More SEALS Charged with Prisoner Abuse

[KB]

Anybody got additional info on this?

3 Commandos Charged With Beating of Prisoners
By ERIC SCHMITT/NYT

Published: September 25, 2004

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 - In a growing scandal within a scandal, three more members of the Navy Seals have been charged with abusing Iraqi detainees, two of whom died in American custody in Iraq after they were beaten, Navy officials said Friday. One detainee died at Abu Ghraib prison and the other at an Army base near Mosul.

The new charges bring to seven the members of Navy Special Operations who now face criminal charges in connection with the widening prisoner-abuse scandal. On Sept. 3, the Navy announced charges against three Seal commandos and another sailor attached to their team. All seven sailors were assigned to Seal Team 7, based in Coronado, Calif., a Navy official said.

Military officials said it was highly unusual to charge Special Operations forces with offenses committed on the battlefield, where suspected insurgents are captured. The charges announced Friday against the three men, who were not identified, included assault with intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, assault with a dangerous weapon, maltreatment of detainees, obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty, according to a Navy statement.

A spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command in San Diego, Cmdr. Jeffrey Bender, said it was possible that more members of the Seals could be charged in the investigation into abuses committed in Iraq between October 2003 and April 2004.

The Navy's charges came at the end of a week in which the Army also announced it was investigating the deaths of three Iraqis and an Afghan Army recruit who were in American custody or came in contact with American forces. The First Cavalry Division in Baghdad announced that two soldiers, Sgt. Michael P. Williams and Specialist Brent W. May, had been charged with premeditated murder. The Army's Criminal Investigation Command reopened the inquiry into the death of the Afghan recruit.

According to statistics released Friday, the Army has opened investigations into the deaths of 54 detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, including 21 determined to be from natural or undetermined causes. The Army said 19 cases were pending.

The new Navy charges stem from the death in early April of Fashad Muhammad, an Iraqi seized by the commandos after a struggle and turned over to Army personnel at a logistics support base called Diamondback, near Mosul. Military officials could not say Friday why Mr. Muhammad was held.

He was allowed to sleep at the Army base, but officials said he never woke up the next day, April 5. A preliminary autopsy indicated blows to the torso and a lack of oxygen, possibly caused by severe restraint. A final autopsy report is pending, said Christopher Kelly, a spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

The Army's Criminal Investigation Command immediately opened an investigation but turned its findings over to the Navy for disciplinary action, indicating that although Mr. Muhammad died in Army custody, investigators believed his death was probably caused by maltreatment by the Navy team. But officials said there was not sufficient evidence to charge the commandos with a more serious offense, like murder or manslaughter.

Much more is known about the other case, involving a detainee who died at Abu Ghraib after he had been captured by Navy Special Operations forces.

In that case a man, identified only as Jamadi, was seized by commandos on Nov. 4, 2003, as a suspect in an attack against the International Committee for the Red Cross. When Jamadi resisted arrest, one of the commandos struck him with a rifle butt, investigators concluded.

His body, pictured wrapped in plastic and packed in ice, became one of the starkest images to emerge during the prisoner-abuse case. The incident also drew attention because the detainee was being questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency at Abu Ghraib but was kept off the prison roster.

In that incident, the Navy personnel initially denied any abuse. But the case gained momentum after another member of the Seals, charged on an unrelated offense, agreed in late June to share information about the abuses he had heard about in hope of winning leniency.

Once those sailors were charged, a Navy official said, they implicated the three sailors whose charges were announced Friday.

Some officers have pointed out that many of the abuses cited by human rights groups have occurred at "the point of capture," where the dangers and volatility are greatest for American forces. But other Seal officers have said the sailors charged so far appeared to have clearly violated military standards.

Dates for disciplinary hearings have not been set, the Navy said. All seven men have returned to Seal bases on the West Coast.

[PJ]

Jesus christ who cares, these ****ing ****s killed americans for no reason, they deserve to be beaten and killed.

[One?]

