Hannity of SEALs’ Case: Totally Consistent
I finally got around to reading CAAFlog’s link to the Hannity interview of Neal Puckett. Here is an excerpt:
HANNITY: All right. So let’s go to Article 15 under the Uniform Code on military justice and explain it in a little bit more detail. They were requested to pretty much admit some guilt in this, even though they had none. And some of the other SEALs are being accused of covering up. The one SEAL, quote, “Might have punched him,” your client. So the worst-case scenario is they’re being accused of punching a terrorist that had hung contractors from a bridge in Fallujah.
I have to ask, when do you think the last time was that Sean Hannity questioned or even permitted a caller to question the disciplinary judgments of a US special forces commander? And why all of a sudden is NJP an admission of guilt and not an indispensible tool of military discipline? And when does lying to law enforcement and impeding an investigation amount to essentially nothing? I think I know the answer . . . but I’ll let you decide. As for the actual accuseds, since the facts have not come out, we’ll let the process work itself out and the capable defense attorneys involved take a shot at the evidence once it is declassified.
In related news, more members of Congress are asking SecDef Gates to exert some UCI to stop the courts martial. See CNSNews coverage here.
Clearly “No-Man” you have not been “Hannitzed for your protection.”
Because if you had, then things like facts or logical consistency or fear of hypocrisy would not be things you’d concern yourself with.
You’d simply assume the Seals had done nothing wrong, and that an Article 15 must mean you have to plead guilty, and that if a commander were questioned in a different, non-terrorist setting you’d of course question why that person hates the troops.
It really is easy once you’ve been Hannitized.
I try to forget that this individual is still clogging up our cable bandwidth. His opinion on this issue is a nullity, and his “support” for the SEALs is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attack on their CIC.
Guys,”trash Hannity” seems pretty puerile to me. Perhaps we could add “trash Maddow” or “trash Olberman” to the list.
Puckett’s comments are the story. The pattern I see is the silly practice of using Army officers to investigate Navy & Marine unit discipline issues. The Army appears to have developed a pathological PC attitude & now seeks to impose it on the other services.
The cover up allegations make sense only if one accepts as true the uncorroborated allegations of the prisoner. A prisoner whose plan on capture is to make false allegations of mistreatment.
Puckett was right. Assuming the allegations to be true, it was a matter for the company gunny (or equivalent) or, at highest, the Plt Cdr.
A better use of the knowledge and experience of this group would be to help us understand why the troops would decline Captain’s Mast. I get the impression the NJP was going to be before some Army dude & the troops were sure the fix was in. I have seen that happen more than once. There is nothing more destructive of unit cohesion than a troop not getting a fair shake at Captain’s Mast.
I do not condone mistreatment of prisoners and have dealt with it. This ain’t the way.
Yes because those “Army dudes” with their higher BRD doubt standard are much more in the fix than those Navy dudes? with their preponderance of the evidence standard for NJP. Of course you are assuming, something you do a lot of in that post, that the NJP would have been in front of an Army commander and not a Navy one. Just because the C-M CA is Army doesn’t necessarily mean that the NJP is done in front of an Army officer as well.
Sure the cover up only makes sense if the allegations are true, thus why you have a hearing (whether NJP or trial) to determine if they are.
But you apparently don’t feel that even if the allegations are true, the assault, the lying, the cover up, that it deserves anything more than a counseling statement.
Ok guys, now I won’t tolerate lying, and cover-ups and assaulting detainees. Now if this happens again, I’m going to have to write an even more sternly worded reprimand.
Did you ever stop to think that just maybe the fact that the commanders at multiple levels have determined this needs something more than a slap on the hand evidence that at least in their minds this about something more than “PC?” Doesn’t mean an offense was actually committed, that’s what due process is for.
So what IS the way to deal with mistreatment of prisoners, lying about it and trying to cover it up? A sharply worded reprimand? No doubt placed in the local file, right?
You don’t get free licks. Do your job the way you were trained and there won’t be any issue whatsoever.
Mike,
Your attitude is a typical to a standard wool-dyed government hack. You already have the disposition that these SEALs committed the acts as charged, that they lied to investigators. First, I am crestfallen that a man of your position and experience cannot fathom that maybe, just maybe, these charges are bogus. These men are innocent until PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around. Also as I stated before, these FOS charges could’ve been thrown in on flimsy evidence. The Government’s case could very well be: “Well the terrorist said he was assaulted, the SEALs say different, so they are lying”. Suspend disbelief for a moment that the Navy would charge such an offense with flimsy evidence and realize that it happens all the time.
—————————–
“And why all of a sudden is NJP an admission of guilt and not an indispensible tool of military discipline?
Since the possibility of you being found “not guilty” in an Article 15 is virtually non-existent. But for hacks like yourself they were obviously Guilty to begin with so it doesn’t matter.
My bright Idea requires the reformation of the Article and Summary Court-Martial process. Does it make sense for a Commander who already thinks you are guilty to pass judgment on a 15? No, it doesn’t. In fact, as my personal experience has shown me, it only pisses him off you do not accept that you are Guilty and confess you are a Marxist/Witch. 15s should be handled by three independent officers (while retaining the loose evidence standard), similar to a D&A board that we have for confined prisoners.
Summary Courts-Martials should be increased to six months with an option to adjudicate a suspended discharge.
—————————–
Speaking from my experience and contacts I am under the impression the Army “gives out NJP like candy”, and in some respects an NJP is preferable than a reprimand. Sounds weird, just going off what others tell me….I know ! Let’s look at some numbers from the Annual CAAF reports (I’d knew those would be good for something):
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/annual/FY08AnnualReport.pdf
Army’s rate is 67.73 per 1,000
Navy/Marine is 41 per 1,000
Air Force is 21.41 per 1,000
Yep, me thinks its not a good idea letting Army Commanders impose NJP on the Navy.
I got an idea (I’m full of good ones on Friday). How about we wait until someone digs out the exact wording on the charge sheet before we make assumptions that the SEALs “lied to impede an investigation” or where “Derelict for failing to safeguard a detainee”?
Or, alternatively, we can do what Mike and Co.’s doing and continue to speculate that these SEALs lied (about what, we still don’t know), that the Article 15 process, and Court-Martial process is the gold standard for justice.
You’ve just been Cossio’d
Don’t the defense counsels have the charge sheets? During their media tour, why don’t they show it or talk in more detail about the actual allegations to show how “bogus” these charges really are… seems like, if they’re being truthful, that would bolster Hannity’s contention that this is “just about a punch.”
Cossio, here’s the problem with your faux outrage.
“These men are innocent until PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around.”
That clearly isn’t your problem. If that were your problem, you’d not have an issue with them being charged. No one has said that they are guilty, they are defending the fact that they should be charged with an offense. If they are in fact not guilty, all of us hope they are acquitted. Heck, if they are guilty but the government can’t prove it I think we all hope they are acquitted.
No your problem is with them being charged in the first place, which has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. So stick to your outrage over being charged at all, and not the strawman of they could be innocent because we all know and you freely admit, even if they did what they are accused of, you think it’s just fine.
“Since the possibility of you being found “not guilty” in an Article 15 is virtually non-existent.”
that’s wrong ten ways to Sunday. If you are going to make ridiculous “facts” then have SOME sort of evidence other than, folks I’ve talked to, to prove it. If we are going by “experience,” as a defense attorney, I’ve gotten off at least a half dozen folks at Article 15s, and heard of other TDS counsel with similar success.
No one is making any assumptions, we are saying that clearly the charges involve lying and dereliction. The question was the propriety of even charging those offenses in this situation, not whether or not they are guilty. So again, strawman.
I love Sean
Any reports on when Ahmed Hashim Abed is flying in for the court-martial to testify about the alleged beating he received? Is he entitled to a per diem since he is a civilian witness? If the case ever gets to sentencing it would be fascinating to hear Abed’s victim impact statement. If the government does not produce the “victim” in this case it will be crystal clear to me that they did not properly think this thing through properly.
Assuming he was treated for injuries or one of the accused made incriminating statements of some sort, they wouldn’t need the victim.
Well excuse me Ben Matlock.
Let me tell you how you are wrong “ten ways to Sunday”. While I’m not denying your skill, the fact is I am not making it up. We have the annual reports that tell us how many Article 15s are dished out, they only keep track of punishments.
We do know, however, the conviction rate at court-martial. It rivals China, Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia.
Your attitude is akin to that of “Kill them all and let God sort them out” is appalling.
Fine, but when you have a machine like the UCMJ, where people are Guilty regardless, you’re basically telling them, “If we roll you down a cliff in a barrel, and you survive, then your OK”, that’s such BS anon.
If you were a DC for any significant time, then you should know of quite a few cases were your clients were found guilty based off of flimsy evidence. How many men are sitting in jail falsley convicted of rape by a vindictive mistress, molesting their kids by an estranged wife, or any other concocted charge?
Don’t sit there and say its allright that they were charged, you are putting too much faith into a system that is FUBAR’d.
———————————
Totally agree with you Anon, I went on their counsels websites and found nothing. I tended to think they were flying under the radar, but appearing on Hannity would negate that notion.
Additionally the interviews are not helpful. When the Wallbanger says this; “So the worst-case scenario is they’re being accused of punching a terrorist that had hung contractors from a bridge in Fallujah.”
Ok, so this would have been a great opprotunity for counsel to say, “Correction, they are not being charged with assault as other media outlets reported, but rather dereliction of duty for failing to safegaurd a detainee which is derived from _____________ , and making False Official Statements in that _______________ and that he knew to be so false”.
No, instead he says “yes”. So boom, the headlines are that SEALs are charged with assaulting a terrorist. While strategically sound, it leaves us who know better in the dark.
—————————-
Finally, I will point out that the Navy isn’t forthcomming aswell from an earlier post:
Mr. Gittins, or anyone else in the know, if you are reading this can you provide more details?
Correct, as I heard it it was a Petty Officer (non-SEAL) who gaurded the Detainee who reported the SEALs. I feel sorry for Super Grover if that’s their collaborating evidence.
Here is a link to the charge sheets on some of the SEALs:
http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Charge-Sheets-SO1-Huertas-SO2-Keefe-SO2-McCabe.pdf
I’m always suspect when the false official statement is ambiguous, “I did not see anyone exhibit aggressive behavior against Mr. X.” What is the definition of “aggressive?” What about words like “mistreat” or “abuse.” If the alleged blow came because Mr. X was uncooperative or posed a threat, then would it be “abuse?” The problem is the vague and subjective definition of what one deems as abuse or mistreatment.
Why can’t CID or NCIS ask, “Did you see McCabe punch Mr. X in the midsection?” If the answer is, “No,” then that could be a false statement if the individual did see it. Of course, everyone on this team should have lawyered up because it appears they were all suspected of failing to safeguard a detainee.
I used to brief ROE at the Ft. Benning CRC once a week and I always advised the servicemembers that if anybody read them their rights, then they should always lawyer up, especially if they are innocent. It seemed like every other brief, I would always have some CID agent wearing a tan flyfishing vest come up to me and complain that I was making their job harder by giving that advice en masse.
One agent even insinuated that I was breaking the law by impeding “future investigations.”
This case is exactly what happens when servicemembers fail to invoke the only two immutable right we retain when we join the military: (1) the right to keep our pieholes shut and (2) our right to an attorney.
“We have the annual reports that tell us how many Article 15s are dished out, they only keep track of punishments.
We do know, however, the conviction rate at court-martial. It rivals China, Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia.”
So you’ve made your argument that Army NJP is 99% likely to lead to conviction based on knowing only the number of Army Art 15s but not the conviction rates of Art 15s, but knowing the conviction rates of a completely separate process, courts-martial.
and you think that’s good logic?
“If you were a DC for any significant time, then you should know of quite a few cases were your clients were found guilty based off of flimsy evidence.”
I was a DC for a long time and I and most of my brethern will tell you the vast majority of our clients were in fact guilty. Most of them in fact plead guilty. Now there are always problems with over-charging, with excessive punishments, poorly drafted charge sheets, etc. But there are very, very few cases where the evidence is “flimsy.”
And in the ones that are, acquittals are pretty common-place.
As far as LCDR Grover, if his corroborating evidence is a medical examination showing injury and incriminating statements, I’d guess he’d be more likely to get a conviction in that scenario than if his only evidence is the alleged victim, so you have it, again, backwards.
I still love Sean.
BTW, Anonymous 1414, when you say “I’ve gotten off at least a half dozen folks at Article 15s” does that mean that no punishment was imposed?
Can you enlighten us as to 1) which service details DC for NJP (if you are AD); or 2) Allows your representation at NJP (if you are a civilian)?
Anon @ 2:14. Which TDS office is slow enough to be able to represent a half a dozen folks at Article 15 hearings?
Thank you KSF,
I had a feeling these charges were bogus when I saw them. The charge sheet only reaffirms what I already felt.
—————
Anon, anon, anon. Of course I am. You have a court-martial process which the conviction rate is typically around 98%.
You have a process, the Article 15, where the Commander already thinks you’re Guilty.
