No way to treat special operators.
By Clifford D. May
Thursday, December 17, 2009
What can the Navy brass be thinking? On December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, a Navy SEAL — one of an elite band of highly skilled and extraordinarily brave American warriors — faced arraignment. The charge: He punched a terrorist.
To be precise, he punched a terrorist suspect — Ahmed Hashim Abed, the alleged ringleader behind the killing, burning, and mutilating of four American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, in March 2004. Abed’s followers then strung up two of the corpses on a bridge over the Euphrates River.
Abed was run down by the SEALs in September 2009. Exactly, what happened after that is a bit hazy. He spent time in U.S. custody, then in Iraqi custody, and eventually was returned to U.S. custody. At some point, he claimed one of the Americans who apprehended him punched in the stomach, or maybe the mouth.
Three SEALs are now in trouble. Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe stands accused of “assault, dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, and making a false official statement.” Petty Officers Julio Heurtas and Jonathan Keefe are being charged with “impeding the investigation and dereliction of duty in failing to safeguard a detainee.”
The three refused the offer of a “captain’s mast,” which is a non-judicial, disciplinary hearing, because that would leave it to a commanding officer to determine what happened. They are saying they did not harm Abed and they want to be fully cleared of all charges. They want to continue their careers with no blemish, no asterisk, no record of the case in their files. They’re willing to risk prison to achieve that.
The court martial is scheduled to begin in January. It is not clear whether Abed will be flown in from Iraq, where he is being detained, to Virginia to face them in the courtroom.
Surely, these SEALs — like all American citizens — deserve the presumption of innocence. It’s also worth recalling that the al-Qaeda manual recommends that all detainees complain of torture and abuse.
But what if it turns out that one of the SEALs did give the guy a shot? What if Abed was uncooperative, or spit at them, or bragged about how he slaughtered the Americans (one of whom was a retired SEAL) and how they begged for their lives and squealed like pigs as they died? I can imagine how a normal guy — even one as disciplined as a SEAL — might lose his temper for a moment.
In that case, I wouldn’t expect a senior officer to turn a blind eye. I’d expect him to take the SEALs aside and say, “Let me be clear: You guys cut the John Wayne stuff or you’re going to be peeling potatoes on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the next six months. Understood?” The reply would be: “Yes, sir! Understood, sir!” And that would be the end of that.
But a court martial? Maybe there’s more to it than we know. But how much more could there be? Abed is alive. He has two eyes, two ears, ten fingers, and ten toes. This much is clear: If a single alleged knuckle sandwich is all it takes to remove three special operators from the battlefield, Abed won this battle.
In his remarks accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama said, “Even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.”
I agree. Our troops should uphold the highest standards. Notwithstanding such rare but extravagantly publicized lapses as Abu Ghraib, they do exhibit a degree of self-restraint that no other military, now or in the past, can match.
But this, too, needs to be recognized: The notion that international law provides strict legal protections for terrorists is a new and dubious innovation, cooked up by transnational lawyers seeking power for themselves and their organizations, along with unprecedented limitations on American power and sovereignty.
The Geneva Conventions are treaties that bind signatories in order to render conflicts among those signatories less brutal. The Geneva Conventions were never designed to protect those who have not signed them and who routinely violate them.
As Obama rightly noted: Terrorists abide by no rules. Therefore, they are not entitled to the protection of the rules. If we treat them humanely — as we do and as we should — that is our choice based on our values, our standards, and our humanity. It is not based on their rights. Rules that tie the hands of only one side in a conflict are neither moral nor useful.
A terrorist in American custody should be aware that he is in the presence of principled professionals. But he should not believe that he is untouchable or that he is entitled to the rights enjoyed by an American citizen under the U.S. Constitution — a document he’d gladly trample underfoot.
He should know that the troops who detain him are not like him: They won’t chop off his head on video tape while chanting praise for a divinity pleased by the carnage. But he also should know that if he asks for a fat lip, he might just get a fat lip.
Showing posts with label Security Contractors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security Contractors. Show all posts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Clubbing Navy Seals
Brent Bozell
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Last week, Fox News reported a jaw-dropping story about how our War on Terror has now become a war on ourselves. In September, a team of Navy SEALs captured terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed, a man known to the U.S. military as "Objective Amber," the architect of the vicious and deadly attack on four American contractors in the summer of 2004. These poor men were shot, burned, and then their bodies were desecrated, hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.
But instead of hailing the SEALs as heroes for bringing this vicious murderer to justice, three of them have been brought up on charges.
