Navy SEALs Charged: Another Cancerous Case Of Obama Criminalizing Those Who Protect Us

Update, April 23, 2010: The 2nd of three SEALs have now had all charges dropped against them.  These were stupid and immoral charges that should never have been made in the first place.  The Obama administration has created a paranoid and toxic atmosphere of political correctness run amok.

Welcome to Obama’s America, where there are only three truly evil acts: 1) being a conservative; 2) working for Fox News; 3) being a patriot who tries to keep America safe from its enemies.

These SEALs are at least guilty of number 3, and are most likely also guilty of 1 as well.  That’s more than enough for Obama.

And of course Fox reported on the story.  But we already know they’re guilty of Crimes Against Obama.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges For Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged. obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

“I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that “Objective Amber” planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and “they had been tracking this guy for some time.”

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

I’d first like to thank these SEALs for their service; second, I’d like to thank them for capturing Ahmed Hashim Abed; third, I would like to thank them for giving this slimebag a fat lip.

Let’s assess the record of this administration: repeatedly attempting to contact al-Qaeda — merits a promotion; giving a terrorist murderer a fat lip — merits a court martial.

This is what happens under the Obama worldview that requires providing Miranda rights to terrorists and according them all the rights and privileges of American citizens.

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration declassifying vital intelligence secrets which kept this country safe in order to use it as a political weapon

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration literally attempting to criminalize the role of our intelligence professionals at the CIA for their role in desperately striving to keep this country safe.  Now, surprise, surprise, the morale at the CIA is at a 30-year low (dating back to the last time a Democrat tried to destroy the Agency).

It is a cancer that resulted in a Muslim captain who’d had regular email contact with al-Qaeda as well as “soldier of Allah” on his business card getting promoted to major before murdering 14 human beings and wounding more than 30 more at a military base – as he screamed ‘Allahu akbar!’ – while our own SEALs get disciplined for capturing such murderous bags of slime.

It is a cancer that resulted in five confessed terrorists going from requesting the death sentence at a military tribunal to getting an opportunity to plead not guilty and use the civilian trial Obama gave them as a platform for their jihadist worldview while putting America (and George Bush) on trial.

It is a cancer that has resulted in a president dithering for nearly three full months while ignoring his own handpicked general’s request for more troops in Afghanistan.  While nearly twice as many American soldiers have died (so far!) than died under George Bush.

Today Obama came out and – while continuing to criticize Bush for not having the right “strategy” – said he intends to “finish the job” without bothering to have any kind of explanation as to what the “job” even is.   Which is to say, some fat load of good his three months of “policy reviews” has done.  Meanwhile, the morale of our troops is sinking, while the morale of the Taliban and the number of the American body count is rising.

And we have Barack Hussein to thank for inflicting us with this cancer.  The sooner he is gone, the sooner our healing from cancer can begin.

Note to fools: there is no CSI Kandahar, and there is no CSI Baghdad.  We cannot possibly ask our soldiers to gather evidence and turn battlefields into crime scenes.  We are worse than idiots for demanding that our warriors on foreign battlefields act like domestic police officers.  It is a blatant category fallacy.

Prayer for Barack Obama:

Psalm 109:8 – “Let his days be few, and let another take his office.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses to “Navy SEALs Charged: Another Cancerous Case Of Obama Criminalizing Those Who Protect Us”

  1. Todd Fitchette Says:

    If these policies would have reigned during WWII, Europe and very likely the former Soviet Union would be flying the red and black flag of the National Socialists and we’d likely be flying the red and white flag of Japan over our nation.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    In one way I disagree, Todd (although we’re clearly very much on the same page).

    I think if liberals (and all you have to do to see how different liberals USED to be is look at John F. Kennedy’s speeches) had tried to impose these policies during WWII, the American people would have used every means – including armed resistance, if necessary – to make sure it didn’t happen.