The Military does not track “conviction” rates of 15′s (they should). But yes, Anon, I would put my house on it that the Conviction rate is in the 90% percentile.
The Army (where this douche is from) did 44,390 15′s.
As I stated before, unless its to figure 30%, trial lawyers are usually inept in calculation. You need an abicus, whilst I can do this in my head.
In order to get a conviction rate of under 90% the Army would have to have 4,430 “Aquittals”. Not more than 443 to retain a 99% “conviction” rate.
You might be the second comming of Ben Matlock, but I seriously doubt that the “Aquittal rate” of 15′s is 4,430 (meaning 90% Convicted), or maybe not even 443 (meaning 99% Convicted) for 2008.
Your logic is like an Escher Painting, it makes no sense. While mine flows like a stream. Don’t be afraid, you too can drink from the well of plenty.
Anon 1536:
Yes that means no punishment was imposed because they were found not guilty. I am not counting a guilty finding with no punishment as I’ve never had that situation occur at an Art 15.
KSF:
1, you are confusing represented with personally appeared in front of the commander. 2, There are many TDS offices that have slow periods which would allow you the 15 minutes or so it takes to represent someone at an Article 15 even in person, particularly when you’ve had several assignments in TDS plus a deployment where NJP is the norm, C-Ms are not.
Officer Art 15s in fact usually had attorney representation during my time in TDS for example, and I’ve personally represented accused who were acquitted of charges in two separate assignments, in Iraq and stateside, over a period of multiple years. So it’s not just one office, and it wasn’t a short period of time.
There is no right to have an attorney at Article 15s, but you’d be surprised how often commanders will allow it, and I have personaly made an argument for them several times. Other times, it has been simply assistance which has led to them getting acquitted. On one occasion, it was a simple phone call to a commander which ultimately led to an acquittal at the Art 15 by that same commander.
It ain’t that uncommon.
By officer Art 15s usually had attorney representation, I meant personal appearance at the hearing…now I’m mixing the two.
“In order to get a conviction rate of under 90% the Army would have to have 4,430 “Aquittals”. Not more than 443 to retain a 99% “conviction” rate.
You might be the second comming of Ben Matlock, but I seriously doubt that the “Aquittal rate” of 15’s is 4,430 (meaning 90% Convicted), or maybe not even 443 (meaning 99% Convicted) for 2008.”
A, you are changing your argument. You said that the Army was somehow worse at this then the other services, yet you don’t know the conviction rate of any of them.
B, the standard for the Army is BRD, for the Navy it’s preponderance of the evidence, since we are apparently eschewing evidence and going with our guts, what are the odds that the Navy’s lower standard beats out the Army’s higher standard?
C, I have no idea if there were 4000+ acquittals for Art 15s, neither do you. What’s an acquittal? When you go all the way through the process? What if you get the whole process squashed? What if you get “convicted” but effectively no punishment because it is suspended based on not getting into further trouble, which happens quite frequently?
D, I dont have to be Matlock or any other fictional character. My number of acquittals was neither rare nor spectacular. It was in fact quite ordinary. I do know that the disdain you clearly have for the process is not something I share. The process works the vast majority of the time.
So if you were in the Army, would you assume that the “Conviction Rate” is at least comparable to CM’s?
You can’t base your few aquittals on the total rate.
Again,
90% Conviction 99% Conviction
44390/39951 44390/43946
4439 Aquitted 444 Aquitted
I know per 1,000 soldiers the Army hangs 67.73, whether that is the Army culture or (again look what kind of people they let in).
And I know that 67.73 is a larger number than 41 per 1,000 (Navy/Marine) or the Air Force (21.41).
Now either the Army needs more regulating per capita v. the Navy, Marines, and Air Force (not suprising based off their requiting requirements, or lack thereof, obviously they let you in that should say a lot) or, the Army is more trigger happy.
Personally I think it’s both.
You were the one to first use “conviction”. Personally I would use the word “aquittal” when the Commander checks that box that says “you did not commit the offense(s) alleged”.
*recruiting, sorry :)
“I know per 1,000 soldiers the Army hangs 67.73, whether that is the Army culture or (again look what kind of people they let in).”
Again, you are comparing one process to a separate process and drawing conclusions without actual evidence. Additionally, you have no evidence that the Army would have even been the one to do the NJP in this case. All of this is sidebar and irrelevant because the central question is, if you believe the alleged offenses have been committed, do you charge them or let them go? That’s the only question, and you and apparently a few others, think the answer simply is to let it go. I and others think the answer is you let the system do what it is designed to do.
