Court martial for our American hero SEALs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba said:
Prior to trial, a defendent is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The defendent is not guilty until judged "guilty."
Click to expand...

So, presumed innocent means that we presume that all accusers are lying? Or do we also presume that the accusers are innocent of lying until proven otherwise?
 
jillio said:
So, presumed innocent means that we presume that all accusers are lying? Or do we also presume that the accusers are innocent of lying until proven otherwise?
Click to expand...
You can presume whatever you want.

I presume the SEALs aren't guilty, and that the accuser was lying, and that the witness either lied or was mistaken. I'm not on the court martial board, so I'm free to make my opinion.

Presumed innocent in a general legal sense is different from presuming innocence as a personal opinion about a specific case.
 
sallylou said:
I mean the idea that the soldiers must be telling the truth and the accusers must be wrong. Thinking that is naive. Neither a person nor an institution should have blind loyalty.
Click to expand...
I don't have blind loyalty to any institution, including the military. Anyone who has followed my posts over time knows that. Whenever a military person is a proven "bad apple", I'm the first to say throw the book at him or her. I want the bad ones weeded out as much as anyone does.

In this case, I don't believe the SEALs did anything wrong. They could have avoided the entire court martial process and risk by taking the NJP that was offered but they took the risk in order to clear their names. That, plus the fact that terrorists have been known to use that MO, makes it more likely that the SEALs were right and the accuser was wrong.

(BTW, SEALs are Navy sailors, not soldiers.)

Since it is the Navy that made the charges, and one of the prosecution witnesses is a Navy sailor, and the prosecutors are Navy officers, it is Navy against Navy in the case. Therefore, it's not a case of blindly following either side.
 
Reba said:
You can presume whatever you want.

I presume the SEALs aren't guilty, and that the accuser was lying, and that the witness either lied or was mistaken. I'm not on the court martial board, so I'm free to make my opinion.

Presumed innocent in a general legal sense is different from presuming innocence as a personal opinion about a specific case.
Click to expand...

Then, it is an opinion and not a legal finding.
 
jillio said:
Then, it is an opinion and not a legal finding.
Click to expand...
It's my opinion that all three are innocent, and it is a legal finding that two are not guilty.

It was the court's finding that the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and were not credible in the first two cases. That is a legal finding.
 
Reba said:
It's my opinion that all three are innocent, and it is a legal finding that two are not guilty.

It was the court's finding that the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and were not credible in the first two cases. That is a legal finding.
Click to expand...

The finding was of inconsistency and questionable crediblity, not of lying. The lying is still an opinion.
 
Reba said:
It's my opinion that all three are innocent, and it is a legal finding that two are not guilty.

It was the court's finding that the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and were not credible in the first two cases. That is a legal finding.
Click to expand...

i concur
 
Update:

Jury Selection Begins in Navy SEAL Trial
May 4, 2010 - 10:30 AM | by: Steve Centanni

(NORFOLK,VA) A dispute over the translation of a recorded testimony from suspected terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed has been resolved and jury selection has now begun in the trial of Navy SEAL Matthew McCabe, who is accused of punching Abed.

A jury of six Navy officers and enlisted personnel will be chosen. The process is expected to take no more than a few hours. After that, opening arguments will be heard before Captain Moira Modzelewski, the Judge Advocate General presiding over this court martial.

The controversy over the testimony began Monday. The defense team raised objections to the translation of an audio deposition given in Iraq by Ahmed Hashim Abed, the accused terrorist who claims he was beaten after being captured by McCabe and two other Navy SEALs. The two other SEALs were acquitted last month.

One civilian defense lawyer speaks Arabic and noticed the translator asking some of his own questions, not simply relaying to Abed the questions posed by attorney present during the deposition. This, he claimed, is in violation of the rules and provided an "unreliable and untrustworthy" deposition.

Abed even had to ask the translator to make the questions more clear. The judge agreed Monday to find another interpreter to review the audio tape.

Tuesday morning, the defense team filed a motion requesting a whole new deposition, which could have delayed the trial significantly. They argued, "This man [McCabe] could be found guilty based on an unreliable transcript."

The judge, however, denied the motion, finding that the review of the translation that she ordered yesterday is sufficient.

