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 FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain'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.

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.

FoxNews.com 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 FoxNews.com 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 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.

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.

I'd like your opinions...

If you want my opinion, three things must happen first.

1. Define what "right" means in your title so that hasty posts regarding the topic are not misunderstood.

2. Clarify exactly what you want us to discuss and under what perspective to be discussed as

3. Tell us your opinion and where you stand, as you created the topic and this should be included so we know what the argument is about. You posted a lot of stuff concerning a lot of different things. What exactly do you want to talk about?

Is it right for the SEALS to be court-martialed for basically doing their jobs?

My opinion: I think it's ridiculous how far this has gone. They bloodied the guy up a bit, what's the big deal?

Again, you haven't defined what is right. So I will attempt to type out the two arguments that may or may not exist depending on your original desire to discuss this.

1. The first argument will be the logical argument. Should Special Ops forces have extra privileges not granted to other Americans when dealing with specific terrorists? In other words should Special Ops, regardless of their job or place in the military forces, be able to torture, maim, rough house, treat unfairly/inhumane the terrorists that they end up capturing? Or should that be left to a higher up decision?

I would have to say that, personally, I do think the SEALS should be held accountable for their actions. If the SEALS are not held accountable then that means that they are above the law and above justice. Are the SEALS considered superior to humans? If so, then they have every right to do what they did. If they are not considered to be superior humans, then they must follow the law just like everyone else who lives within an organized government.

If we did not punish the SEALS then this would set an example stating that SEALS do have extra privileges and then soon we would start seeing abuse of the system. Pretty soon there could be SEALS who decide that all muslims are terrorists and begin to torture/beat/maim any muslim they come in contact with. This could spread to different races and even possibly go into sexism. It doesn't stop once it's started. Military power is one that thing that must be heavily regulated lest we suffer the consequences after the fact. It does not matter that it was a terrorist. The terrorist is still a human being. Are cops allowed to beat murderers? No, in fact, if they do, the murderers are usually released under the basis that there are cops that are practicing unfair justice and therefore violating the criminal's rights.

Now, for the shallow, patriotic argument. Yes, the SEALS should have every right to beat up the terrorists they capture. The terrorists would do the same to us. They would torture us and kill us, why can we not do the same? Terrorists deserve to die due to the pain they have caused us Americans, and we will make it so. It is unjust that the SEALS are getting punished when it is the terrorist who is at fault. The terrorist deserves what he got and more. How could the government even think otherwise!?

For the record, my argument is with the first and not the second one. I like to look at things with long-term in mind as well as the logistic side of things rather than the emotional. I hope this answers your question shtona, at least on my end.

I have to say, I agree with Tutela's initial, more logical argument completely. What supposedly makes "us" better than "them" is that we actually listen to the Gineva Convention... or some such. We aren't the aggressors, we are the peace keepers. We are supposed to check ourselves so that things like that don't happen. And considering all the other crap that's been going on throughout these wars with prisoners and others, it's just... We should know better, ya know?

Also, Tutela, in my head your second argument came in a voice that was kinda droll and mechanical, sarcastic. I don't know if you really meant it that way, but it was an awesome playout of what you wrote nonetheless. *nodnods*

"What is right and wrong?" is an opinion-based question. I don't have to state my own opinion on the matter for others to state theirs. I explained my own views, and that's all I asked anyone else to do regarding the matter...

From the information available to the public at the moment, I have to disagree with you. They never explained whether the terrorist was 'assaulted' during his capture or after. If it was during, he possibly could have been resisting the SEALS, in which case they had full right to use force with him. Until some more information comes to light, I tend to think this is more along the lines of what happened.

If it was after the fact, then yes, legally, the SEAL was wrong. Do I agree with what he did? Completely. Should he be court-martialed in my opinion? Absolutely not. I tend to think that a man who our intelligence suggests planned the capture, torture, and executions of four innocent people should be punched in the face...and more, but a punch at the very least. I don't think it's right for these monsters to just give themselves up to our military and not get any punishment (other than being detained) for what they've done. I realize that legally the SEAL was wrong, but what makes our legal system right? It's all a matter of opinion...