Jesus christ who cares, these f*** f*** killed americans for no reason, they deserve to be beaten and killed.

how exactly did they kill americans for no reason?

They did not go to texas and start butchering people on the streets....

[PJ]

ok, i went a little overboard, im really drunk and tired

[moughoun]

Jesus christ who cares, these f*** f*** killed americans for no reason, they deserve to be beaten and killed.

well done!! slow hand clap :roll:

[Death Touch]

I don't agree with the beating of bound and gagged prisoners. Navy SEALs should have had a little bit more restraint. They are SpecWar not vigilantes. This is wrong and a disgrace to the Spec Op communities. As far as we all know that Iraqi prisoner could have had nothing to do with firing a weapon or detonating IEDs. The fact is we don't know if that guy was guilty or not. He was to be interrogated, not used as a human punching bag for their revenge.
I am angry after the BlackWater incident and the former Navy SEAL Scott Halveston's death especially with the Somalia incident still fresh in our minds, but this is not a situation where American's who are fighting 'for the heart's and minds' of Iraqis should be using to indulge themselves in revenge. They are not the judge and jury, they need to realize this. Maybe the guy deserved it, maybe he didn't. Bottom line SEALs are not barbarians. These guys need to be court martialed and fast. They need to send a message to the military that this type of behavior is not condoned nor tolerated in addition they need to send a message to those insurgents that their fate is sealed when it comes to attacking U.S. forces and coalition troops. But not by beating a tied up man to death.

Save it for the battlefield, guys.

[Midav]

I have said this before and once again, this is my opinion...

Should these guys have proven to be insurgents or one of the terrorists involved in these beheadings, do with them as pleased.

If the prisoners were just a petty criminals or not yet convicted on anything, punish these men.

Just do not understand why SEAL's were there to begin with.

A shame....

Edit: Edited for plural reasons ;)

[U2.Digital]

this is a time of war, and we are fighting terrorism, not even your conventional warfare.. so normal due process shall not be afforded to the enemies. if slapping a few terrorists around could save American lives, I am all for it.

[2RHPZ]

Accusations against SOF

Human dignity, Crazy Mike and Indian country

By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - The reason Washington is having such a difficult time persuading of its good faith and its good works in its "war on terror" was best illustrated on Tuesday.

While President George W Bush told the United Nations General Assembly that the US belief in "human dignity" - a phrase he used no fewer than 10 times - was the main US motivation for pursuing the war, two articles that appeared in two major US newspapers the same morning offered an altogether different subtext.

The first piece, titled "Indian country", was written by one of the Bush administration's geostrategic gurus, Robert D Kaplan, and published on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Kaplan, who is writing a series of books about the US military, extolled the wonders of US Special Forces operating in small units from "forward operating bases" (FOBs) without direction from any "Washington bureaucracy" and outside the scrutiny of the global media.

Just as "in the days of fighting the Indians", wrote Kaplan, referring to early efforts to subdue native Americans, "the smaller the tactical unit, the more forward-deployed it is, and the more autonomy it enjoys from the chain of command, the more that can be accomplished".

Unbeknownst to Kaplan and, presumably, to Bush, the Los Angeles Times that same morning was publishing a front-page article that gave one example of precisely what such a unit could do.

Based on reports by a UN team, the Washington-based Crimes of War Project, and the office of the Afghan Armed Forces attorney general, the Times described how US Special Forces at one FOB in southeastern Afghanistan last year beat and tortured eight Afghan soldiers over no less than 17 days, until one of their victims, 18-year-old Jamal Naseer, died.

The eight were taken to the Special Forces FOB near Gardez on March 1, 2003, after they were seized while manning a security checkpoint amid suspicions, apparently planted by local faction leaders competing for US support, that Afghan army units in the area were selling arms to the Taliban.

According to the consistent testimony of the men, they were "pummeled, kicked, karate-chopped, hung upside down and struck repeatedly with sticks, rubber hoses and plastic-covered cables", the Times reported. "Some said they were immersed in cold water, then made to lie in the snow. Some said they were kept blindfolded for long periods and subjected to electric shocks to their toes."

