Navy SEALS face assault charges after capturing terrorist

by Rory Cripps | November 24, 2009 at 02:51 pm

6442 views | 45 Recommendations | 83 comments

Three U.S. Navy SEALS are facing assault charges stemming from their capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed in Iraq on Sept. 3. The SEALS have refused non-judicial punishment and have requested a trial by court martial. They will be arraigned on Dec. 7. and their court martial is scheduled for January.

Ahmed Hashim Abed is alleged to have been behind the ambush of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. The security guard's bodies were burned and dragged throughout the city. Two of the bodies were hanged from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

Abed told investigators he was punched by his captors Shortly after his capture, he was held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia and was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com 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.

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.

Neal Puckett, an attorney representing McCabe, told Fox News the SEALs are being charged for allegedly giving the detainee a “punch in the gut.”

“I don’t know how they’re going to bring this detainee to the United States and give us our constitutional right to confrontation in the courtroom,” Puckett said. “But again, we have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they’re going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia.”

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.

A civilian lawyer for one of three SEALs said his client and the other SEALs declined a nonjudicial resolution to the case, a step sometimes called a "captain's mast." The servicemen say they did not harm the detainee in any way and they want their names cleared in a court-martial so they can continue their careers in the Navy, said the attorney, Neil Puckett.

Neal Puckett, military criminal defense lawyer and Lieutenant Colonel USMC (ret), joined the Steve Malzberg Show to discuss the story of three Navy Seals commandos facing criminal charges for punching Ahmed Hashim Abed in the mouth during his capture in Iraq. Abed is said to be the alleged mastermind behind the slaying of 4 U.S. Blackwater security guards in Falluja in 2004. He was captured that summer during a top secret mission and now is claiming he was assaulted during his arrest. The three servicemen now face court-martial.

Puckett will be representing Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe alongside JAG attorneys who will be assigned to each of the three Petty Officers involved in this case. McCabe is the one accused of punching Abed, but he is not being accused of punching Abed in the face as reports have said, but rather in the gut according to Puckett; it was later reported Abed also had a bloody lip. There are apparently witnesses such as the detention officer and of course Abed himself. Puckett told Steve he will sorting out of all the evidence because he feels the witnesses’ recounts are not true and that Abed may of self-inflicted his own wounds. Puckett believes this theory because is highly unlikely the officers would have roughed him up at the detention center.

The most egregious aspect of this case in Puckett’s eyes is that the U.S. military is taking Abed’s word first over these heroes who were just doing their jobs. Even if his accusation is true, a punch is such a minor thing to have occurred that the military could have just as easily written the officers a letter or chewed them out and said just be careful the next time. However, these officers now face court-martial over a punch. Puckett is also displeased that the three men will not have their constitutional right to face their accuser in trial since the military has already said they will not bring Abed over.

The commander of the special ops is the person who is responsible for bringing these men to trial, but Puckett does not blame him, but rather his attorneys who probably swayed him to go ahead with the charges. The attorney would most likely be someone in the JAG core, probably a Colonel in the Army or Captain in the Navy who is a senior advisor.

Click here to listen to Neal Puckett's interview on the Steve Malzberg Show:

Source: wor710.com

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Hugh Askew

at 15:20 on November 24th, 2009

At least they get court-martialed. Good chance of justice there.

Rory Cripps

at 19:19 on November 24th, 2009

Hugh: Right O! The punches that U.S.combat forces are expected to pull nowadays, all in the name of PC, is a crying shame and a heart breaker. It's bad enough when you've got ordnance coming at you and 7.62 X 39s popping all around you. But it's much worse when your political and military leaders throw you to the wolves.

Amy Judd

at 15:55 on November 24th, 2009

What on earth!?

Rory Cripps

at 16:38 on November 24th, 2009

On June 28, 2005, Luttrell and SEAL Team 10 were assigned to a mission to kill or capture Ahmad Shah (nom de guerre Mohammad Ismail), a high-ranking Taliban leader responsible for killings in eastern Afghanistan and the Hindu-Kush mountains.[5] The SEAL team was made up of Luttrell, Michael P. Murphy, Danny Dietz and Matthew Axelson.[5] Luttrell and Axelson were the team's snipers, with Lutrell also being the team Medic; Dietz was in charge of communications and Murphy the team leader.