And @Sen: The problem with the rules of engagement are that they are unfair if the opposition isn't following them either. If you're facing an enemy that has no problems torturing, lying, and executing members of your force, and you're not allowed to do the same, you have two hands tied behind your back and only a gun to protect you. You have an extreme handicap physically, emotionally, and mentally. Morally, I agree with them (rules of engagement). We should treat enemies fairly, but only when they're doing the same to us. The problem is that terrorists don't, haven't, and never will...

Also, consider this: If these men are court-martialed for what they did, it will make every SEAL in the future second-guess their decisions, and on the battlefield, that's definitely not something you want to do. You may have made the wrong decision, but at least you didn't get shot while debating whether it was wrong or right. I think this mindset could lead to thousands more deaths of our military because they will be afraid they will be court-martialed for doing their jobs...

I agree with Tutela. Fuck, man, call the press!

Shtona, nobody said the offender was going to get off scotch-free. If we don't treat the world with respect, then how can we expect them to ever treat us with respect? If you are hit, and you stand up and hit them back, then you are just as silly and wrong as they are. It is up to you to give them justice, not revenge.

Also, simply because the offender had done wrong in the past does not necessitate that he has no rights He still has rights and we should still respect his rights. The Seals were in the wrong on this one, and they have to face the consequences of their wrongdoings.

I don't know what the regulations or standards are that Navy SEALS have to meet when making a capture? I personally think they should have special privileges as needed. It almost seems safer for them to shoot the person rather then capture to avoid being charged with abuse.

Originally Posted by Sen Lee

I have to say, I agree with Tutela's initial, more logical argument completely. What supposedly makes "us" better than "them" is that we actually listen to the Gineva Convention... or some such. We aren't the aggressors, we are the peace keepers. We are supposed to check ourselves so that things like that don't happen. And considering all the other crap that's been going on throughout these wars with prisoners and others, it's just... We should know better, ya know?

Also, Tutela, in my head your second argument came in a voice that was kinda droll and mechanical, sarcastic. I don't know if you really meant it that way, but it was an awesome playout of what you wrote nonetheless. *nodnods*

Heh, it was pretty sarcastic, but I also wrote it to demonstrate the emotional side that I see people argue with. Might have been a bit out of line I admit, but I felt it was necessary to get my point across by comparing them both in the same post.

Originally Posted by Shtona

"What is right and wrong?" is an opinion-based question. I don't have to state my own opinion on the matter for others to state theirs. I explained my own views, and that's all I asked anyone else to do regarding the matter...

I did not see you state your views until now. Your first post consisted of quoting an article and asking for opinions. Your second post shrugged the whole thing off saying what's the big deal, without backing up why you felt that indifferent about it.

Originally Posted by Shtona

From the information available to the public at the moment, I have to disagree with you. They never explained whether the terrorist was 'assaulted' during his capture or after. If it was during, he possibly could have been resisting the SEALS, in which case they had full right to use force with him. Until some more information comes to light, I tend to think this is more along the lines of what happened.

Well, then until we get all the facts, an educated decision or opinion cannot be made. Based on what you presented here, the SEALS beat the prisoner in some way, shape, or form. Regardless of what the beating actually entailed, the SEALS went against America's accepted form of justice and for that they must be punished as they are Americans. I am fairly certain that you, based off your reply, would be extremely prejudiced had the opposite occurred and terrorists ended up capturing a SEAL and assaulting the SEAL. If those terrorists were then convicted for assault I doubt you would be opposed. Again this is based off what I gather from your reply.

Originally Posted by Shtona

If it was after the fact, then yes, legally, the SEAL was wrong. Do I agree with what he did? Completely. Should he be court-martialed in my opinion? Absolutely not.

Military personnel have their own separate laws altogether when in the military. The court martial is their form of justice and is completely made up of other military personnel who have been in said situations and had to choose between right and wrong under socially accepted ideas. the court martial is their "right to a free trial" as mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Shtona

I tend to think that a man who our intelligence suggests planned the capture, torture, and executions of four innocent people should be punched in the face...and more, but a punch at the very least. I don't think it's right for these monsters to just give themselves up to our military and not get any punishment (other than being detained) for what they've done. I realize that legally the SEAL was wrong, but what makes our legal system right? It's all a matter of opinion...