    Now, we seem to be a nation that is a shadow of its former greatness. There are STILL great Americans among us, but it remains a very real question as to whether there are enough of them to stem the tide and “change” the flow.

    We had something then that gave us strength, just as it’s lack now creates so much weakness. And that thing is “purpose” and a sense of national destiny.

    And duty. We used to think in terms of duties, rather than rights. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” But today, way too often, Americans aren’t even willing to stand up to save the lives of their own babies, let alone act to save the life and freedom of their nation.

    Speaking of WWII, we have to take as our example another hero of that war – Winston Churchill. We have to have his attitude as we fight these evil liberal policies and power grabs:

    We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
    we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
    we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
    we shall fight on the beaches,
    we shall fight on the landing grounds,
    we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
    we shall fight in the hills;
    we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

    We have to FIGHT.

  3. Scott Says:

    Just to give you a heads-up, you may catch some flak for the Psalm 109:8 reference, as I believe the passage in total seems to be referring to murder, not just a belief that the leader should be replaced in a timely manner by someone else (at least that is what some are taking it to mean):

  4. Naked Patriot Says:

    Obama should step in and overturn this nonsense against our NAVY SEALS. I stand by our military as should our own President. If I were President I’d have thrown this crap sandwich out and punched the terrorist in the face myself!!

  5. JS Says:

    So was it a ‘cancer’ when the same thing happened in 2004 when Bushie was President, or did you just not bother to read the last line of the article?

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Always appreciate a heads up, Scott. And I thank you for bringing this up.

    I suppose that murder could be one possible way for the verse to be fulfilled, but in reading the passage in context I see no reason to think that murder is in view. It seems more likely that David is praying, “Let him be hung on his own petard; let him be convicted by his own false justice system” (see verses 6-7).

    This prayer is really more about talionic justice (the law of the claw). David is crying out for deliverance from and justice against wicked men. These men were deceitful (v. 2) and hateful (v. 3), and rewarded his trust with false accusations (vv. 2-4). They reciprocated his good with evil (v. 5). And David essentially prays here that God do to them what they want to do to David.

    In a way, I imagine that is rather exactly how our SEALs feel, as they are maligned and attacked by wicked people who are using a dishonest and unjust “justice” system to destroy them.

    In that sense, I don’t know that I could have cited a better verse/passage.

    For the record, I have never once prayed that ANYONE would be murdered – although I wouldn’t mind it happening to a few people such as Osama bin Laden.

    Nor do I personally hate Barack Obama, although I DO hate what he is doing to my country, and to its founding principles. But like the Psalmist David, I do want Obama and those who follow him to one day answer for what they’ve done, both in this world and in the world to come.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    I gave about five points, and your looking at one of them. That’s fair, but don’t forget the rest of the cancers.

    With that said, here’s the “last line of the article” in question:

    The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

    So we have a “scandal,” and as a result of the “scandal,” we have the Pentagon being “sensitive” (and I just LOVE it when the Pentagon starts being “sensitive,” don’t you?), and as a result of the Pentagon being “sensitive,” we have four SEALs getting charged with abuse.

    So which party turned the issue into a “scandal” to get that ball rolling? Which party demonized and demagogued the issue and attacked the Pentagon to the point where they suddenly became so “sensitive” that rather than appear “politically incorrect” or “insensitive” they promoted a terrorist who was emailing al-Qaeda and about to murder a bunch of soldiers at Fort Hood to major… Oops. I’m sorry; I got ahead of myself there, didn’t I?

    Which party did that?

    We seem to have very different memories as to who started the furor and the frothing anger over the Abu Ghraib issue. Just call me crazy, JS, but I don’t remember Republicans – and I certainly don’t remember George Bush – being the one/s to rush out and attack the military over Abu Ghraib. I mean, again, I’ve clearly got to be misremembering, but I remember very clearly it being the other way around, with DEMOCRATS doing the accusing and attacking using Abu Graihb as a political weapon against Republicans and Bush.