Three goatherders stumbled upon the hiding spot of the four SEALs. The men were detained by the team but the SEALs were unable to verify any hostile intent.[6] Luttrell claims that Murphy, the officer in charge of the SEAL team, put the fate of the goatherds to a vote. Axelson voted to kill the Afghanis, and Dietz abstained. Murphy told Luttrell that he would vote the same as him so with his vote it was decided to let the Afghans go.[5] <ref=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19189482/</ref>

The released herders disappeared and likely immediately betrayed the team's location to local Taliban forces and within an hour the SEALs were engaged in a gun battle against a force of 80-150 enemy fighters. The SEAL team engaged the Taliban for over two hours in a running gunfight through the region's hills and valleys. [7]

Team leader Lt. Michael P. Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor for exposing himself to enemy fire to reach higher ground from which to transmit a call for backup. The SEALs killed dozens of Taliban, however, Axleson, Deitz and Murphy were all killed in the gunfight. Luttrell barely survived after being blown off a cliff by an RPG.

An MH-47 Chinook helicopter was hastily dispatched upon receiving Lt. Murphy's distress call with a force consisting of eight SEALs and eight160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment "Nightstalkers" to rescue the team, but the helicopter was shot down by an RPG upon reaching the site of the battle. All 16 men on the Chinook were killed, including Shane Patton, whose place on Operation Red Wing had been taken by Danny Dietz.[8]

Luttrell was the only survivor of the SEAL team. Badly wounded, he managed to walk and crawl seven miles to evade capture, during which he killed six more Taliban fighters. He was given shelter by tribesmen from Sabri-Minah, a Pashtun village. (This was done because of "Lokhay", a Pashtun belief that any stranger in need of shelter must be given it.) [9] The villagers sheltered him and provided medical aid, and refused Taliban demands that Luttrell be turned over to them. After several days one of the village elders trekked twenty miles to a US base to reveal Luttrell's location, and he was finally rescued six days after the battle by US forces.[8]

Mike Leonardi (not verified)

at 05:40 on November 27th, 2009

As a retired Master Chief w/26 years in service my advice to the Chief of Naval operations and to Secretary of Defense would be to get their chicken shit asses up off the couch and get into the business of getting these terrorists and putting an end to their violence. Ive worked with Seal team members, Marine special forces, both in the military and as a sheriffs deputy, they work with in total confines of what war is. What we have is an administration who refuses to acknowledge this threat and claim civilian procedural justice when the justice is on the battlefield. That battlefield began in New York City on the homeland, however, Americans have been taking casualties for many years and we have NOT responded. This terrorist is a killer of many and will not stop killing. Obama will probably want a trial in NY to show another side of his stupidity. Obama and Holder are two of the dumbest bastards that inhabit this planet. Between the terrorists and these jokers expect another attack of significant war time proportions. These terrorist will not quit killing Americans, black, white, Indian chief your Americans you die. They will not stop there are no reasoning with these people, they blow themselves up. I put 7.5 years in Iraq as a military man and a civilian working with the Army. They will not stop..........

aurealeus

at 12:04 on November 27th, 2009

I wish I could give Mike Leonardi's comment 100 recommendations but since I cannot, I will recommend it one hundred times here. Thank you Chief.......

Rory Cripps

at 13:34 on November 27th, 2009

aurealeus:

I second your emotion! Thank you so much Master Chief for your comment! Greatly appreciated!

Rory Cripps

at 17:10 on November 24th, 2009

rng: I'm with you there! To a rational mind, it doesn't compute! And there certainly can be a lot more to the story no doubt! Or perhaps the story is what it is! If that's the case, God help America--and especially members of the American military and their families.

The Fort Hood massacre has demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that PC is a cancer that has metastasized throughout America's core of being.

aurealeus

at 17:40 on November 24th, 2009

"Ahmed Hashim Abed is alleged to have been behind the ambush of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. The security guard's bodies were burned and dragged throughout the city. Two of the bodies were hanged from a bridge over the Euphrates River."

A punch in the nose? Abuse:? Absurd... this is war!