The first witnesses could appear this afternoon in a trial that might last three more days. McCabe is accused of punching Abed in the stomach after the Iraqi was arrested near Fallujah last September.

Monday, the defense filed a motion to dismiss the charges because of possible "undue command influence." The motion pointed to an appearance by Geraldo Rivera on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor" April 22nd in which Geraldo raised the possibility that Major General Charles Cleveland was pressured from higher-up in the chain of command to bring the charges against the Navy SEALs. (General Cleveland is in charge of all military special operation in Iraq and Afghanistan).

The judge denied that motion. Defense Attorney Neal Puckett said he's glad he got the issue out into the open so the judge and the public can consider whether the case might have been influenced in that way. The "Convening Authority" in a court martial (in this case General Cleveland) is supposed to be completely independent and make a decision on bringing charges based solely on the law and the facts.
Click to expand...
Jury Selection Begins in Navy SEAL Trial Liveshots


As an interpreter, I find the bold section particularly interesting.
 
Last Navy SEAL acquitted of abusing Iraqi terrorist

Took an 1 1/2 hour to arrive at a not guilty verdict.

The defense called an oral surgeon Thursday who testified by phone from Baghdad. He said Abed might have bitten an ulcer on his lip, causing it to bleed. Defense attorneys hope this validates their position that no assault occurred and that Al Qaeda detainees are trained to injure themselves then claim abuse.

Earlier, after the prosecution and defense both rested their cases, prosecutors Thursday announced they needed time to present a rebuttal. They were basically trying to rehabilitate their key witness, Petty Officer 3rd Class Kevin Demartino, who claims he saw McCabe punch the prisoner in the stomach. Demartino’s character and credibility had been questioned by a string of defense witnesses Wednesday, many of them Navy SEALs. A rebuttal witness Thursday morning, Demartino’s former superior officer, called Demartino “one of my top sailors—I can depend on him for anything.”

Defense witnesses on Wednesday had painted a picture of Demartino as unstable, unreliable and, after the incident with Abed, “distraught.” According to testimony, Demartino was worried his career would be ruined because a prisoner claimed abuse on his watch, and that he would no longer have a chance for his dream job with the California Highway Patrol. This, the defense claims, gives Demartino a motive to lie.

Demartino did not immediately report the alleged assault to his superiors and admits to dereliction of duty. The defense suggested that since Demartino initially said nothing, then later described seeing McCabe punch Abed, he’s an unreliable witness.
Click to expand...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36880
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...nts-underway-in-mccabe-trial/?test=latestnews

Oh yeahhhh!

Great news!

I can imagine how many people are disappointed in this news. Shame on them!
 
Outstanding
 
Reba said:
When they are falsely accused by a lying terrorist and their cowardly chain of command backs down from supporting them due to political correctness and watching out for their own career butts.

Don't forget, a court martial is a trial, and our SEALs have not been proven guilty of anything.

They are heroes who risked their lives to bring into custody a savage terrorist killer of Americans.
Click to expand...

You sound like you write pieces for Fox News.

Regardless, I find it funny that even "heroes" are allowed to punch, kick and torture the "bad guys". What a weird country we live in.
 
Reba said:
You can presume whatever you want.

I presume the SEALs aren't guilty, and that the accuser was lying, and that the witness either lied or was mistaken. I'm not on the court martial board, so I'm free to make my opinion.

Presumed innocent in a general legal sense is different from presuming innocence as a personal opinion about a specific case.
Click to expand...

You were proven correct. Good job Reba! All 3 seals were cleared.
 
BradB08 said:
You sound like you write pieces for Fox News.

Regardless, I find it funny that even "heroes" are allowed to punch, kick and torture the "bad guys". What a weird country we live in.
Click to expand...

I could post pictures of what the "bad guys" do to American soldiers, but that would get me banned.
 
BradB08 said:
You sound like you write pieces for Fox News.

Regardless, I find it funny that even "heroes" are allowed to punch, kick and torture the "bad guys". What a weird country we live in.
Click to expand...

Great, instead of celebrating the acquittals, you chose to denigrate and personally attack a commenter?

Huzzah for the news!
 
Jeezzz, Brad needs to go and lay down somewhere!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top