When Abed was captured, he was brought to Camp Baharia, a U.S. base two miles outside Fallujah. According to one attorney, Abed was turned over to the Iraqis by mistake and was later returned to U.S. custody. There are differing reports that he was punched in the gut and given a bloody lip.
The SEALs were faced with two options. One, choose an administrative hearing, facing no possibility of jail time or dishonorable discharge, but having their reputations forever tarnished. Two, choose a court-martial, which could exonerate them completely or, if convicted, land them behind bars and end their military careers.
They have chosen the latter. So now, they must stand trial, to defend themselves. The terrorists must be laughing in disbelief at us, especially when it's a well-known fact that they inflict injury on themselves (or each other) while in captivity so as to accuse their captors of abuse. If true in this case, the ruse has worked beyond their wildest dreams.
But let us conclude the SEALs punched this man in the act of capturing him. Take a poll and ask how upset the American public would be and that's when you'd hear the outrage -- at the way the SEALs are being treated.
But you won't hear that outrage because the American people don't know about this story because, believe it or not, our national media won't report it.
There is no one except Fox emerging in a Nexis search of TV news transcripts. No ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN. How can this merit nothing? There is no sign of a story in major newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, even the Associated Press and other wire services. (One exception: Gannett News Service ran an article from the Navy Times, even if it didn't make USA Today, Gannett's largest property.)
Time and Newsweek couldn't find space for it. Time did cover the saga of one Navy SEAL -- suffering post-traumatic stress disorder. But instead of allegedly punching a terrorist, SEAL commander Mark Waddell was in danger of attacking a cartoon character at Disneyland: "The noise of the careening rides, the shrieking kids -- everything roused Waddell to a state of hypervigilance typical of his worst days in combat. When an actor dressed as Goofy stuck his long, doggy muzzle into his face, Waddell recalls, 'I wanted to grab Goofy by the throat.'"
Waddell's counselor hit Time's sweet spot: "We get all excited when Johnny goes marching off to war, and then we forget about him a few days later when our favorite football team loses a game."
Time only forgets about our fighting men when they're dragged into court for capturing a terrorist.
It's not like the Abed story is unconfirmed. Kate Wiltrout had the story for the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot last week: "The military confirmed Wednesday that Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, 24, was charged last month with assaulting a detainee, dereliction of duty for failing to protect a detainee and making a false statement. Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe are accused of failing to protect the man, whose identity is classified, said Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman for the military's special operations command."
The New York Post wasn't shy about this outrage. "And so the SEALs will be arraigned on Dec. 7 -- another reason for the date to live in infamy," it stated. "Ironically, if the three had treated Abed like Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has routinely treated American soldiers it captures, his bloody, mutilated corpse would've turned up floating in a river. (For the record, the number of US combat troops captured in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been recovered alive is approximately zero.)"
The national media don't want to touch this story, such is their hostility to the United States military, no matter how much they profess to the contrary. You've heard the Obama White House insist that Fox News is not a "legitimate news organization." This story demonstrates, yet again, that Fox often is just about the only legitimate news organization.
It's high time the American people started getting very vocal in their outrage.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Last week, Fox News reported a jaw-dropping story about how our War on Terror has now become a war on ourselves. In September, a team of Navy SEALs captured terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed, a man known to the U.S. military as "Objective Amber," the architect of the vicious and deadly attack on four American contractors in the summer of 2004. These poor men were shot, burned, and then their bodies were desecrated, hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.
But instead of hailing the SEALs as heroes for bringing this vicious murderer to justice, three of them have been brought up on charges.
When Abed was captured, he was brought to Camp Baharia, a U.S. base two miles outside Fallujah. According to one attorney, Abed was turned over to the Iraqis by mistake and was later returned to U.S. custody. There are differing reports that he was punched in the gut and given a bloody lip.
The SEALs were faced with two options. One, choose an administrative hearing, facing no possibility of jail time or dishonorable discharge, but having their reputations forever tarnished. Two, choose a court-martial, which could exonerate them completely or, if convicted, land them behind bars and end their military careers.
They have chosen the latter. So now, they must stand trial, to defend themselves. The terrorists must be laughing in disbelief at us, especially when it's a well-known fact that they inflict injury on themselves (or each other) while in captivity so as to accuse their captors of abuse. If true in this case, the ruse has worked beyond their wildest dreams.
But let us conclude the SEALs punched this man in the act of capturing him. Take a poll and ask how upset the American public would be and that's when you'd hear the outrage -- at the way the SEALs are being treated.