Rory Cripps

at 20:40 on November 24th, 2009

aurealeus: Somehow the definition of "war" was re-defined consequent and subsequent to WW II. It seems like many American military leaders nowadays are more concerned about keeping their present jobs, maintaining their resumes in a PC manner, and therefore keeping their path to lucrative civilian jobs clear and unobstructed subsequent to their retirement from the military.

As a result, I have no doubt that they'll wind up in hell, where they belong, and that their families will suffer bad karma for all eternity.

HA! Did you hear that you big bad members of the military brass? You're getting our brave military personnel killed and you don't give a flying crap . . . do you?

aurealeus

at 07:23 on November 25th, 2009

What is most unfortunate is that WAR has become a vehicle of "convenience" rather than that of defense.

Hooyah (not verified)

at 18:28 on November 24th, 2009

Desk jockeys and Powerpoint Rangers judging the actions of those who make the world safe for pukes like them. Obama's people should be putting terrorists in prison instead of Navy Seals.

Rory Cripps

at 20:31 on November 24th, 2009

Hooyah (not verified):

Yeah . . . I have to agree! Most American military leaders nowadays will kiss any stinking ass as long as it helps them to get a lucrative job in the private sector or a political plumb job upon retirement.

The biggest myth of all is that the present-day American military brass is comprised of patriots. To the contrary--the present-day military brass will sell their country down the river in a heart beat if it means feathering their own nest. Duty, honor, and country to them is passe . . . ..

Babel-Fish

at 20:54 on November 24th, 2009

Just a matter of balance this is an obvious false claim, so obvious that the seals will get off and no hands slapped.

This case is to prove that the military do listen to claims of prisoners they are reported and the case gets put on trial. It's military politics at its best, seemingly word against word with no plausible proof.

At present many such claims are being made against UK troops, US is making a political statement. I could be wrong but I got that gut feeling after seeing how UK have treated the claims.

nanute

at 04:01 on November 25th, 2009

Maybe, just maybe all this PC action has something to do with this?

The Navy did not say how many cases were filed against each of the individual SEALs. Nor did it say how many instances of detainee abuse were involved, although it said one instance was the death of Manadel al-Jamadi, who was captured by a SEAL team on Nov. 4, 2003.

Al-Jamadi was thought to have been connected with an attack on a facility of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In detaining al-Jamadi, a SEAL subdued him by hitting him on the side of the head with the butt of a gun, according to an Army report released last month.

Two CIA personnel brought al-Jamadi to Abu Ghraib and put him in a shower room with a sandbag on his head. He was dead 45 minutes later. An autopsy determined that he died of a blood clot in his head that was probably the result of being struck with the firearm, the autopsy said.

A day after al-Jamadi died, U.S. personnel sneaked the body out of the prison on a stretcher, disguised so the dead person would appear to other inmates only to have been sick, the Army report said.

Rory Cripps

at 16:44 on November 25th, 2009

nanute:

Why should anyone give a crap if the stock of a gun made contact with Al-Jamadi's terrorist head? And why are you so concerned, anyway, with the plight of a terrorist as opposed to the plight of American military personnel?

War is war and to extend the rights, granted to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution, to terrorists on the battlefield is absurd. I have no doubt that in your mind, all terrorists and enemy combatants should be Mirandized upon capture and flown back to the U.S. for a speedy and fair trial by a jury of their peers.Good lord!

Rory Cripps

at 16:46 on November 25th, 2009

Are you talking to Davey, who's still in the Navy, and probably will be for life?

René

at 09:02 on November 25th, 2009

there is something totally wrong here.

Lo, the poor victim got a bloody nose.

This guy is not a victim, he is a bloody murderer.

nanute

at 12:51 on November 25th, 2009

When was the trial? I must have missed that.

Rory Cripps

at 11:36 on November 25th, 2009

Rene: There is talk that this is payback to the SEALS because of the Somalia pirate incident a while ago. Apparently either the administration or someone in the administration didn't want the rescue to go down the way it went. It just wasn't quite PC enough . . . .

nanute

at 12:54 on November 25th, 2009

Your frequent use of the PC meme, doesn't lend any credence to your argument. If you think that suspects should just summarily be executed before trial and conviction, say so.