During their ordeal, they were never given medical help or even provided with a change of clothes.

After Naseer's death, his battered body and the seven survivors were handed over to local Afghan police by a Special Forces commander who threatened to kill the police chief if he released any of the prisoners, according to an official of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), who witnessed the warning.

They were held there with as many as 13 other inmates in a "secret detention room" built for five prisoners for the next month and a half - apparently until their wounds had healed. UNAMA interviewed them during their stay there and found that their injuries were consistent with their testimony.

They were finally transferred to a prison near Kabul and released after authorities there found no evidence that they had committed any crimes or had ties to anti-government groups. The prison also referred the case to the attorney general.

The Afghan military has requested an explanation of the incident from the US military authorities, according to the attorney general's report, who so far have provided no response. After the Times began inquiring about the case last weekend, the Pentagon announced that it has launched a criminal investigation.

But as of Tuesday, investigators said they did not know who precisely was running the Gardez base, other than units from the 20th Special Forces Group based in Birmingham, Alabama.

Consistent with Kaplan's notion that the Special Forces should operate as independently as possible from Washington bureaucrats, however, a US Army detective in Kabul told the Times, "There are no records ... There are no SOPs [standard operating procedures] ... and each unit acts differently."

"Mike", the name used by the commanding officer of the FOB at the time, is a common pseudonym for intelligence and Special Forces officers working in Afghanistan, although this particular "Mike" apparently stood out for his aggressiveness, because at least one of his fellow soldiers referred to him as "Crazy Mike".

At a March 10, 2003, meeting - that is, 10 days into the victims' captivity - "Crazy Mike" attended a security meeting sponsored by UNAMA in Gardez during which he warned local Afghan commanders that he would kill any of them if they released prisoners taken by his unit.

It's unclear whether "Crazy Mike" was also the commander who threatened the local chief police with death if he released the prisoners.

The commander of the detained Afghan unit was Naseer's older brother. He testified that after Naseer's death, there was an argument between two US officers during which one grabbed the other by the collar and said that Naseer should have been shot rather than tortured. One US officer offered condolences and money, which was refused, according to the brother's account.

Naseer's death was never officially reported up the chain of command, so that the Pentagon's recent report in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal that a total of 39 detainees have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan now appears incomplete.

Just how incomplete that report is, of course, unknown, and the incident at Gardez may, indeed, be another case of a "few rotten apples" the administration has tried to blame for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

On the other hand, this latest incident - and particularly the fact that it was carried out over almost two weeks - certainly adds to the impression that abuses of detainees were indeed far more pervasive than the Bush administration has ever admitted.

Kaplan, whose 2001 best-selling book Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos extolled waging war without mercy, has long argued that maintaining global order is a rough business and that even "successful" wars like those against the native Americans or the US counter-insurgency campaign in the Philippines a century ago inevitably lead to excesses. The extent that they can be kept out of the media spotlight - which, of course, is precisely what the Bush administration has tried to do - is all to the good, according to Kaplan's perspective.

"In 'Indian country', as one general officer told me, 'you want to whack bad guys quietly and cover your tracks with humanitarian-aid projects'," Kaplan wrote on Tuesday.

"The red-Indian metaphor is one with which a liberal policy nomenklatura may be uncomfortable," he went on, "but [US] army and marine field officers have embraced it because it captures perfectly the combat challenge of the early 21st century."

Noting that it was the great Victorian leader William Gladstone who called on British troops to protect "the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan", Kaplan stressed that US leaders must also appeal to the idealism of their citizens in another article he wrote last year on US supremacy.

"Americans are truly idealistic by nature, but even if we weren't, our historical and geographical circumstances necessitate that US foreign policy be robed in idealism," Kaplan wrote in the same article. "And yet security concerns necessarily make our foreign policy more pagan.

"Speak Victorian, think pagan," he advised US policymakers. And thus, while the UN delegates must have heard Bush's rhetoric about "human dignity", they might have been thinking about "Crazy Mike" in "Indian country".