But you won't hear that outrage because the American people don't know about this story because, believe it or not, our national media won't report it.
There is no one except Fox emerging in a Nexis search of TV news transcripts. No ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN. How can this merit nothing? There is no sign of a story in major newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, even the Associated Press and other wire services. (One exception: Gannett News Service ran an article from the Navy Times, even if it didn't make USA Today, Gannett's largest property.)
Time and Newsweek couldn't find space for it. Time did cover the saga of one Navy SEAL -- suffering post-traumatic stress disorder. But instead of allegedly punching a terrorist, SEAL commander Mark Waddell was in danger of attacking a cartoon character at Disneyland: "The noise of the careening rides, the shrieking kids -- everything roused Waddell to a state of hypervigilance typical of his worst days in combat. When an actor dressed as Goofy stuck his long, doggy muzzle into his face, Waddell recalls, 'I wanted to grab Goofy by the throat.'"
Waddell's counselor hit Time's sweet spot: "We get all excited when Johnny goes marching off to war, and then we forget about him a few days later when our favorite football team loses a game."
Time only forgets about our fighting men when they're dragged into court for capturing a terrorist.
It's not like the Abed story is unconfirmed. Kate Wiltrout had the story for the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot last week: "The military confirmed Wednesday that Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, 24, was charged last month with assaulting a detainee, dereliction of duty for failing to protect a detainee and making a false statement. Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe are accused of failing to protect the man, whose identity is classified, said Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman for the military's special operations command."
The New York Post wasn't shy about this outrage. "And so the SEALs will be arraigned on Dec. 7 -- another reason for the date to live in infamy," it stated. "Ironically, if the three had treated Abed like Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has routinely treated American soldiers it captures, his bloody, mutilated corpse would've turned up floating in a river. (For the record, the number of US combat troops captured in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been recovered alive is approximately zero.)"
The national media don't want to touch this story, such is their hostility to the United States military, no matter how much they profess to the contrary. You've heard the Obama White House insist that Fox News is not a "legitimate news organization." This story demonstrates, yet again, that Fox often is just about the only legitimate news organization.
It's high time the American people started getting very vocal in their outrage.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Trigger-Happy Journalists
Some of our finest special-op soldiers serve companies like Blackwater.
By Ben Ryan
Monday, October 1, 2007 12:01 a.m.
"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers," says an anonymous lieutenant colonel.
"Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?" asks a nameless intelligence officer. "They often act like cowboys over here," says an unidentified commander.
Ever since a recent shootout in downtown Baghdad, newspapers have been ablaze with charges that private security contractors in Iraq are trigger-happy.
This rush to pass judgment is hardly surprising. Frequently derided as "mercenaries" and "rent-a-cops," security contractors make an easy target for war opponents.
As a former employee of a major Blackwater competitor, I find this categorical smearing of contractors to be starkly at odds with my experience. I served as an officer in the Navy SEALs for six years. After I left, I joined a private security firm and was promptly sent to Iraq.
Contrary to the popular belief that Blackwater contractors are "thugs for hire," most are highly professional and well trained. Blackwater operates the world's largest private military training facility. Its 1,000 contractors working in Iraq are drawn from the ranks of former military and law enforcement officials. Many of its workers are former SEALs or veterans of other special-operations units.
The risks these workers assume are underscored by the infamous 2004 ambush in Fallujah, in which four Blackwater contractors were murdered and mutilated. To date, Blackwater has lost 30 contractors. For all anyone knows, last month's incident could have turned into another Fallujah had Blackwater's contractors reacted differently. The details are still terribly unclear.
The contractors--and the U.S. diplomats they were escorting--claim they were ambushed. Yet Iraq's Ministry of Interior almost immediately issued a report declaring that the contractors were "100% guilty." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has charged that the operators killed "in cold blood."
With conflicting reports, condemnations should not be made until the joint Iraqi-U.S. investigation is completed. The media, however, has accepted the Ministry of Interior's version of events, all but writing off the accounts of both Blackwater and the State Department.
This follows a long-established pattern of unfounded claims in the press about security contractors. For instance, numerous reports reference contractors making over $1,000 a day--far more than active-duty soldiers. Some point to the more than $700 million Blackwater has received in State Department contracts in order to denounce security firms as war profiteers.
The truth, however, is that contractors are cost-effective. Blackwater contractors, for example, are generally paid $450-$650 a day. More important, unlike U.S. servicemen, they usually receive no benefits and are paid only for the days they work. Security contractors at the better firms have typically retired from active duty or left the military on their own accord after extended service. They are honorable veterans who have chosen to risk their lives to protect American diplomats in a war zone.