Whether you think the man should have been punched int he face and more, does not mean it is tolerated as justice that is socially acceptable. No one ever said the legal system is right, but because we, as Americans, under an American society, chose this type of justice, we all must conform to it, regardless of usefulness to the country and/or position of employment. If the military started gaining specific privileges, then they could easily overturn the American government and we would then be a military state in forms of government. Which is basically, everything is run by the military for the military and enforced by the military. If you don't comply, you die or suffer sever punishment, plain and simple. Would this be a better government for us Americans?

Originally Posted by Shtona

And @Sen: The problem with the rules of engagement are that they are unfair if the opposition isn't following them either. If you're facing an enemy that has no problems torturing, lying, and executing members of your force, and you're not allowed to do the same, you have two hands tied behind your back and only a gun to protect you. You have an extreme handicap physically, emotionally, and mentally. Morally, I agree with them (rules of engagement). We should treat enemies fairly, but only when they're doing the same to us. The problem is that terrorists don't, haven't, and never will...

1. I am quite uncomfortable with your use of the word terrorism. Terrorism in itself cannot be used as a sweeping generalization to target the extremist Al Qaeda Group that attack America. Terrorism encompasses that which is socially unacceptable in complete relation to what each particular society decides what socially acceptable means.

2. The Golden rule is not do unto others as they have done unto you, but rather do unto others as you would have them do unto you. No one ever said war was fair, the United States has chosen to be a leading example of being humane in war rather than inhumane. That is a choice we made as a Country, or more accurately, as a group of countries (the United Nations). The terrorists are not part of the United Nations and are not [b]forced[b] to uphold these practices per se. They are somewhat forced as the countries oppose them and it is a losing battle. However, they themselves do not share the same morals and will do everything in their power to inflict pain, sorrow, etc.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Also, consider this: If these men are court-martialed for what they did, it will make every SEAL in the future second-guess their decisions, and on the battlefield, that's definitely not something you want to do. You may have made the wrong decision, but at least you didn't get shot while debating whether it was wrong or right. I think this mindset could lead to thousands more deaths of our military because they will be afraid they will be court-martialed for doing their jobs...

On the contrary, thinking before acting, is always more beneficial. Certain rules are omitted during actual wartime and being in actual warzones, and basically being on the battlefield as survival is the rule there. However, the article you quoted insinuates this all happened in a domesticated, civil environment where the prisoner was already detained. There was no reason for assault period.

Is it believable that the "terrorist" mocked them, spat at them, etc to rage the SEALS who probably already have an implanted hate of these people for causing all this pain and with the SEALS having to deal with it personally and witness the pain personally, I can see how they may have reacted foolishly and without proper judgment.

Originally Posted by Kris

I agree with Tutela. Fuck, man, call the press!

O.O Kris agrees with me??? :P Well, at least we agree on something haha. I'm really not that bad of a person lol, we just have extremely different points of view on certain things. I take your arguments as the enemy, but not you yourself ^^. I quite enjoy the arguments you bring to the table...as long as you don't put words in my mouth :P That kind of gets annoying when you do that. However, I will admit, I make mistakes and assume things too about different people so I am guilty of that as well. *shrugs* Part of being human I guess :)

Originally Posted by GreenLy

I don't know what the regulations or standards are that Navy SEALS have to meet when making a capture? I personally think they should have special privileges as needed. It almost seems safer for them to shoot the person rather then capture to avoid being charged with abuse.

All I have to say to this is that capture has its uses for American intelligence, and if SEALS decide to capture, they need to abide by those rules.

Unless there was some good reason why the detainee needed a sucker punch (for example, threatening his captors) then the SEALS deserve proper punishment. No matter how much someone pisses you off, you do not get to just punch them when you feel like it. That's called an abuse of power. The SEALS' job was to bring the guy in, not dole out their own personal punishments no matter WHAT he's responsible for. That is the job of the courts.

I agree with Tutela on...every single point I believe. Also, I'd like to think that the people who are supposed to be fighting for us, protecting us, would have enough sense to not assault someone. I don't like the idea of any military personal, who is supposed to have extensive training to be able to CONTROL that sort of thing, lashing out because of emotions.