    Strange, but the Washington Times seems to misremember it, too:

    The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman yesterday accused Sen. Richard J. Durbin of insulting American soldiers with a “grievous error in judgment” by comparing U.S. treatment of al Qaeda suspects to the crimes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot, and demanded that the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat apologize.

    The rebuke followed a similar rebuke by the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who called Mr. Durbin “totally out of line.”

    Republican lawmakers lined up to condemn the remarks as making the war on terror more dangerous for American troops.

    Now, JS, Republicans are often weak, and their greatest sin is failing to forcefully stand up against the blatant evil of the Democrat Party. So if you want to blame the pathetic Bush response to the utterly hateful and insane anti-American and anti-soldier demagoguery from the left and from the Democrats, go right ahead.

    As a last point, the SEALs being charged now gave a fat lip to a guy who presided over one of the worst atrocities against American personnel in the entire Iraq war. That just brings this to a whole different level of absurdity, I would say.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Totally agree.

    I am willing to stand with President Obama when he does the right thing.

    It’s just that he so rarely does the right thing.

  9. seymour Says:

    Obama is the biggest idiot to ever step foot in the White House. He has NO respect for our Military Or America and worse yet he is comander and chief. Those Seals should have put a few rounds in the a-hole. A fat lip? Who cares. We should send Obama out to Iraq and send him in as a front liner. Let him duct some lead and then see how his stupid ass feels.

    Lets all pray Obama is replaced. God Bless America and our troops

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    There comes a point where one – or where one’s culture – can say, “Survival at any cost!” Such a people become loathsome by having no values beyond themselves.

    And then there is a strange place that only a once and formerly Judeo-Christian society can reach where it seeks its own annihilation by becoming utterly helpless, week, and apathetic. Such a society becomes even more contemptible. It bears its own throat to the wolves, it urinates upon itself. It seeks death, as long as that death might come without pain. It will ultimately depart the world as it lived – with a whimper.

    Such is Obama’s way.

    There is a place where men value life and liberty. A place where Christianity – where rightly believed, understood, taught, and followed – provides strength and courage. It provides a culture with the resources to enable its citizens to live with a sense of purpose, power, and destiny – and therefore to maintain life and liberty and justice.

    Such was our founders’ way.

  11. SB Says:

    So you think it’s okay that Bush allowed our troops to go without decent equipment for 5 years, and that Halliburton and KBR’s poor facility construction – which led to several preventable deaths of American soldiers – is okay? How about the defunding of Walter Reid?

    Obama is trying to fix those problems. He hasn’t done much else worth a dang aside from sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act, but if anyone failed the troops during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, it was GWB. Hardline-Repub military friends of mine have said as much, and the newspaper stories on the right and left only confirm the travesty.

    I couldn’t care less about some SEALS punching a guy. What I care about is how those men are being treated throughout the entirety of their careers. Do you?

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    First of all, what you try to do here is morally sick: I write an article describing a despicable injustice in which this administration has determined to treat terrorists like citizens, and SEALs like terrorists. But rather than deal with that – which would be the sign of a person with a functioning moral compass – you immediately point to some other behavior by someone else to “prove” that Obama is fine doing what he’s doing here. What a load of crap.

    Any mother of a pair of two-year old siblings knows that one kid’s behavior doesn’t justify another kid’s behavior. Sadly, liberals are not past the mentality of the two-year olds.

    Maybe some day Barack Obama and his liberal wing will actually decide HE’S president, rather than George Bush, and take some personal responsibility for his leadership.

    That said, your description that “Bush allowed our troops to go without decent equipment for 5 years” is laughable on its face. Name the country that had better weapons than we did. Just name ONE nation that was stronger than we were. The United States is the mightiest military power in the history of the world, and you don’t think we had decent equipment.

    We certainly had great weapons. And a whole lot of them. And the bottom line is and always has been: a country goes to war with the weapons it has.

    On top of that, we walked over Iraq, and the regime basically collapsed within days of our invasion. And you don’t think we were ready to take them on? Seriously?