Ya, here were I have an issue with reductio ad absurdum;
Sa you came into work 5 minutes late one day. Should your commander charge you with UA in an article 15?
Your logic says yes, mine says we should look at the circumstances.
Now you have a detainee who may or may not have been “roughed” up. The decision was to jump to an Article 15, then CM.
No, you have more than first of all.
Second of all, yes I consider assaulting a detainee quite a bit more severe than being five minutes late to work one day. Your false attempt at equivalence aside.
So my logic doesn’t say yes in every instance, but when you have assault, and lying, and dereliction as the alleged offenses? Then yes my logic says you take those a wee bit more seriously than being five minutes late to work once.
Again, if this were a prisoner being abused like this, if this were YOU when you were in confinement being punched once, and then it was lied about and covered up, you’d probably be singing a different tune. The morals of the situation don’t change because it was a REALLY bad guy instead of just a kinda bad guy.
Having said that, I’ve seen many an FTR specification tacked onto a C-M charge sheet.
Funny you should mention that,
The Gaurds at the LRCF did abuse us, farming us for work for gifts, making us do pushups and flutter kicks, playing games with us, depriving us of sleep.
I wrote a complaint with 13 affidavits from other prisoners.
Guess what? Nothing. The Security Forces Commander wrote us a bs letter. The gaurds took their anger out on us.
So yes, I know what it feels like to be abused by gaurds.
Maybe I should post the letters and you’ll see the iorny of your statement:
The US cares more about Terrorist Detainees than CM Prisoners.
Compare the boot-camp like Correctional Facility to Gitmo. -
You know what, forget it. I don’t think you understand the can of worms you just opened up and the multitude of statements I have proving misconduct, and nothing happened. Not one Gaurd was punished.
Are you officer-types always so uncivil to each other?
Ad hominems aside, am I right to conclude the SEALs elected CM because they have a better chance at a fair shake? (I.e., neutral decision makers, reasonable doubt, necessity of gov’t producing complainant, right to counsel, etc.)
Given the highly joint nature of the SF forces, I think it very possible that the officer holding Mast would be a soldier.
Anonymous, a punch in the gut, though bad & a breach of discipline, is NOT the end of the world. It IS one of those things that are best left to the SNCO’s to deal with. IF the offense occurred, the SNCO is in the best position correct the situation, not destroy a good troop in whom the Gov’t has invested hugely, and return everyone to discipline.
Elevating a petty issue to Mast or CM not only makes a mountain out of a molehill, it gives the bad guys the publicity they crave. It degrades unit cohesion because the troops will cease to trust each other and, worse, loose faith in their officers. This is what we combat-types call bad leadership.
And it is stupid, as it gives the enemy the victory they seek. To proceed to a major investigation based upon only the uncorroborated word of the prisoner is very bad judgment.
I cannot see why a Marine or Navy SF unit would want to work jointly with the Army if this is what they face. I suspect the unit cohesion of this “joint” SF group is now destroyed.
There are far too many non-combat lawyers prowling around. Nobody can make a sound judgment to let something pass for fear of some lawyer turning it in to a major can of worms. Another reason people hate lawyers. Too bad Charles Dickens is not still around. he could make this a pretty good novel.
Let me close by again stating that I do not condone abuse of prisoners and dealt harshly with that in my day. I have kept troops from being promoted, denied them leave, you name it. Bypassing the CPO’s & SNCO’s so some dogface officer can keep PC will be the end of the service.
One more thing. While his language was less than elegant, it looks like Hannity was right.
Anon 1536: The Air Force gives anyone facing NJP the right to counsel, to include the right to counsel’s assistance at the personal appearance. Perhaps that explains the low percentage of NJP’s in the AF that get reported. If for no other reason than to submit extenuation and mitigation evidence, which may in turn be the difference from an Administrative Separation following the “hearing” versus a suspended bust, it always benefited the client.
Also, with many cases, some defense “investigation” resulted in the NJP’s being withdrawn.
Whether one agrees or not with the AF’s practice, the “right” to counsel is valuable and it’s more than an inter-service cultural thing. Just like in Summary Courts-Martial in the AF, the few times they use them, counsel is mandated unless properly waived.
Cossio:
If only you knew how many people laughed very hard when you called me a “standard wool-dyed government hack.”
I will put that on my resume.