Well, then until we get all the facts, an educated decision or opinion cannot be made. Based on what you presented here, the SEALS beat the prisoner in some way, shape, or form. Regardless of what the beating actually entailed, the SEALS went against America's accepted form of justice and for that they must be punished as they are Americans. I am fairly certain that you, based off your reply, would be extremely prejudiced had the opposite occurred and terrorists ended up capturing a SEAL and assaulting the SEAL. If those terrorists were then convicted for assault I doubt you would be opposed. Again this is based off what I gather from your reply.

Terrorists have captured American personnel. If you read the last paragraph or two of the article I quoted you'd see what they did to them...

Military personnel have their own separate laws altogether when in the military. The court martial is their form of justice and is completely made up of other military personnel who have been in said situations and had to choose between right and wrong under socially accepted ideas. the court martial is their "right to a free trial" as mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

I'm well aware...what does this have to do with my response?

Whether you think the man should have been punched int he face and more, does not mean it is tolerated as justice that is socially acceptable. No one ever said the legal system is right, but because we, as Americans, under an American society, chose this type of justice, we all must conform to it, regardless of usefulness to the country and/or position of employment. If the military started gaining specific privileges, then they could easily overturn the American government and we would then be a military state in forms of government. Which is basically, everything is run by the military for the military and enforced by the military. If you don't comply, you die or suffer sever punishment, plain and simple. Would this be a better government for us Americans?

I think someone's been watching too many futuristic war movies. The U.N. and N.A.T.O. would never allow something like that too happen, but it's really not a logical argument as it's based off of unprecedented assumptions. The only thing to ever happen in this country that was even remotely similar was the Civil War, and that had several different factors that contribute to it's starting.

1. I am quite uncomfortable with your use of the word terrorism. Terrorism in itself cannot be used as a sweeping generalization to target the extremist Al Qaeda Group that attack America. Terrorism encompasses that which is socially unacceptable in complete relation to what each particular society decides what socially acceptable means.

That's a horrible definition of terrorism. Using that definition you could argue that every minority party is a terrorist organization as the majority believes otherwise. Also, whether it was a generalization or not, would you call Al Qaeda anything different? They are still a terrorist organization and I thought it was pretty clear what I meant in my post.

2. The Golden rule is not do unto others as they have done unto you, but rather do unto others as you would have them do unto you. No one ever said war was fair, the United States has chosen to be a leading example of being humane in war rather than inhumane. That is a choice we made as a Country, or more accurately, as a group of countries (the United Nations). The terrorists are not part of the United Nations and are not [b]forced[b] to uphold these practices per se. They are somewhat forced as the countries oppose them and it is a losing battle. However, they themselves do not share the same morals and will do everything in their power to inflict pain, sorrow, etc.

I'm sorry, but you're extremely naive if you think anyone in legal office at the moment lives by the Golden Rule. You may, and that's fine and dandy, but please don't confuse politicians for moral people. Also, why does it sound to me like you're defending terrorists in this statement? I agree that we shouldn't stoop to their level, but I wouldn't compare a punch to cold-blooded murder...

@Shalandriel: You obviously don't know very many military personnel. Many people come back from war with flimsy mental states, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is also a contributing factor. And in this case, I'm pretty sure the SEAL was in complete control. If he wasn't, I get the feeling he would be being tried for murder...

Originally Posted by Shtona

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="DarkRed"]

Terrorists have captured American personnel. If you read the last paragraph or two of the article I quoted you'd see what they did to them...

I am fully aware of what they do to American soldiers. However they are not restricted by the same legalities that Americans are. Is it fair? No. However, regardless how you look at it, America chose this course of action to be the role model.

Originally Posted by Shtona

I'm well aware...what does this have to do with my response?

You stated it was unfair the SEALs had to go to trial. I, however, am claiming that it is more fair to let them go to trial than to just punish them for their misdeeds.

Originally Posted by Shtona

I think someone's been watching too many futuristic war movies. The U.N. and N.A.T.O. would never allow something like that too happen, but it's really not a logical argument as it's based off of unprecedented assumptions. The only thing to ever happen in this country that was even remotely similar was the Civil War, and that had several different factors that contribute to it's starting.

Make all the judgmental assertions you wish. The fact of the matter is, is that if a person is given power outside of his bounds, they usually abuse it. Abusing it could have a cause and effect of turning the United States gradually into a Military state. the United Nations has no say in how we run our country, only how we involve ourselves with other countries.