Rory Cripps

at 14:02 on November 25th, 2009

nanute: Many in the military, especially those that have been in it for a while, think that it has gotten PC. And there's no doubt that it's PC after what has come out consequent to the Fort Hood massacre.

If you disagree that's fine! But if you think that PC doesn't exist in the military (or anywhere else for that matter) and doesn't have a direct bearing on moral and combat effectiveness then I don't know what to say to you.

You call them "suspects"! I call them terrorists and enemy combatants! And I think that the combat military personnel that have to face the "suspects" agree more with my description.

What the hell kind of war is America sending its troops off to fight and die in when the troops can't even smack an SOB that gets his kicks from dragging mutilated bodies throughout the streets, burning them, and hanging them from a bridge? In my opinion, the only good reason for the SOB not to be whacked on the spot is because of the potential intel that he may be able to provide. And I have no doubt that most rank and file military personnel agree.

For the life of me, I don't understand the PC mindset that compels people to view throat-cutting terrorists and enemy combatants as "suspects" who should be given American Constitutional protections and treated like criminals are treated in the American justice system.

American combat troops are now relegated to the status of policemen. And no doubt that if the PC bunch had its way, all captured enemy combatants would be Mirandized and brought back to the U.S. for civilian trials.. What are they . . .nuts?

Quite frankly the PC mindset, which permeates the Obama Administration and the military brass, scares the hell out of me. It's one of the main reasons why I've come to the conclusion that the right thing for the American government to do is to bring the troops home. And it really pains me to say it, but IMHO I believe that America is no longer capable of winning a war given all the constraints that PC has imposed on the U.S. Military.

nanute

at 04:32 on November 26th, 2009

Gee, if I didn't know better I would have thought you were channeling Dick Cheney, or any other neoconservative thinker of your choice. I know it won't make any difference to your way of thinking, but I'll try and give you a reasoned response to your "logic."

First and foremost, we as Americans are better than these people that you term terrorists, and enemy combatants.(They may well be such.) If you want to lower our standards of morality and dispense with the rule of law foundations that this great nation was predicated on, have at it. It may make you feel better, but it will make you no more than the very people you despise. It is very easy to get caught up in the mindset that says "they are all guilty", lets just line em' up and shoot em'. Then we'll figure out if we got the right ones.(The Nazis and the Japanese used this model quite frequently.) Hell, they must have been guilty. They were brown skinned, wearing a "sheet" and defending their homeland from an invading army.

If you want to commit murder in the name of war, go ahead. Once you've captured the enemy, the UCMJ and that quaint Geneva Convention protocols applies. (Or, at least before the Bush Administration, it applied. Torture is now an acceptable form of "interrogation.," indefinite detention and rendition are now part of US policy.) Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Constructing the PC straw man, is a nice narrative; that's about all. Who are these military personnel you speak of? General McCrystal? General Petreaus? Or are you speaking of the average combat veteran back from war? There is a growing concern in some circles, that a significant number of white supremacists are now part of the regular army. Is that who you are referring to? Do you have direct contact with these people, or are you reading about it somewhere?

The conflict in Afghanistan is not a "winnable" war under any rules of engagement, or lack thereof. Unless you are willing to accept the premise that we shall remain there indefinitely, and the mission is to kill as many "enemy combatants" and "terrorists", as we've got bullets for. Civilians, women and children are just collateral damage, and shouldn't be a concern either. I think that's called the "Kill Em" All, and Let God Sort it Out" doctrine. That will be a great help in winning the hearts and minds of the very people we are trying to convince that ours is a better system of government.

So what's it gonna be? Fuck the rule of law, and the foundations of democracy? It's a very straight forward question, but I'm sure it will take more than a simple sentence for you to answer.

nanute

at 05:54 on November 26th, 2009

And honestly and sincerely, in spite of our difference of opinion, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

aurealeus

at 06:06 on November 26th, 2009

In this matter, a military tribunal under international rule of law should apply since it is a military issue and internationally coopertaive military "war" campaign.

Additionally, American Civilain Courts are not structured to handle "military" matters.

Rory Cripps

at 10:03 on November 26th, 2009

nanute" Like ideologues often do, you're taking my statements and filtering them through ideological blinders.You then embellish upon my statements, exaggerate what I said, and then take my statements to another level in order to get an ideological point across that often has very little bearing, if any, on the subject matter. For example:

"There is a growing concern in some circles, that a significant number of white supremacists are now part of the regular army. Is that who you are referring to?"

Race and racists never fail to enter into a "progressive's" argument no matter what the topic is! Talk about a straw man! Obviously your implication here is that there are a number of white supremacists in the regular army and that they are the only ones that believe that the military has gone PC. What do alleged white supremacists in the regular army have to do with Navy SEALS that were accused of punching a terrorist?

You throw Cheney and Bush and torture and Neocons into your argument for good measure, which is another thing that "progressives" like to do in order to divert attention from the original argument. But anytime Cheney, Bush, etc., are brought up by "progressives", they fail to mention that a number of military personnel were brought up on charges of murder, rape, assault and so on and so forth, under the Bush Administration.

Another thing that "progressives" throw in the argument is the absurd implication that prior to Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan War and the Patriot Act, all U.S. military conflicts were fought in strict compliance with the Geneva Convention and that American military personnel followed "the rule of law". This is a fantasy.

I have no doubt that you and others of your ideological persuasion view American military conflicts more in terms of a police action than a war. And that you view American military personnel more as policeman than as soldiers. Moreover, it seems that, in your view, terrorists and enemy combatants should be given the same legal rights as American citizens and that you'd have no problem with our courts being flooded with cases involving terrorists.

The terrorists are indeed winning thanks to the PC mindset. And when they see Navy SEALS brought up on charges because a terrorist was smacked, I bet that the terrorists have a good laugh. I, personally, don't think that it's funny at all. Indeed, it scares the hell out of me to know that America's politicians and military leaders are so stricken and debilitated by the PC cancer that they'll throw the book at true American heroes.

As I've implied in my previous comments: If you and others of your ideological persuasion can't admit that the American military is infected with PC, especially in light of all that has come out in regard to the Fort Hood massacre, then I think that it will be impossible for America to ever win a war. My heart goes out to all the American military personnel that are being sacrificed in the name of PC. God bless them and their families . . . .

nanute

at 02:40 on November 27th, 2009

OK Rory. The military is infected by so many PC types, we can't possibly win any more wars. How would you suggest we remove this menace from our military? Shall we have a test of some sort to weed out the undesirables? And please make sure to tell me what the criteria are for determining who is, and who is not worthy of serving our country voluntarily. (You don't have to list the gays, they're already not welcome.) Should we re-institute the draft? It worked during WWII. Without being accused of injecting race into the debate, shall we exclude people of color? Shall we conduct religious tests?(Is religious belief a requirement?) Or will just a simple oath to defend the Constitution and the US do?

I ask you a simple question about possible types that may be having an effect on military readiness, and because it has a racist component, the response is basically, progressives always inject race and racism into the debate. Spare me. Don't answer the question, heavens no. Come up with a weak excuse with what's wrong with progressive or liberal ideology. Please do me a favor, and don't imply anything by what I say. If you need a clarification on my intent, I'll gladly provide one. And don't try and tell me that your opinions aren't based on a class distinction. (ideology.)

I don't know if any of the Navy Seals were or are members of white supremacy groups. Is it not a possibility? I don't know if Major Hassan is a radical Muslim jihadist. It is a possibility, but I'll wait until we've got all the facts before jumping to conclusions. Xenophobia is very much in vogue right now, but I've never been one to follow along with the "conventional wisdom" of the day.

And when you get a chance, try answering my question at the end of my last comment.

Rory Cripps

at 06:24 on November 27th, 2009

nanute:

"And when you get a chance, try answering my question at the end of my last comment."

Is this your question nanute?

"So what's it gonna be? Fuck the rule of law, and the foundations of democracy? It's a very straight forward question, but I'm sure it will take more than a simple sentence for you to answer."

Your question is a red herring! Just like most of your comments to this story. The story is simply about Navy SEALS that were brought up on charges because a captured terrorist that got his kicks from dragging dead bodies through the streets and then hanging those bodies from a bridge accused the SEALS of punching him.

In your mind, the alleged action on the part of the SEALS compromises the rule of law and the foundations of democracy. In my mind, punching a terrorist while in captivity shouldn't be given a second thought. So if you want to take that as "fuck the rule of law, and the foundations of democracy", be my guest. If American military personnel start cutting heads off or burning captured enemy combatants and hang them from bridges, then I'll agree with your "rule of law" concept.

Yes! You injected racism and racists into your comments as progressives typically do.And it's just another red herring that has nothing to do with the story or my comments.

You also implied that I said, " The military is infected by so many PC types, we can't possibly win any more wars." A subtle twisting of my words here to make it sound as if I were accusing the military of being infected with PC throughout the entire ranks. If you read my comments closely, you'll see that I never said that the military rank and file was infected with PC. I'm certain that I made clear my belief that the military brass (and the administration) are the ones that are infected with PC. And that as a result, the troops on the ground and in combat roles are being affected in terms of morale and effectiveness and that their hands are often tied as a result.

You just can't seem to refrain from injecting the red herring of race and racism into your comments, and now you're going one step further with the introduction of the term xenophobia--another red herring issue. It just goes on and on.

Look at what you wrote, nanute:

"I don't know if any of the Navy Seals were or are members of white supremacy groups. Is it not a possibility? I don't know if Major Hassan is a radical Muslim jihadist. It is a possibility, but I'll wait until we've got all the facts before jumping to conclusions. Xenophobia is very much in vogue right now, but I've never been one to follow along with the "conventional wisdom" of the day."

Wow! I don't think that anyone can come up with a better definition of PC than you have here . . . .

nanute

at 07:34 on November 27th, 2009

I can't argue with you any more Rory. You can't tell me how to resolve this terrible PC dilemma that is having such a debilitating effect on our ability to wage war. If I misconstrued your comments, please clarify this for me: Can we win any war with the PC infection? If we can, there isn't any issue here. If we can't, then go back and tell me how we fix the problem. I ask you a series of questions based on your comments, and the only response I get is "red herring" or "racist" irrelevance. And please tell me what is so PC about my statement that you've highlighted. I'm at a total loss for what definition you are posturing from.

Are you operating from a presumption that the captured "terrorists" are guilty and aren't afforded any protections of the rule of law? Please clarify and correct my assumption, if I'm wrong on that score.

Rory Cripps

at 09:00 on November 27th, 2009

nanute:

"Can we win any war with the PC infection?"

No! And the main reason for that is that war is not PC! Under the constraints of PC, American troops cannot respond to the propaganda and actions on the part of terrorists in an appropriate and effective manner. i.e., the terrorists are certainly not constrained by PC, so why should American troops be constrained by PC?

For example: The ROE prohibits American troops from firing on enemy combatants if the combatants are unarmed. What this means is that a bunch of terrorists can emplace weapons in various buildings. They can fire upon American troops from one location. Drop their weapons, walk across the street to another location, in clear view of the America military personnel that they have just tried to kill, and the troops can't do a damn thing about it. The terrorists then take up position, pick up the emplaced weapons, and continue to fire at American troops. Another ROE constraint is that American troops can't return terrorist fire if there is even the slightest chance that a "civilian" will be harmed or killed. This is utterly insane in my opinion and is one example of how PC gets American troops killed.

"Are you operating from a presumption that the captured "terrorists" are guilty and aren't afforded any protections of the rule of law?"

Yes! Captured terrorists or any enemy combatants are guilty! Just like captured American troops are guilty in the eyes of terrorists! However the terrorists are afforded certain rights under the Geneva Convention.Why that is I have no idea because they certainly aren't wearing uniforms and dog tags and they're not fighting on the side of any particular country. They're fighting in the name of Allah! How convenient for them!

To extend to terrorists "the rule of law" is absurd. And what's even more absurd is to try them in the American courts where they'll have access to all sorts of classified information to be used in their defense. They're POWs and should be treated as POWs--not some criminal on the streets of America that is granted full constitutional protections.

And as POWs they should be treated no differently from the German and Japanese POWs during WW II. In other words, keep them locked up and only release them if and when the war is over. Even if that means keeping them locked up until they all croak. To release them so that they can go back onto the battlefield and kill more American troops is indeed criminal. In regard to terrorist leaders, they should be given military trials and not civilian trials.