FIRST SEAL VINDICATED Updated

Yesterday, the trial of United States Navy SEAL Petty Officer First Class Julio Huertas on charges of dereliction of duty and impeding an investigation began.  Two other SEALs, Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe are awaiting trial.  PO McCabe is the only defendant accused of assault.  PO Keefe is only accused of dereliction of duty.

Today, PO Huertas was found not guilty.  Even still, this whole situation is a fiasco. 

The terrorist they are accused of assaulting is himself accused in the deaths of four Americans.  In 2004, four Blackwater guards were killed, and their lifeless bodies were burned, hacked at, decapitated, and dragged through the streets of Fallujah before two were hanged on a bridge over the Euphrates to the cheering of crowds of insurgents.  These atrocities were captured on video by members of al Qaeda to be posted on the internet.  The man who planned the attack on the guards and the ensuing atrocities perpetrated upon them was one of Iraq's most wanted terrorists, Ahmed Hashim Abed. 

Abed was captured on the battlefield last September and placed in custody.  There is photographic evidence that he had a fat lip, but was it obtained during battle or his "arrest", was it self-inflicted so that he could claim abuse, or was it really a case of one of our men going too far?  It's hard to say, the testimony is conflicting.  And, quite frankly, if all he got was a fat lip, he should be thanking his lucky stars.  Many al Qaeda fight to the death to ensure they are not captured alive; many end up with broken bones and other injuries for their efforts. 

The predicament our SEALs find themselves in illustrates a larger problem.  Our enemies recognize our government's obsession with political correctness for what it is in the theater of war - weakness.  A savvy leader exploits any weakness in his enemy that he can, and so they are.  It's appalling.  This ridiculous exercise has taken three of our top warriors off the battlefield, all on the word of a known killer. It is also demoralizing the warriors still on the battlefield and endangers them because they are constantly second-guessing themselves, for fear they themselves might end up court martialed.   It also proves to al Qaeda that their tactic of accusations works spectacularly - they have one soldier off the battlefield, we have three.  What great odds - especially if the dirtbag terrorist ends up getting his own charges dropped due to the "assault" he has allegedly suffered while in custody.  After all, we are now apparently prosecuting enemy combatants captured on the battlefield as common criminals, and common criminals get off on such loopholes all the time. 

The jury in the court martial deliberated for a mere two hours before handing down the not guilty verdict.  They cited the conflicting testimony of the one US military member who testified on behalf of the prosecution and the lack of credibility of the "victim", Abed.  The al Qaeda field manual actually encourages any of it's soldiers who are captured to claim abuse because, as this case so clearly illustrates, our military, in their quest for political correctness, are fine with tying our own soldier's hands to attain the moral high ground.  What we need to remember is that these people we are fighting are barely one step away from rabid animals.  We need to understand that we are fighting an enemy that not only is not bound to the Geneva Conventions but sees our adherence to it as a weakness to be exploited. 

Our enemies have no rules and we have bound, gagged and shackled ourselves with rules.

 It is important to say that hitting someone who was handcuffed and hooded, terrorist or not, is certainly beyond the realm of acceptable. Abed's testimony that he was punched in the stomach has been backed up by testimony from another sailor, but the jury found his testimony to be conflicting with other sailor's accounts of events.  I have to admit a bit of puzzlement, because Abed testified that he was still hooded, but the serviceman testified that after the stomach punch he saw blood come out of Abed's mouth (via Fox News):

He testified Wednesday that he was sitting in a chair with his hands bound behind him and hood over his head when he was hit from behind on the shoulder and back, fell to his knees and was then picked back up and struck in the stomach....

....In earlier testimony, Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Kevin DeMartino testified he saw SEAL Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe punch the prisoner in the stomach and watched blood spurt from his prisoner's mouth.

How can that be, if he had a hood on?   Is it possible Abed was taunting them, specifically for the purpose of claiming abuse?  All we really know for sure is that this enemy has no boundaries  - there is nothing they won't stoop to (hmmmm...I wonder if they've been reading Alinsky).  I have not heard any testimony about whether Abed was taunting the accused men, but I find it hard to believe that these SEALs, who all had years of service under their belts, would have risked their own careers just to punch some terrorist for no reason.  Above and beyond all of that, it seems our military brass are missing an important fact. The fact is, sometimes you have to speak in a way the opposition understands. These people seem to only understand brutality. Anything else is seen as weakness.

Tomorrow PO Keefe's trail begins, and hopefully he will be vindicated as well.  PO McCabe will be on trial in May.  For those who would like to show their support for the SEALs, please check out this facebook page or this "Support the SEALs" site.  I will update as verdicts come in.

UPDATE:  PO Keefe has been found not guilty.  The verdict wasn't a surprise, considering the  "victim" changed his testimony from yesterday.  Today he claims he was kicked in the stomach, not punched.  Seems like the al Qaeda handbook needs to be updated to remind the terrorists to be consistent on the witness stand.  Two vindicated, one to go....

A NEW LOW

My fury and disgust has left me practically speechless, so I will allow Mitch Berg at Hot Air do the talking, as he does it so succinctly.

The depths this administration will sink to is just mind boggling. 

The big question is, now that they are taking credit, are we allowed to say we won?  Can we finally give our troops the accolades for this victory that they so richly deserve? 