Originally Posted by Shtona

That's a horrible definition of terrorism. Using that definition you could argue that every minority party is a terrorist organization as the majority believes otherwise. Also, whether it was a generalization or not, would you call Al Qaeda anything different? They are still a terrorist organization and I thought it was pretty clear what I meant in my post.

That is exactly what terrorism is, every single minority that ever existed. So that makes your claim very judgmental when you say all terrorists fight unfairly and unjustly. I would call Al Qaeda a terrorist group, but I would not assert that all terrorists fight the way you suggest. In fact, we, as Americans fought the same way using guerrilla tactics when warring with the redcoats. Does this make it wrong?

Originally Posted by Shtona

I'm sorry, but you're extremely naive if you think anyone in legal office at the moment lives by the Golden Rule. You may, and that's fine and dandy, but please don't confuse politicians for moral people. Also, why does it sound to me like you're defending terrorists in this statement? I agree that we shouldn't stoop to their level, but I wouldn't compare a punch to cold-blooded murder...

Regardless if particular politicians believe in it, it is a universally understood rule. Also, I would challenge your statement that all politicians are not moral. However you look at it, America, along with other U.N Countries fight under a certain code. To break that code is to violate what was agreed upon in the U.N. which could devastate our foreign relations. Would you be willing to take this risk, knowing that we are no longer the only superpower? Yes, I am fully supporting the terrorist's view as the SEAL did not honor their code. The terrorist is still human, and until convicted and a punishment decided, by the legal system we decided to create, no retaliatory action should be committed against the terrorist until said time regardless of who does it.

Make all the judgmental assertions you wish. The fact of the matter is, is that if a person is given power outside of his bounds, they usually abuse it. Abusing it could have a cause and effect of turning the United States gradually into a Military state. the United Nations has no say in how we run our country, only how we involve ourselves with other countries.

You're one to claim I'm making judgmental assertions...

Would you say the same for politicians, I wonder? Would they gladly overrun our government and take it over, creating a totalitarian state if given just the slightest bit of slack? I know this isn't really relevant. I'm just curious what you think about it.

And if we were to become a military state, I would think it would affect how we involved ourselves with other countries, wouldn't it? The U.N. and N.A.T.O. would never let it happen, if it seemed likely to happen...

That is exactly what terrorism is, every single minority that ever existed.

Wow? Really? You believe this?

Dictionary.com:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

I think you're confused as to what terrorism is...usually it involves violence, not just being a minority.

In fact, we, as Americans fought the same way using guerrilla tactics when warring with the redcoats. Does this make it wrong?

So you're comparing American militia to Al Qaeda terrorists? Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism, at least not the guerrilla warfare implemented in the Revolutionary War. We didn't use civilians as shields, bait, or targets; they do. They are similar, but the moral structures are completely different.

As for your last paragraph: I'll agree with you when there is more information, but I still think it's wrong for a man who risked his life to bring in a known terrorist to be prosecuted for punching him.

Also, I guess this could be considered a sidenote since it's really not relevant to the debate in my opinion, the golden rule may be globally understood, but it is not globally practiced. You're an idealist if you believe it is...

Originally Posted by Shtona

Is it right for the SEALS to be court-martialed for basically doing their jobs?

My opinion: I think it's ridiculous how far this has gone. They bloodied the guy up a bit, what's the big deal?

Yes.

It all depends on the lengths they went through for this. If they are being receiving a court martial a few things happened.
1: They did not do their mission correctly.
2: They went above what they were suppose to do.
3: They probably straight fucked up and obviously got caught.

There are groups in the military which their job is to be the unseen people. Going over this they fucked it up. When a person is detained they are just that, detained. Not beaten. Looks like they took a personal vendetta to kick this persons ass after they had him detained. Their orders may have been to detain him and bring him in with the doing what it takes to detain them. They obviously went outside of that directive order in which was given to them.

I know that terrorists are bad and all, but they are still human and deserve to be treated fairly until they have been punished properly by a court not by people who just work for the government. I know it sounds bad. But if people in the states can go and commit crimes and be given a trial and even terrorists or people thought to be terrorists can get a trial then the ones that are really bad should be given the same treatment. I think everyone should be treated equally. Then at least the justice system can hopefully work the way it should be. The fair and correct way, not the corrupt and wrong way. I have seen too many bad people get treated like they did nothing wrong, even though there is more than enough of evidence to prove they are really bad and did commit a certain crime. But our justice system is a bit corrupt for my liking.
Btw, I am not supporting terrorists or like them, I just think they shouldn't be abused or beaten by a bunch of brutes who don't like them.

Originally Posted by Shtona

You're one to claim I'm making judgmental assertions...

Would you say the same for politicians, I wonder? Would they gladly overrun our government and take it over, creating a totalitarian state if given just the slightest bit of slack? I know this isn't really relevant. I'm just curious what you think about it.

And if we were to become a military state, I would think it would affect how we involved ourselves with other countries, wouldn't it? The U.N. and N.A.T.O. would never let it happen, if it seemed likely to happen...

That is speculation at best when concerning what the U.N and N.A.T.O. would do in the event of the U.S becoming a military state. As far as politicians making a totalitarian govt, they would need the control of the military to back up their power. Thus why it is more logical that a military state would exist first.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Wow? Really? You believe this?

Dictionary.com:


I think you're confused as to what terrorism is...usually it involves violence, not just being a minority.

Please read the bolded and understand that terrorism is at best a loosely defined word.

Originally Posted by legal definition of terrorism

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."
United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." [28]
USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

Originally Posted by Shtona

So you're comparing American militia to Al Qaeda terrorists? Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism, at least not the guerrilla warfare implemented in the Revolutionary War. We didn't use civilians as shields, bait, or targets; they do. They are similar, but the moral structures are completely different.

Morality is based entirely off of culture. Who is to say that we weren't wrong in shooting redcoats from the woods while they marched in the form of battle their culture taught them was right. When comparing two different types of morals there will be different definitions of what terrorism entails.

Originally Posted by Shtona

As for your last paragraph: I'll agree with you when there is more information, but I still think it's wrong for a man who risked his life to bring in a known terrorist to be prosecuted for punching him.

You have only given your opinion and tried to poke holes in my argument. Please explain why hitting a detainee should not be punished by law?

Originally Posted by Shtona

Also, I guess this could be considered a sidenote since it's really not relevant to the debate in my opinion, the golden rule may be globally understood, but it is not globally practiced. You're an idealist if you believe it is...

I never claimed it was, only that it was universally practiced, only that since the U.S. decided to pick certain ideals to follow, these ideals could be summed by the description of the Golden Rule.

I don't really see the issue here. The SEALS are going to be tried, it's not like they've been convicted of anything, and I don't think that gone "ridiculously" too far. For all we know they could have all charges dropped or be found innocent of the crimes for which they are accused.

Originally Posted by Shtona

...I think you're confused as to what terrorism is...usually it involves violence, not just being a minority....

...Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism....

I lol'd at the contradiction.

That is speculation at best when concerning what the U.N and N.A.T.O. would do in the event of the U.S becoming a military state. As far as politicians making a totalitarian govt, they would need the control of the military to back up their power. Thus why it is more logical that a military state would exist first.

And it isn't speculation that, if given the tiniest bit of slack, the military would overrun the entire country? I agree that it's logical for a military state to exist first, with political parties blossoming out of it to take control, but it's completely illogical that a military state would exist at all. This makes the whole topic null/void.

You know, it's strange. Both definitions of terrorism sound nothing like the one you brought forth earlier. All of the definitions listed in that quote, by the way, mention some form of violence. There's nothing in there about minorities...

Morality is based entirely off of culture. Who is to say that we weren't wrong in shooting redcoats from the woods while they marched in the form of battle their culture taught them was right. When comparing two different types of morals there will be different definitions of what terrorism entails.

Oh nooooow I get it. It's okay for them to burn our soldiers bodies and hang them from bridges, because that's what their culture thinks is acceptable! That makes perfect sense. I'm so glad you cleared that up for the classroom...

You have only given your opinion and tried to poke holes in my argument. Please explain why hitting a detainee should not be punished by law?

I'm seeing swiss cheese, mate. I don't know what you mean by 'tried.'

