All due respect, what part of “enemy” don’t you understand?
I don’t really care if he filed a complaint. None of the terrorist scum is covered by the Geneva Convention anyway—they don’t meet the criteria. And they didn’t boil him in hot ham fat (they should have). He had a bloody lip. How many American criminals get a bloody lip resisting arrest every day—I’m sure some complain—how many cops are even reprimanded? Even a court knows the cops’ job like the SEALS doesn’t consist of sitting down for a cup of tea to reason with the perp.
American troops in WW2, in isolated incidents to be sure, gunned down surrendering German units. they turned Nazi death camp leaders to the freed Jewish prisoners after the camps were liberated, to be tortured and killed by the prisoners without due process. We also bombed and killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, old people, women, children.
If we played nice nelly in WW2—we’d have lost—like we’re going to lose in the long run here, it appears.
“If we played nice nelly in WW2—we’d have lost—like we’re going to lose in the long run here, it appears.”
If we played nice nelly in WW2—we’d be lampshades.
I'm going to respond to your post, since it's a very reasonable one. We agree that Mr. Abbed is an enemy who is believed to be the person responsible for orchestrating atrocities against American civilians. Our military has chosen to capture rather than kill him. Some on this thread insist on second guessing the special operations officers who made that decision. I don't. He may have had valuable information that will help our military degrade terrorist networks. I simply don't have access to the information that our officers do. Unless there is compelling evidenced that they made a mistake, I think it's reasonable for me to assume special ops officers made the right call. Would you agree with this?
There is also the very clear message that the capture sends—attack American civilians and we will spend over half a decade tracking you down and make you answer for what you did. You can run, you can hide, but we will catch you and you will be brought to justice. In this case, that could very well be execution as a common criminal. This is what we did with Sadaam Hussein. Do you disagree with this? Do you think there is more to be gained by making Mr. Ahmed disappear quickly and quietly vs. asking him in a public trial about why he felt it was necessary to mutilate corpses? I don't think this is an issue of playing nice or tough. I think the trial allows us to expose jihad for what it is. Shine a light on the demonic nature of the acts and let everyone in the PC crowd take a good look at it.
You cited incidents from WWII, so let me ask you, do you think it was a mistake for the Mossad to capture Adolf Eichmann and for Eichmann to be tried in Jerusalem? Do you think General Tojo should have been tried for crimes against humanity, or shot on sight by the first American grunt to lay eyes on him? Mr. Abbed committed absolutely horrific crimes that put him in the same category of criminals as Eichmann and Tojo--a war criminal. Why should his fate be any different than theirs? I understand that no quarter was given in the battlefields of the Pacific, and frequently during WWII in Europe. This is different--we caught this man, and he is a high profile criminal who did very bad things. The difference between Mr. Abbed and your run of the mill jihaidi is that Mr. Abbed turned his attrociites into a world wide media event. A very public trial and a very public execution are, in my opinion, the fitting end for Mr. Abbed and his would-be followers.
I think our military acted correctly in apprehending Mr. Abbed.
As for indignation over 3 navy SEALS facing court martial because Mr. Abbed allegedly took a fist in the face after being housed in the Green Zone, I get that. I hope they are acquitted. But as an officer, would you do nothing if it was brought to your attention that one of your soldiers had punched or beaten a secured prisoner being housed in a safe zone?