(Inter Press Service)

Link (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-asiatimesonline_300x250&dt=1096618401330&adsafe=high&lmt=1096023819&format=300x250_pas_abgnc&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atimes.com%2Fatimes%2FCentral_Asia%2FFI25Ag01.html&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=741&u_aw=1024&u_cd=16&u_tz=120&u_java=true&u_nplug=10&u_nmime=147)

[Trident-za]

I can sort of understand the mindset that if beating a few bad guys can save soldier's lives then it's OK, but I don't agree with it, on principle. We are supposed to be the good guys - fighting for justice, freedom, democracy, the rule of law & order etc. etc. Behaving like Saddam's thugs doesn't do it for me, no matter the justification.

The problem with it really is that it leaves the decision as to what is acceptable up to the individual, and we all know how screwed up individuals can be. You honestly think that the US (or any other countries) military is filled up with 100% decent, upstanding individuals who would never abuse their "power", never bully or hurt people just for kicks, or a little revenge?

The reason things like the "law" and the "constitution" were made is because decisions about appropriate behaviour should NEVER be left to the individual, especially the individual who is right there with his blood boiling.

Oh, I agree with the article just posted by CAG 147 - it's a little strange hearing about the US interest in "human dignity" after reading so many blood-thirsty (testosterone can be a dangerous thing) posts on this forum.

Would everything work smoother if we just said "hell, we're at war - do whatever it takes"?? Absolutely. The WOT would definately proceed a little smoother.... I'm sure the police in the USA would also argue that the fight against crime would be much easier if they could just beat the truth out of suspects, or torture convicted criminals instead of jailing them. But is this the kind of world you want your kids to grow up in? Also, if there is a choice between the "easy way" and the "hard way", the hard way is usually the morally correct way. Its EASY to behave like an animal, much harder not to. We have to fight this war with "dignity" and the rule of civilized law and order, or else we've already lost.

OK, rant over. I apologize if I'm not bloodthirsty enough. I've seen first hand what happens if you allow young soldiers "make" their own justice. It's an extremely ugly portrayal of the human species.

[Trident-za]

For those of you who have followed the debacle with Socnet, you might recognize this quote. I thought it was very true when I read it yesterday, and it's especially apt to this discussion...


America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.


Apparently, it's from "American President", although I'm not sure what that is. Either way - read it, think about it. It's what America is supposed to be about.

[cchccrowder]

3 Commandos Charged With Beating of Prisoners


The charges announced Friday against the three men, who were not identified, included assault with intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, assault with a dangerous weapon, maltreatment of detainees, obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty, according to a Navy statement.



how is that bad? assault with intent to cause death? that is a part of fighting. assualt with a dangerous weapon? (a seal with a gun is a dangerous weapon anyway. ;) ) but really, assualt with a dangerous weapon? now this could be in another context. like they had already surrendered and they were doing that but.. in a way makeing them fearful is what u want. u dont want them to think that now that im captured im home free. u want them to be scared so they dont try to escape.

i dunno just my .02 cents, maybe if we knew the whole facts and the details of the situation we would be able to make a better judgement.

-cchccrowder[/img]

[Trident-za]

3 Commandos Charged With Beating of Prisoners


The charges announced Friday against the three men, who were not identified, included assault with intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, assault with a dangerous weapon, maltreatment of detainees, obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty, according to a Navy statement.



how is that bad? assault with intent to cause death? that is a part of fighting. assualt with a dangerous weapon? (a seal with a gun is a dangerous weapon anyway. ;) ) but really, assualt with a dangerous weapon? now this could be in another context. like they had already surrendered and they were doing that but.. in a way makeing them fearful is what u want. u dont want them to think that now that im captured im home free. u want them to be scared so they dont try to escape.

i dunno just my .02 cents, maybe if we knew the whole facts and the details of the situation we would be able to make a better judgement.

-cchccrowder[/img]

Well, apparently the people who do know the details have formed a judgement - the SEALs in question are being charged.