Also, I said that I would agree with you when more information was available. That means that I think it is wrong for them to have assaulted the man while detained; however, we don't know if that's the case. That's from the legal picture though. In the big picture (which encompasses foreign policy toward terrorist organizations and the performance of every member of the military in the field) though, I think this is a huge mistake that shows our asses to terrorists worldwide. I believe it's sending a message similar to this: "You can kill us, but we'll give you Constitutional rights afterward, and then put your captors on trial, while you sit in a nice, cozy cell waiting for your turn to go in front of the judge..." That is what's wrong about this whole thing.

I never claimed it was, only that it was universally practiced, only that since the U.S. decided to pick certain ideals to follow, these ideals could be summed by the description of the Golden Rule

.

You never claimed it was globally practiced, only that it was universally practiced? Think on it...

Also, that is a massive generalization of the 'ideals' that the U.S. follows. Could you list them out so we can all see what you're talking about?

And @Keyori: If you're going to quote me I would prefer you do so fully ^_^

Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism, at least not the guerrilla warfare implemented in the Revolutionary War.

Misquoting people is not exactly a noble practice...just sayin'.

I didn't misquote, I selectively left parts out (as indicated by the ellipses).

Originally Posted by Shtona

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="DarkRed"]

And it isn't speculation that, if given the tiniest bit of slack, the military would overrun the entire country? I agree that it's logical for a military state to exist first, with political parties blossoming out of it to take control, but it's completely illogical that a military state would exist at all. This makes the whole topic null/void.

Originally Posted by PG War resolution

There was some criticism of the Bush administration, as they chose to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power instead of pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance, and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.

Hmm, instead of properly punishing and ending his reign, we not only let Saddam live with a handslap, but let him keep his position of power. What happened next is the mess we are in now. Same thing could theoretically apply with the SEAL.

Originally Posted by Shtona

You know, it's strange. Both definitions of terrorism sound nothing like the one you brought forth earlier. All of the definitions listed in that quote, by the way, mention some form of violence. There's nothing in there about minorities...

Originally Posted by last post definition

appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

Please explain how this definition requires violence.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Oh nooooow I get it. It's okay for them to burn our soldiers bodies and hang them from bridges, because that's what their culture thinks is acceptable! That makes perfect sense. I'm so glad you cleared that up for the classroom...

Unless you consider yourself above all humans, you have no say in giving a clear, universally understood and accepted definition good and evil. Because of this, you lack the power to decide if something the Al Qaeda do to prisoners is either evil or good. So, yes, unless you can prove otherwise, it is completely acceptable according to their culture.

Originally Posted by Shtona

I'm seeing swiss cheese, mate. I don't know what you mean by 'tried.'

You still attempt to poke holes in my argument and still fail. I will give you the one mistake I made that I acknowledged below.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Also, I said that I would agree with you when more information was available. That means that I think it is wrong for them to have assaulted the man while detained; however, we don't know if that's the case. That's from the legal picture though. In the big picture (which encompasses foreign policy toward terrorist organizations and the performance of every member of the military in the field) though, I think this is a huge mistake that shows our asses to terrorists worldwide. I believe it's sending a message similar to this: "You can kill us, but we'll give you Constitutional rights afterward, and then put your captors on trial, while you sit in a nice, cozy cell waiting for your turn to go in front of the judge..." That is what's wrong about this whole thing.

Nothing wrong with trying to promote humane justice by humanity's standards if that is what our American humans have decided to do.

Originally Posted by Shtona

You never claimed it was globally practiced, only that it was universally practiced? Think on it...

As I mentioned above, I made the mistake of not typing "universally understood" rather than practiced, which is repetitive.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Also, that is a massive generalization of the 'ideals' that the U.S. follows. Could you list them out so we can all see what you're talking about?

I never said it covers the entire spectrum, rather it is a core idea to take into consideration when creating the basis of ideals.

I would say it is wrong for the SEALs to arrest him. He killed blackwater agents. not only is Blackwater a group that profits from war-mongering, they are even now being charged with killing innocent civilians. The case of an Iraqi killing members of a group who are murderous war-profiteers should be handled in their own country. If the Navy believes it should be handled by them, because it involves an act against US citizens, then the SEALs must let this case of assault on the detainee be handled by the Iraqis.

Hmm, instead of properly punishing and ending his reign, we not only let Saddam live with a handslap, but let him keep his position of power. What happened next is the mess we are in now. Same thing could theoretically apply with the SEAL.

