a BCD. Whereas a written order/reg under 92 can net 2 years and the DD.

  21. Cossio says:

    Ok, don’t take my word on it, you guys have a law degree so you think you know what you are talking about, fine. It only makes the truth that much harder to swallow.

    Your homework assignment is to study this:

    http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2009/Ryan,%20A.K.%20200900007%20unpub.pdf

    You’ll see that I am right, and you are wrong.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Cossio,

    If you’d only put the same effort towards not violating the UCMJ that you do towards attacking those that disagree with you, you’d probably be wearing a uniform today.

    A duty can be imposed through spoken orders or directions, as in “we don’t abuse prisoners here.” If a superior told the SEALs that prisoner abuse is not permitted, then they had a duty not to abuse prisoners. Nothing had to be written, no reg was required.

  23. Cossio says:

    They are not being charged with “Abusing Prisoners”. There are Articles specific to that.

    They (I should say one) is being charged with failing to “safegaurd” a detainee.

    Wouldn’t that indicate to you that there is a lack of evidence indicating the detainee was willfully assulted or abused?

    I’ll tell you what, there’s only a handful of people who know what the actual charges are so let’s return to this conversation when we see the actual charges complete with the subject matter/nature of offense.

  24. Cossio says:

    Sorry for the double post, but I took a walk and thought about it some more.

    Anonymous: A duty can be imposed through spoken orders or directions, as in “we don’t abuse prisoners here.” If a superior told the SEALs that prisoner abuse is not permitted, then they had a duty not to abuse prisoners. Nothing had to be written, no reg was required.

    I disagree. I think you are mixing Orders with Duties.

    The above scenario would be correclty charged as a violation of an order, not dereliction.

    The case link I provided correctly goes over the difference of an order v. dereliction of duty.

    “However, dereliction of duty does not encompass a failure to obey. Rather, both willful and negligent dereliction of duty focus on the concept of a failure to perform, which indicates inaction or non-performance of specified duties. United States v. Sojfer, 44 M.J. 603, 609-10 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1996). Article 92(1) and (2), UCMJ, on the other hand, are meant to address failures to obey orders and regulations.”

    ——————————

    A dereliction of “failing to safegaurd a detainee” is a troublesome burden for the gov. It’s not a spoken order, it has to be a specified duty that was not performed.

    Example, if my Boss tells me to clean the Latrine, that is an Order, not a regular duty.

    If you don’t salute someone, that is a custom that you have a duty to obey (it could be a number of other things under the UCMJ).

    If my Boss tells me to bring a detainee back in good condition, well depending on the facts that’s either an order or a duty.

    What I am saying is that it is doubtful that these SEALs were told, “Don’t Abuse Prisoners” number one, that’s not the charge, but assuming arguendo that it was, wouldn’t you have to assume a verbal order like that is not part of their job discription, therefore a willful violation would be disobeying an order?

    Since it is being reported they are charged with dereliction (assuming that is correct) then we most assume, most likely, that it was a specified duty that is written somewhere as a reg, statute, or directive.

    Logically speaking of course :)

  25. Anonymous says:

    Cossio, if you don’t think the government can prove that these guards knew they had a duty to safeguard detainees, then, well, that’s just sad.

    Do you truly think that the duty to safeguard detainees is somehow an open question?

  26. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Cossio: (a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.

    Cossio as usual rebuts his own argument. If you read from the quote above you’ll notice the many sources of duty that come before ” lawful order . . .” Hmm, what treaty, statute, or regualtion would say servicemembers can’t punch detainees and have a duty to do other things with respect to detainees to ensure humane treatment . . . I doubt I can find any. And what about reporting abuse fo detainees, I doubt there are any such regualtions. Well lets try, Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, DoD Directive 2310.01E (Detainee Operations), Army Field Manual 2-22.3 . . .

    I am not prejudging or saying any of these offenses occurred, just pointing out the obvious potential legal basis. The government still ahs to prove its case BaRD and these accused will probably have some good arguments to counter that evidence. And, knowing what I know about the counsel involved, they will be able to lay to the members and garner a fair amount of sympathy for their clients.

  27. Anonymous says:

    If, upon checking into your new job, your boss tells you “part of your job is to clean the latrine every day,” and you fail to do so, you’re derelict in your duties. Do you really not understand this simple point?

  28. Cossio says:

    No, its you people that are not getting it, and it is agrivating me how stupid this is getting.

    Anonymous: If, upon checking into your new job, your boss tells you “part of your job is to clean the latrine every day,” and you fail to do so, you’re derelict in your duties. Do you really not understand this simple point?

    Yes, that would be true if my Job was to clean toliets. But if I was told outside my Job to clean toliets, I would be disobeying an order, not being derelict in my duties. Do you not get this, or….I see. You most be in the Army, maybe you need a pop-up book with lots of pictures.

    ————————

    Mike,

    I have no idea what you’re arguing about. The original argument is what regulation, statute, etc. are these men accused of being derelict of.