    Let me give you someone to get pissed off at: Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt, who left us totally unprepared for war against attacking Japan.

    You want to compare Bush’s “unpreparedness” to FDR’s? Go ahead. Show me the Iraqi victory over U.S. troops that tops Pearl Harbor and the crushing defeat at the Kasserine Pass.

    You want to talk about defunding?

    On September 20, 2007, bill H.R. 1585 , the Feingold-Reid Amendment, was brought to the Senate floor for a vote. The bill authorized the defunding of troops in Iraq and called for the redeployment of troops from Iraq.

    John McCain voted against the bill, which was defeated 70-28.

    Barack Obama voted for this bill along with 27 other anti-war democrats.

    How about this one: Joe Biden Attacked Obama For Voting Against Funding U.S. Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan, Accusing Him Of “Cutting Off Support That Will Save The Lives Of Thousands Of American Troops.” Biden: “And, look, Tim, if you tell me I’ve got to take away this protection for these kids in order to win the election, some things aren’t worth it. Some things are worth losing over. That would be worth losing over. Hundreds of lives are being saved and will be saved by us sending these vehicles over which we are funding with this supplemental legislation. And I want to ask any of my other colleagues, would they, in fact, vote to cut off the money for those troops to protect them? That’s the right question. This isn’t cutting off the war. This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/9/07)

    And just what sort of vehicles is Biden talking about that Obama tried to deny to the troops? We should take a second to contemplate the MRAP vehicle which stands for Mine Resistant Armor Protected. Kind of sounds like something the troops needed. Joe Biden voted for it over the objections of his liberal base which doesn’t give a damn about our soldiers’ lives; Barack Obama voted against the troops having protection against IEDs. And Biden excoriated Obama on the campaign trail as not protecting the troops.

    Biden demanded those vehicles, voting against the radical-left Democratic lock-step:

    In [the Des Moines Register], the author explains that the Democratic leaders are not happy with the MRAP program. Even when it was not tied to Iraq War Funding, Senators Clinton and Obama voted against it. Dem. Senator Biden voted for it and has said the vote made him “the bastard at the family picnic.” Anti-war activists held “Impeach Biden” signs when he visited Iowa City. His staffers warned he would “get his skin ripped off” if he attended an event in Council Bluffs. All because of the vote. And he says he doesn’t care.“As long as there’s one American kid over there, I’m voting the money for these things,” Biden said in a chat the other day during a stop in Des Moines. “It’s the one way we can save lives before getting them out.”

    Biden literally said it was a matter of life and death for the troops:

    “I have never begun a discussion of an amendment,” Mr. Biden told his fellow senators, “by saying something as graphic and as drastic as ‘this is literally a matter of life and death.’ But it is. This is not hyperbole. This is not an exaggeration.” He was right on all counts.

    Biden’s supporters said the refusal on the part of Biden’s rivals for president – which very much included Barack Obama – “would come back to haunt them”:

    “Just as Beau Biden, a captain in the Delaware National Guard, had predicted in August at the Iowa Democratic Party Veteran’s Caucus Presidential Extravaganza in Des Moines, the vote on the emergency funding for the war in Iraq war has come back into play. Beau, the attorney general of Delaware, spoke on behalf of his father, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, and told the room full of veterans that his father’s Democratic rivals’ “no” vote on the funding, despite the attached Biden amendment to fast track funding and production for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, would come back to haunt them.”

    But it won’t as long as there are people like you who can only view history through liberal ideology.

    Here’s a nice bit about Obama “defunding” wounded veterans from CNN:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

    Or we can look at the “VA Death Books” that Bush banned, but Obama brought back to make soldiers consider terminating their lives. On page 21 of the VA book, “Your Life, Your Choices,” veterans get to answer questions pertaining to the issue: “What makes my life worth living?” And guilt-inducing scenarios to consider such as,“I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” and “I am a severe financial burden on my family” to “guide” one to come to the conclusion, life is “not worth living.”

