# SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during e



## cc3915 (Mar 26, 2004)

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as 'ammunition' for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled 'One Chance'.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took 'the harder and the more honourable path' in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words 'Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?' are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the 'gutsy call' made by the President.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html#ixzz1tZt5PlzH​


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

I hope their names never become public....military will thow them to the wolves for UCMJ violations...especially if theyre commishioned


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

justanotherparatrooper said:


> I hope their names never become public....military will thow them to the wolves for UCMJ violations...especially if theyre commishioned


I forget the UCMJ Article number, but the catch-all "Bringing discredit upon the armed forces" can mean just about anything.

Years ago there was a Marine who got drunk and killed a bunch of horses....he got something like 6 months from the civilian court, but NCIS whacked him with the catch-all UCMJ Article, and he got something like 5 years at Leavenworth plus a bad conduct discharge.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Sadly some people will buy his words.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

The limited interaction I had with the SEALs taught me a couple things about them. 

These guys are the epitome (to me anyway) of high speed... And they're very effective at what they do. 

One of the reasons they're so effective is that each member is VERY intelligent. There wasn't a single operator in the unit who wasn't sharp, or spoke like a moron, they all were very smart... So I'm not surprised in the least they they're displeased with the doofus in chief using their name as political ammo.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

Q5-TPR said:


> Art 134 "Conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States"


That's the one.


----------



## MARINECOP (Dec 23, 2003)

Delta784 said:


> I forget the UCMJ Article number, but the catch-all "Bringing discredit upon the armed forces" can mean just about anything.
> 
> Years ago there was a Marine who got drunk and killed a bunch of horses....he got something like 6 months from the civilian court, but NCIS whacked him with the catch-all UCMJ Article, and he got something like 5 years at Leavenworth plus a bad conduct discharge.


Yup. Double Jeopardy does not apply to those in the military. Hence those who get OUI's off base. They get hammered by the local courts and then get punished again through the military. I always LOL'd at those Marines who had such nice cars parked in the parking lot for months at a time and had to ride a peddle bike around base. Nothing like the military.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

MARINECOP said:


> Yup. Double Jeopardy does not apply to those in the military. Hence those who get OUI's off base. They get hammered by the local courts and then get punished again through the military. I always LOL'd at those Marines who had such nice cars parked in the parking lot for months at a time and had to ride a peddle bike around base. Nothing like the military.


I'm actually not comfortable with dual prosecution, I think it completely violates the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution.

If a military service member who is subject to the UCMJ screws up and commits a crime, then civilian prosecutors should be thrilled to let the military handle it, since the punishment is going to be much harsher than any civilian court.

I think the concept of "dual sovereignty" is bullshit and violates the double-jeopardy standard. A perfect example is the LAPD Officers who were charged in state court for their use of force in accordance with their training when they arrested Rodney King. A jury of their peers vindicated them in state court, and that should have been the end of it, but the federal government stepped in and prosecuted them a second time for the same incident, which should be the *textbook* definition of double jeopardy.

The court system, be it state, federal, or military, should get ONE bite at the apple. If it doesn't go the government's way, then learn from the experience and move on.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

USMCMP5811 said:


> This was just addressed on the federal level at the beginning of the month.
> 
> The Marine Corps Times covers Judge Trenga's decision upholding a magistrate judge's ruling barring prosecution of Marines for DWI in U.S. District Court after they previously received NJP for the same offense:
> *Judge: Quantico DWI policy unconstitutional*
> ...


That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

During the times I was on active duty, I was willing to accept whatever prosecution/punishment that was leveled at me, be it local, state, federal or the UCMJ, but I just assumed it would be the UCMJ. One of the deal breakers about the first Gulf War was that U.S. troops wouldn't be subject to Saudi Arabian law, just the UCMJ, which was harsh enough to satisfy the Saudi King.

Take your pick....state court, federal civilian court, or the UCMJ. If the prosecution fails at one, that's the end of the game, IMO.


----------



## MARINECOP (Dec 23, 2003)

Delta784 said:


> I'm actually not comfortable with dual prosecution, I think it completely violates the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution.
> 
> If a military service member who is subject to the UCMJ screws up and commits a crime, then civilian prosecutors should be thrilled to let the military handle it, since the punishment is going to be much harsher than any civilian court.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. As for the Rodney King incident, it ruined my weekend because I had to guard a grocery store during the riots with a fixed bayonet, but with NO AMMO. They did not want us crazy Marines shooting so called innocent civilians. They felt our presence there with our rifles with fixed bayonets would deter the LA rioters, so no ammo needed. I was close to the end of my enlistment and knew I would not re-enlist from that point on. It is insane, they had us guarding a grocery store in east bum-fuck LA with no ammo. Oh, the store owners were on the roof with loaded shotguns, but we had nothing. Long story and sorry to rant. The Rodney King incident brings up bad memories. I wish I was not stationed in California back then! Fuck you command staff for deciding to give Marines no ammo during a blood bath riot!


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

Delta784 said:


> I'm actually not comfortable with dual prosecution, I think it completely violates the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution.


Remember, "We're here to preserve democracy...not to practice it."


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

CTV.ca 
*Mitt Romney would have made 'same decision' on bin Laden raid raid*
msnbc.com - ‎34 minutes ago‎

Mitt Romney says he would have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but says "it's really disappointing" President Barack Obama chose to make it political.


----------

