The Washington Times‘ web site has this editorial, dated tomorrow, headlined, “Save the SEALs” and sub-headed, “You’re for the SEALs, or you’re for the terrorists.”  And, no, it isn’t an attempt at irony.  The article calls for the SEALs prosecution to be dropped because “in the current politicized atmosphere and with an administration that goes out of its way to placate Muslim sentiment, it’s not a sure thing that the accused would be vindicated.”  Heaven forbid we have a trial if the outcome isn’t a sure thing.

Here’s a link to an Orange County Register article about a news conference today in which Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal.) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) called for the charges in the SEALs cases to be dropped.

And here’s an interesting quotation that Rep. Burton made to Fox News:

Burton told Fox News Thursday that even if the SEALs are guilty of the charges, he doesn’t believe they should be court martialed.

“In fact, I said to the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff if I had been one of the people who captured this guy, I would have broken both his legs,” he said. “This guy’s a terrorist and I don’t think he should be treated with kid gloves.”

10 Responses to “Continued calls to drop the SEALs prosecutions”

  1. Anonymous says:

    These folks must think that military panels love terrorists. That if the evidence is as truly slanted toward innocence at they say, that a panel full of military members will still vote “for the terrorists.”

    The only way these folks get convicted is if there is evidence OTHER than from the alleged terrorist.

  2. the tea party says:


  3. Hold on Wash Times says:

    Somehow these cases have been linked to the Obama administration by various conspiracy mongers. By my score card, far more politically charged prosecutions took place during the Bush administartion (Haditha, Hamdania et al) but we didn’t see the same howls of outrage from the Tea Party set against W. As for Congressman Burton advocating abuse of detainees and violating orders, we can see where he stands on the rule of law and military discipline.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Well, if you cannot see the conspiracy you all must be blind.

    Obviously, they will not get a fair trial on the merits because the administration is so out to get these Sailors (with nothing better to do) that it pressured SOCCENT to offer NJP knowing the Sailors would refuse. All part of the diabolical plan to then pressure for a SPCM, find 9+ active-duty SOCCENT Muslim-sympathizers to stack the members’ panel, rig voire dire so they get on the actual panel (over trial counsel challenge, defense counsel challenge, and military judge approval – of course, they’re all in on it too). All of this effort to get what amounts to misdemeanor convictions.

    Why is that so hard to believe?

  5. Some Army Guy says:

    @HoWT — The Haditha case received a lot of attention from some on the extreme right, including becoming a huge cause for radio host Michael Savage.

    While I have no problem court-martialing the SEALs, especially since they turned down NJP and allegedly lied to investigators, I can understand why this makes a much better cause: the difference between the SEALs case and Haditha is 24 dead bodies (including lots of women and children) vs. one really bad guy who got punched once.

  6. Anonymous says:

    These accused will get a fair trial in whatever venue because there will be a trained, highly motivated, independent military judge ensuring that such will be the case. If it be a member’s case, they will make a judgement based on the evidence. If they get convicted of any charged offense it will be because the gov’t was able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – if not they’ll be acquitted. If you all do not accept this basic premise of american jurisprudence, then all is lost and our entire system, miltitary or civilian is doomed to ultimate failure.

    The discretion regarding to refer or not to refer has been made. A court has been made; whether that decision was sound or not, based on the collateral rationale posed on this site, is really no longer germane. Why do you all continue to flog this dead horse? Would you had been happier if the CA had just done some mean, non-appealable administrative action against these guys?

  7. Really says:

    Why would it be over the Trial Counsel’s challenges? TC is already part of the conspiracy. Or would the TC make some obvious Batson-prohibited challenges (actually stating that they wanted member removed b/c they are (insert race here), knowing the challenged would be denied, just to throw off the scent of those who believe them to be in on the conspiracy?


  8. Steve Dallas says:

    “If you all do not accept this basic premise of american jurisprudence, then all is lost and our entire system, miltitary or civilian is doomed to ultimate failure.”

    Do you mean the 11 readers of CAAFlog could doom the entire U.S. jurisprudence system if even just one of us does not accept the aforementioned statements?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Why do WE flog the dead horse?

    Well, I am not sure it is dead. It obviously still matters to the media, Congress, and it seems some of the civilian population (See the thread “Will the SEALs cases change views of the military justice system?”)

    Public perception of the military justice system is a valid concern (not the sole one mind you), and it should be important to those of us who operate in that system everyday.

  10. CPT Rob M says:

    I don’t think we’re flogging a dead horse. CAAFLOG is about the only place on the internet where there’s any rational, thoughtful discussion about this issue, as opposed to inarticulare reactionary hyperbole. Most of the people on this site tend to agree with you that the system works, and will work for these guys, and if they’re guilty they’ll be punished, and if not they won’t.