    As to your last sentence, I believe my service in the Army speaks for itself.

    I won’t argue with anybody who says our troops should have the best equipment and the best leadership they can get. Of course they should. Too bad they didn’t get that when Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were presidents. Nor or they going to get it now from Obama, judging by the Washington Times article entitled, “Obama Budget Cuts Target Military Funding.” The Wall Street Journal calls it, “Declining Defense,” with the subtitle being “Obama’s budget does cut one federal department.” Democrats will be Democrats.

    I guess you think less funding is not the same as “defunding,” though. Obama is creating mindboggling deficits everywhere else, but the military gets cuts. During time of war.

    I WILL argue with someone like you who doesn’t even bother to respond to my argument in an article, but decides instead to throw in a bunch of unrelated red herrings that present a godawful distortion of reality.

    If Obama is so much better than Bush, perhaps you could explain why the military voted for McCain 68% to Obama’s 23%? Or why they voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004 by a 69% to 16% margin?

    Better yet, perhaps you could explain THIS:

    And I don’t even HAVE to say anything about Obama’s DITHERING in Afghanistan, do I?

  13. LisaInTX Says:

    I just found this video. This outrage against our troops MUST be stopped!

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    Excellent video, LisaInTx. I plan to do what it asks and go to and demand that the charges against these heroes be dropped.

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    I did it. Petition signed.

    Hope you all go thou and do likewise.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Our SEALs and Delta Force guys are men who would sacrifice their own lives to save an American citizen. Why? Because to them, it is an insult to the honor of this country, and to the flag that represents it, for an American to be captured or killed by an enemy. And they will die to restore America’s honor.

    There is no evidence beyond this scumbag’s word that an American hit him. And the terrorist playbook – which has even become part of the public record – INSTRUCTS them to claim Americans assaulted them.

    So to take such men, and file charges against them because some terrorist murderer who supervised the burning alive and hanging from a bridge four Americans… I don’t even know what to say. It is just beyond immoral.

  17. Anita Campbell Says:

    This is a preposterous situation. Our brave men who are protecting us are being treated worse than terrorists who want to kill us and destroy our Country. What is happening to us? We need a these American haters OUT OF OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE

  18. William Whitney Says:

    This is outrage, the men risk thier lives for to protection of this country.
    For the President to even let this get started make me sick ! This is impeachment country for sure, for him and his atty gen. also. It makes you feel like American justice is going down the drain.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Can’t disagree. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, “I feel your outrage.”

    Our special operators are, of course, the best we’ve got. We shouldn’t throw them away because some terrorist followed his terrorist manual and told a lie about being abused.

    Not that I care about the clown even if he WAS abused. But there isn’t even evidence, beyond his “word.”

    I’m reminded of a sheriff in Florida who encountered an illegal immigrant cop killer. The SWAT team cornered him, and he fired at them. They put 68 rounds into him. The outraged media demanded to know why the police would shoot a man 68 times. And the sheriff answered, “Because that was all the ammunition we had.”

    I’m not sure that story is true (heard it via email); but dang I liked it.

    That’s what our SEALs should be doing to these animals. And God bless them for doing it.

  20. Jeff Says:

    I served with the SEALS for 6 years in the late 80’s and early 90’s and the problem lies with the military not Obama. Anybody that has served know that you are guilty first and you have to prove yourself innocent, especially if you are enlisted. If you are going to be mad at somebody, be mad at the military officers that started the initial investigations and then the military prosecutors that chose to go forward with charges.

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    With all due respect, you are failing to realize that this issue is a political football. The commander-in-chief can override any time he wants to.

    I served in the Army for four years, and never suffered so much as a “shame on you.” But then again, I didn’t capture a terrorist scumbag and then not give him his Miranda rights, either.

    And that’s why this IS Obama’s fault. Because he’s pushing the military to pursue more of that “Miranda rights for terrorists” and demand they be treated as terrorists and not criminals than before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: