Here’s an aspect of the congressional response to the SEALs cases of which I was unaware before reading this Human Events piece today:  three resolutions have been introduced in Congress to honor SO2 McCabe, SO2 Keefe, and SO1 Huertas for capturing Ahmed Hashim Abed.  H. Res. 977 was introduced by Rep. Poe of Texas and has 76 co-sponsores.  H. Res. 988 was introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and has 43 co-sponsors.  Both resolutions were referred to HASC’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities.  S. Res. 439 was introduced by Senator Ensign of Nevada and has three co-sponsors.  It’s been referred to SASC.

10 Responses to “Congressional response to the SEALs cases, continued”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Really? Politicians really are silly sometimes.

  2. jerk says:

    this is going nowhere and doesn’t really have media coverage outside of caaflog and FOX “NEWS”

  3. Anonymous says:

    I hope someone introduces an additional resolution that *without naming names* condemns ANY assaults on detainees by military servicemembers. This is getting silly though, and hopefully it goes nowhere because frankly this is making everybody look bad.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Hopefully the panel(s) will do the right thing in these cases and find the sailors not guilty.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Or perhaps the panels should do the “right thing” and vote what the evidence shows. They’re called the “fact-finders” for a reason.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Why are they protesting so much? Sometimes it is unclear whether the defense takes the stance that no such assault happened or, in the alternative, that the assault was no big deal if it did. I gave up hoping long ago that members of congress would appreciate the subtle nuances of the remaining good order and discipline charges.

    Instead, everyone treats the court-martial as the actual punishment. All the smoke and mirrors make the defense appear as though it fears that, at trial, they will lose (probably on something other than the alleged assault). If, as they portray, the Sailors feel they are completely in the right (and actually acted honorably enough to “receive a medal”), then why not relish their day in court to vindicate their actions? I really do not care what happens, so long as they get a fair trial.

    I do not find in unreasonable for a CA to refer charges to SPCM to address whether his subordinates are lying to him or not following his orders. That appears pretty much the touchstone of good order and discipline.

  7. Gene Fidell says:

    I have insufficient information to say whether the pending cases are meritorious, but I do believe the persistent congressional efforts to influence the course of justice in particular cases (as opposed, for example, to holding hearings to discuss generic issues) threaten the integrity of the military justice system. Coupled with the 4-justice dissent Denedo (which harkened back to the era of drumhead justice), further efforts to explain the system to the rest of the government, not to mention the public, are needed.

  8. CPT Rob M says:

    I may be reading you wrong, but I think you’re confusing the defense with the defense’s “supporters.” I’m pretty sure the defendant SEALs wanted their day in court to vindicate themselves (which is why they denied NJP in the first place). It’s the outsiders, the overly simplistic “terrorists bad, U.S. servicemembers infallible” politicians, pundits, and internet denizens who consider the very notion of a court-martial to be punishment.

    Maybe, and this just occurred to me, it’s our own fault (i.e. the military) for allowing “court martial” to become a verb, as in “he was court martialed for…” connoting that to be court martialed is to be punished.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Well, I am pretty sure I saw a defense lawyer at the rally telling his client to take off his sunglasses.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Yes, yet the defense does nothing to distance itself from its “supporters.” Granted, the counsel are experienced and this could be a valid tactic. Regardless, it associates them with the supporters’ rhetoric. The Sailors could have refused NJP because they wanted their day in court, or a sea-lawyer could have told them that the CA would never go forward with this court-martial. Trying to figure out which would be mere speculation on my part. Either way, as Mr. Puckett says, they now have the protections that a SPCM affords them.