    I said it most likely had to be written down, the reply was that it didn’t have to be, my rebuttal was that it most likely has to based on the language that is being used (failure to safegaurd a detainee).

    I went on into the difference between a Verbal and Written order v. a Person’s Duty. I cited one case in particuliar which would indicate that the Navy Court looks at “inaction or non-performance of specified duties.”

    Telling someone orally “We don’t abuse detainees” is not a specific duty, however it may quallify as a lawful order.

    Therefore, I summized that, and we have to wait and see, the language of safe gaurding a detainee comes from a reg, statute, treaty, whatever.

    You seem to agree citing the Geneva Conv. so I as of 1545 have no idea what we are arguing about.

    Do you agree or not that this Dereliction most likely somes from a written source of a verbal order? And if it did come from a Verbal Order, why not charge it that way?

    Seems pretty straight foward to me. Obviously not to some JAGs which is why we have the case I cited above.

    Anonymous: Cossio, if you don’t think the government can prove that these guards knew they had a duty to safeguard detainees, then, well, that’s just sad.
    Do you truly think that the duty to safeguard detainees is somehow an open question?

    Anon, the argument I’m having with these Bozos is whether it was a written regulation or a verbal order.

    This is the nimrod that set me off:

    Anonymous: Dereliction of Duty doesn’t require a reg or a written order, punitive or not. But I guess you knew that, since you’re “in the loop.”

    Obviously he is wrong because I doubt that Orally you can give an order to “safegaurd a detainee” and then charge it as dereliction, instead of charging it as Disobeying an Order.

  29. Anonymous says:

    simple question, do guards have a duty to safeguard their detainees, yes or no?

    If someone says no, please explain to me why.

  30. Cossio says:

    Anonymous: simple question, do guards have a duty to safeguard their detainees, yes or no?If someone says no, please explain to me why.

    SEALs are not prison gaurds, again a specified duty in most cases has to come from some written source if you are going to charge dereliction. If they were told orally to gaurd someone it should be charged as disobeying an order.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Ok let me be more specific then. Do Soldiers who are detaining alleged terrorists, have a duty to safeguard them?

    Do you really think, that if they were to detain someone, that they have to be orally told to safeguard them from harm or else it’s not an offense?

  32. Cossio says:

    Anonymous: Ok let me be more specific then. Do Soldiers who are detaining alleged terrorists, have a duty to safeguard them?

    No, they don’t. What if a terrorist commits suicide while in custody? Couldn’t you argue that was a failure to “safegaurd”? The wording is vauge at best. If they did assault him, they should be charged with assult, not dereliction.

    Anonymous: Do you really think, that if they were to detain someone, that they have to be orally told to safeguard them from harm or else it’s not an offense?

    That’s not what I said. What I am saying if they are orally told it should be charged under Disobeying and Order, not dereliction of duty.

    Therefore, I am saying they must be using (or should be) a regulation, statutes, or something written if they are going to charge dereliction.

    We really need to know what the complete charges are to determine this, the press release is vague.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Let me clue you in then, you are wrong. You do have a duty to safeguard those in your care or detention from harm. It does not require that you are told so. IF they were told you so, you could charge it EITHER as a failure to follow orders OR a dereliction of duty.

  34. Cossio says:

    Let me clue you in on something, he was picked up, and then dropped off and turned over. The SEALs gaurded him in the time it took to bag him and fly him back.

  35. ex cannon cocker says:

    The meaning of “safeguarding a prisoner” has broadened over the years. Originally its intent was the prevention of escape and had little to do with treatment, humane or otherwise.

  36. ex cannon cocker says:

    One further comment: Nearly all the “bad guys” in Central Command’s AO are trained to make complaints of abuse by their captors. It is intended to distract us from the mission and crack our resolve.

  37. Charles Gittins says:

    Hey gang! It seems almost everyone has forgotten that the US made it a national policy to mistreat detainees and torture them. Once really must question whether Private Graner would still be in prison if the public had been made aware that the President and Sec Def approved the so called harsh interrogation technmiques that included water boarding, striking prisoners, “walling” prisoners, committing indecent acts with them and sicking guard dogs on them (but not letting them actually bite the prisoner). I would have liked the opportunity to try the Abu Ghraib cases with that information in the public domain. As it was the President and Sec Def and CJCS mislead the nation that the United States does not maltreat or torture prisoners knowing full well that they had approved just such conduct and that it was ongoing at the time of the Abu Ghraib trials.

  38. Bob Peyreigne says:

    Political Correct BS. Who cares if this guy got a fat lip or not. Some PC Officer who stays in the rear with the gear probably asking the questions over and over again in 15 different ways to trip these guys up and then conclude they lied. We must not forget who these guys are and what they do for our country. The fact that the Pentagon has allowed this to happen is disgusting. Where will get the next generation of warriors to protect us if they see how fickcle towards them today.

  39. Sailor says:

    Hit him a-damn-gain for me !