Rush To Judgment--No Evidence Yet on Navy Seals

The brave Navy Seals (down to three now, the possible fourth was dismissed at a very early stage, and was originally charged only with lack of cooperation, but not in the incident itself) are still waiting for the cowards at JAG and the officer corps to produce a scintilla of evidence against them. Andrew Price and I have used these pages on our Legal Looking Glass Blog to explain the difference between "evidence" and "testimony." So far, the only thing they have on our warriors is a terrorist with a split lip and his word for how it happened. Ptui!

In general, it is not terrifically unusual for the early stages of a complaint to go forward solely on the apparent record and the word of a complainant. Full charges are regularly proven up early after the defendant(s) have entered a plea. In this case, all three SEALs have pleaded not guilty, as is completely appropriate. Further hearings will require a showing of some actual evidence.

But I don't think I'm wandering off the reservation by pointing out that this is not exactly a minor "unauthorized absence," or "misuse of government property" charge. This is a high-profile case where the prosecution has had in its possession for months all the real evidence and investigative reports they need. I'm of a mind that there is either no hard evidence, or it's so shaky that the government needed to get its pitiful "facts" together to try to save face at the upcoming courts martial.

Moreover, the military commanders who are so political that they thought this would move them up on the promotion lists were so far removed from real combat that they never considered that an honorable warrior would refuse the lesser ordeal of a career-ruining captain's mast and demand that they prove the warrior's guilt in open court. The SEALs risk everything since this could be both career-ending and end up with lengthy incarceration. No notches on the belts of the political officers corps yet.

The government is already showing clear signs of weakness. The current cover for why there was not at least a scintilla of hard evidence contained in the charging documents is the normally valid "the military is still reviewing the evidence in the case to determine whether it contained classified information." Come on guys. You're just now doing that review? What have you been doing all this time? Or could it be that you thought this was a slam-dunk political move that men of honor would just take lying down?

The names of the heroes don't get mentioned enough. They are generally just lumped together as "the SEALs." So let me do that briefly. Matthew Vernon McCabe, age 24, Julio Antonio Huertas, Jr., age 28, and Jonathan Elliot Keefe, age 25.

McCabe's attorney deferred his plea at the arraignment on Monday. The legal time from plea at arraignment to date of the trial is determined from the entry of the plea. McCabe's attorney, Neal Puckett, made a statement later in which he said "The problem will be whether they provide the evidence soon enough to give us time to prepare for the trial. Typically, some evidence [remember, not testimony alone] is provided before the arraignment." Nevertheless, Puckett hopes to begin trial by the current tentative trial date of January 19. McCabe is the only one charged with the actual "crime" of giving a detainee a cut lip (assault, as well as well as dereliction of duty and making a false statement) .

Huertas is charged with impeding an investigation, dereliction of duty, and making a false official statement. Huertas has entered a not guilty plea. Keefe's arraignment was continued to a later date. He is charged with dereliction of duty and making a false statement.

The maximum penalty for all the charges would have been one year in military confinement and forfeiture of two-thirds of a year's pay, had they accepted the quiet political punishment of a captain's mast. But there was a third penalty: Dishonorable discharge for bad conduct. There is no way of knowing what these warriors might have done about the first two penalties, but they demonstrated their honor by refusing to accept a bad conduct discharge and risk all of those penalties rather than falsely admit they had been dishonorable. Try to explain that to the politicians and political generals.

The father of defendant McCabe, Marty McCabe was not restrained by legal niceties and legal considerations. His son has been charged with a career and freedom-ending crime. He doesn't have the military or the courts to restrain his opinion. He participated in a defense rally for the warriors. "We can't send these guys into harm's way to get the highest profile terrorists and then have them come back here and fight the system" said Marty McCabe. McCabe further said "They've been tracking this guy since 2004. There was no collateral damage. No shots fired. It is absurd to think they would do anything to him. These guys are pros. If they wanted to do something to him, they would have done it during the capture." That part is conjecture, but from my viewpoint, it's damned good conjecture.

At the rally, the protestors held signs that said "You fight for us, now we fight for you," Honk for Our SEALs," "Condemn the Terrorists, Not the SEALs," and "Is This America?" All sentiments with which I am in full agreement. The rally was organized by Josh Irving of Forth Worth, Texas. He told CNS News "Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I was just reading articles and read about these guys and my blood started boiling. I just lit a fire on Facebook and it took off." Protestors came from places as far away Texas, North and South Carolina, Ohio, Delaware and Maryland. Given more time, I suspect there would have been many more from many farther locations. But time and immediacy were more important than collecting a bigger crowd.

Perhaps the best speech of all was given by Donna Zovka, mother of Blackwater victim Jerry Zovka. We must remember that this subhuman, Ahmed Hashim Abed, was the leader of the jihadists who murdered the four Blackwater employees, partially burned their bodies, dragged them through the streets, and hanged two of them from a bridge over the Euphrates River. She felt some closure at the capture of the men responsible for the murder of her son. She wants to see justice for the terrorist, and exoneration for the SEALs. "It was difficult for me to get here today," she said, "but I am very grateful to these three Navy SEALs. I am hopeful for them, in my heart of hearts, I know they will overcome this and win." I think she's right.

For more details on the underlying terrorist murders which prompted this kangaroo trial, as well as the complaint of the terrorist against the SEALs, see: Next They Came For The Frontline Fighters.

ON A HAPPIER NOTE: I want to wish a Happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends. It should already be sundown for many of our readers, and the beautiful eight day festival begins tonight. The holiday is a great reminder that if we maintain our faith in God, we will survive whatever can be thrown against us. Let the lights in the temple menorahs burn brightly.

UPDATE: Several of my friends, including some military folks in the know, have pointed out that before the SEALs made their decision to demand a full court martial, the offer had reached the level of an admiral's mast (in other words, a higher level of command decision). I had originally referred to a "captain's mast," which is obviously a lesser command level. I should have brought that up to date in this article, but I failed to do so. My thanks to the pros (I admit my ignorance of most things military when it comes to disciplinary procedures).