It is not a matter of if  they back away from this stance, but when. 

It had better be soon.

'AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'

In my research for various posts, I have had to read a fair amount of congressional legislation. In all of the bills I have read, there is one thing that is consistent. On the title page of all of the bills is the name of the bill and its sponsors, and then there is this phrase:

"And for other purposes"

Those four little words have cost us literally billions of dollars.

That phrase is how a military spending bill can also be used to finance non-military things like the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network and the Edward M. Kennedy educational institute. In this one bill alone there are 778 earmarks, to the tune of $2.6 billion. That's $2.6 billion that is NOT going to training, protecting or arming our troops, in a time when we are involved in not one but two hot wars. You can be sure that $2.6 billion will be counted in the overall cost of the wars, though, when opponents talk about the cost of war being too high.

The phrase 'And for other purposes' should be outlawed from legislation.

Lawmakers like to call earmarks 'sweeteners' - a way of enticing support for a less than popular bill. The problem is, all of these sweeteners have given this country a near fatal case of fiscal diabetes from all of the 'goodies' it has been force fed for the past few decades.

This administration touts 'transparency' and 'accountability', and yet continues to support the plague of earmarks flowing out of Washington. Instead of billions in sweeteners, how about crafting truly bi-partisan legislation that a majority can get behind without having to be coerced.

Stop laughing, it could happen....

Those earmarks are nothing more than vote buying mechanisms for congressional re-election bids, and the fact that the cumulative effect is crippling our country is a minor concern to legislators desperate to stay in office, no matter the cost.

Wouldn't it be a refreshing change if our federal legislators left the local pet projects to local and state governments where they belong and instead concentrated on doing what was best for the country as a whole?

MCCHRYSTAL vs OBAMA

General Stanley McChrystal, the head of NATO forces in the Afghan theater, has thrown down the gauntlet, and President Obama is rather peeved. In a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a British international security think tank, McChrystal once again made the case for a surge of upwards of 40,000 troops. He also went on Sunday's 60 Minutes to promote his plan.


Critics are attacking McChrystal for circumventing the usual political channels and going to the public to force his will on the administration.


I wonder, could his more strident pleas for reinforcements and his tactic of turning to the public for help against a beta-male administration be more about saving our troops and winning a war than 'forcing his will'?


The men and women under his command are much more than just boots on the ground for General McChrystal. A good general is like a good father, looking out for the welfare of his children, working to keep them safe but still allowing them to take the risks that often bring success. They are his troops, and it is his job to use them wisely, keep deaths and injuries to an absolute minimum and make as much progress towards victory as possible, not just for prestige, but because those men and women are under his care. They are his responsibility, and people are dying.

I'd say that's reason enough to make waves, wouldn't you?

He wrote a report after a few months in the field, assessing the situation and making recommendations on how to proceed. What he saw did not make him happy, and he was blunt in his assessment to the President. That report then sat on Obama's desk for a month as he flitted around the country, pushing for health care reform. Contact between the president and general have been minimal - never a good idea during a hot war.

Hey, Mr. President, if you really want to save some lives, how about doing some of that 'multitasking' you are so big on and pay attention to the plight our troops are in.


Obama himself hired McChrystal, and one would assume he made sure to put someone in position who reflected his views. But as with many other aspects of this administration, that assumption of common sense seems to have been completely unfounded. But ignoring the issue is not the way to go, and I think that McChrystal was doing what he needed to do to protect his troops.


What other alternative did he have, faced with a Commander in Chief who is more interested in winning the Olympics for his hometown than winning a war for his country?


Let's face it, the past nine months have shown us that the only way to get Obama's chin out of the air and actually listen to others' opinions is to forcefully demand his attention, and that is what McChrystal did. When people are dying, you do what has to be done to get the mission accomplished.


There are those who say that Obama is favoring VP Joe Biden's plan to rely on Predator strikes, special forces missions and training the Afghans. Those are good ideas, but it's just not enough. And, quite frankly, I have yet to understand why Biden is considered such a foreign policy wonk, but Obama's poor judgement of people has reached epic proportions, so I can't really say I'm surprised. Apparently our self-righteous 'representatives' in Washington believe that 36 years on the Foreign Relations Committee has far more weight than 30+ years in the field.

McChrystal is advocating a counter-insurgency plan, along the lines of the surge in Iraq. We need more boots on the ground because, just like Iraq, the politicians under staffed, under estimated and under funded. Which is why wars are usually lost when politicians wage them instead of generals. They are unwilling to spend the necessary amounts of blood and treasure, for fear of losing re-election. Generals just want to win the war, and good ones want to do it with as little loss of life as possible. And, as any good general knows, winning the hearts and minds of the people is vital to success - pushing forward relies heavily on being sure you will not be attacked from the rear. Building a strong relationship with local leaders' support and protection is essential - something a community organizer should know.

The problem here, as in Iraq, is foreign insurgents. It's one thing to estimate the number of locals willing to fight, but how do you estimate foreign fighters? All you can do is compensate as it happens.

Which is what McChrystal is doing.

So let him do it.

The surge won Iraq, whether the left wants to acknowledge it or not, and it can win Afghanistan, too.

But if Obama wants to 'cut and run', he needs to make the decision soon, before more American lives are lost.