That's not a true metaphor as you're comparing apples to oranges. Saddam was a dictator, the SEAL is no such thing.

Also, we left the Middle East after the first Gulf War because Bush said at the beginning of it that we were only going to get him out of Kuwait. If he had continued into Iraq to overthrow Saddam, you would be bitching today about how he hadn't done what he promised. I realize this isn't really part of the debate, but I didn't want to let it slide...

You're misquoting yourself...interesting.

That isn't the entire definition. Terrorism, as defined by the U.S. Patriot Act is:

USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

Still nothing like your earlier definition. Still no mention of minorities...

Unless you consider yourself above all humans, you have no say in giving a clear, universally understood and accepted definition good and evil. Because of this, you lack the power to decide if something the Al Qaeda do to prisoners is either evil or good. So, yes, unless you can prove otherwise, it is completely acceptable according to their culture.

So you honestly believe that it's okay for people to kill other people because that's what their culture dictates?

Nothing wrong with trying to promote humane justice by humanity's standards if that is what our American humans have decided to do.

Explain this to me: By humanity's standards we're obligated to give foreign citizens rights promised only to citizens of this country, but they're allowed to murder innocent members of a foreign country? You're contradicting yourself...

I never said it covers the entire spectrum, rather it is a core idea to take into consideration when creating the basis of ideals.

For you, maybe. This is a blatant assumption that has no facts backing it...

And @Keyori: Indicated by an ellipsis or not, you tried to infer that I was contradicting myself, when the contradiction was taken care of directly after the words you quoted. That is misquoting...

And finally, @Feral: So we shouldn't arrest people who kill people? (Other than on the battlefield, which he was not...)

Originally Posted by Shtona

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="DarkRed"]

That's not a true metaphor as you're comparing apples to oranges. Saddam was a dictator, the SEAL is no such thing.

First off, it's not a metaphor, it's a simile. Secondly, a military state is dictatorship by the military.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Also, we left the Middle East after the first Gulf War because Bush said at the beginning of it that we were only going to get him out of Kuwait. If he had continued into Iraq to overthrow Saddam, you would be bitching today about how he hadn't done what he promised. I realize this isn't really part of the debate, but I didn't want to let it slide...

Irrelevance to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Shtona

You're misquoting yourself...interesting.

That isn't the entire definition. Terrorism, as defined by the U.S. Patriot Act is:



Still nothing like your earlier definition. Still no mention of minorities...

You brought the word minority into the argument, not me. If you take a look at example B it fully shows that terrorism does not have to be violent to be called as such. It merely has to be assumed to be the intention of violence. My quoting within my quoting was to show a particular section. Yes, terrorism can be construed as acts requiring violence and coercion of some sort. However, there is a way to be labeled as a terrorist without actually having done any violence.

Originally Posted by Shtona

So you honestly believe that it's okay for people to kill other people because that's what their culture dictates?

Prove that killing is wrong on a universal level (beyond humans even) and we'll talk. Who is to say Americans are right and other cultures are wrong? Are we that braggart of a nation to actually have the ability to tell the world what is right and what is wrong?

Originally Posted by Shtona

Explain this to me: By humanity's standards we're obligated to give foreign citizens rights promised only to citizens of this country, but they're allowed to murder innocent members of a foreign country? You're contradicting yourself...

America has decided humanity standards entails giving rights to POW. Other countries set different standards. How can you possess the ability to determine which country is right and which country is wrong?

Originally Posted by Shtona

For you, maybe. This is a blatant assumption that has no facts backing it...

Most major decisions revert back to the fact that said person doesn't want said thing to happen to them. In fact, you have demonstrated this by arguing murder is wrong. I am assuming you are saying it is wrong because you yourself would not like to be murdered? If not, explain your reasoning on why you feel it is wrong.

@Shtona-
Applying your definition of terrorism to the assertion made by Feral Fantom leads me to the conclusion that Blackwater is a terrorist organisation. If this happens to be the case, I would question the jurisdiction of the Seals to capture this man. Indeed if there were say terrorists from the Philippines (chosen at random) operating in U.S.A and a U.S citizen killed some, would you expect the Filipino special forces to come and arrest said U.S citizen? Or do you believe that this is a completely different case as U.S jurisdiction overrides the sovereignty of Iraq?