Instead of depleting our armed forces, security contractors allow the government to recapture its investment in these men during wartime and avoid the extraordinary expense of training new recruits. In short, they're already trained and experienced--and cost money only when they're needed.
Another common myth is that contractors are above the law. True, the June 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 exempts contractors (and other diplomatic personnel) from local prosecution. But that doesn't mean that contractors have been granted blanket immunity from prosecution. In fact, the order clearly states that this immunity is limited only to acts necessary to fulfill contracts. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians--as alleged in last month's incident--are not covered.
Contractors are also subject to numerous U.S. statutes and regulations, as well as international treaties. Just last year, Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include contractors. Contractors can also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which permits charges to be brought in federal court for crimes abroad.
Like soldiers, security contractors are sometimes forced to make split-second decisions with enormous consequences. They must be--and are--accountable to our government for their actions. But the people I worked with in Iraq, including veterans working for Blackwater, were hardly rogue cowboys. I did, however, meet some trigger-happy journalists over there.
By Ben Ryan
Monday, October 1, 2007 12:01 a.m.
"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers," says an anonymous lieutenant colonel.
"Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?" asks a nameless intelligence officer. "They often act like cowboys over here," says an unidentified commander.
Ever since a recent shootout in downtown Baghdad, newspapers have been ablaze with charges that private security contractors in Iraq are trigger-happy.
This rush to pass judgment is hardly surprising. Frequently derided as "mercenaries" and "rent-a-cops," security contractors make an easy target for war opponents.
As a former employee of a major Blackwater competitor, I find this categorical smearing of contractors to be starkly at odds with my experience. I served as an officer in the Navy SEALs for six years. After I left, I joined a private security firm and was promptly sent to Iraq.
Contrary to the popular belief that Blackwater contractors are "thugs for hire," most are highly professional and well trained. Blackwater operates the world's largest private military training facility. Its 1,000 contractors working in Iraq are drawn from the ranks of former military and law enforcement officials. Many of its workers are former SEALs or veterans of other special-operations units.
The risks these workers assume are underscored by the infamous 2004 ambush in Fallujah, in which four Blackwater contractors were murdered and mutilated. To date, Blackwater has lost 30 contractors. For all anyone knows, last month's incident could have turned into another Fallujah had Blackwater's contractors reacted differently. The details are still terribly unclear.
The contractors--and the U.S. diplomats they were escorting--claim they were ambushed. Yet Iraq's Ministry of Interior almost immediately issued a report declaring that the contractors were "100% guilty." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has charged that the operators killed "in cold blood."
With conflicting reports, condemnations should not be made until the joint Iraqi-U.S. investigation is completed. The media, however, has accepted the Ministry of Interior's version of events, all but writing off the accounts of both Blackwater and the State Department.
This follows a long-established pattern of unfounded claims in the press about security contractors. For instance, numerous reports reference contractors making over $1,000 a day--far more than active-duty soldiers. Some point to the more than $700 million Blackwater has received in State Department contracts in order to denounce security firms as war profiteers.
The truth, however, is that contractors are cost-effective. Blackwater contractors, for example, are generally paid $450-$650 a day. More important, unlike U.S. servicemen, they usually receive no benefits and are paid only for the days they work. Security contractors at the better firms have typically retired from active duty or left the military on their own accord after extended service. They are honorable veterans who have chosen to risk their lives to protect American diplomats in a war zone.
Instead of depleting our armed forces, security contractors allow the government to recapture its investment in these men during wartime and avoid the extraordinary expense of training new recruits. In short, they're already trained and experienced--and cost money only when they're needed.
Another common myth is that contractors are above the law. True, the June 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 exempts contractors (and other diplomatic personnel) from local prosecution. But that doesn't mean that contractors have been granted blanket immunity from prosecution. In fact, the order clearly states that this immunity is limited only to acts necessary to fulfill contracts. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians--as alleged in last month's incident--are not covered.
Contractors are also subject to numerous U.S. statutes and regulations, as well as international treaties. Just last year, Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include contractors. Contractors can also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which permits charges to be brought in federal court for crimes abroad.
Like soldiers, security contractors are sometimes forced to make split-second decisions with enormous consequences. They must be--and are--accountable to our government for their actions. But the people I worked with in Iraq, including veterans working for Blackwater, were hardly rogue cowboys. I did, however, meet some trigger-happy journalists over there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)