This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Military issues

  • Details of SEAL incident emerge

    Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times writes this morning about some of the details of the trial of the 3 Navy SEALs who were court martialed for assaulting Ahmed Hashim Abed when he was arrested in iraq ate last year. The article includes a copy of the capture report;

    rsz_graphic

    Abed’s status as a most-wanted killer is one reason many Americans rallied around the three SEALs, who were accused of hitting him after capture. They celebrated after the last defendant, Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, was found not guilty Thursday of assaulting Abed by a seven-member military jury in Norfolk, Va.

    General Charles Cleveland, the head of the special-operations component of U.S. Central Command explains why he brought charges against the three SEALs;

    “I take my responsibility as a commander and convening authority very seriously and did not make the decision to refer these charges to courts-martial lightly,” Gen. Cleveland said. “While I had preferred to handle the incident administratively, Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe and Keefe exercised their right to have this matter handled by a court-martial. The evidence presented reasonable grounds to believe that offenses had been committed and that Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe, and Keefe had committed those offenses. In the interests of justice and to maintain good order and discipline, I chose to proceed with the courts-martial.

    I think most Americans disagree. The lack of evidence against the 3 shows that this was just a show trial so Cleveland could absolve himself and to avoid making a decision. The people who already hold the troops in low esteem will use this as justification for their abhorrence of those in uniform. Cleveland made a political decision instead of showing leadership. The fact that he felt he had to make a statement Friday explaining his decision, proves to me that it was a purely political decision.

  • Webb: Military pay rising at “disturbing” rate

    According to the Stars and Stripes, Senator James Webb, armed services personnel subcommittee chairman, held a hearing on compensation for military members;

    Webb opened the hearing by saying the cost of military personnel — including pay, allowances, non-cash benefits like health care and deferred benefits like retirement — “continues to rise at disturbing rates.”

    This is the same guy that bulldozed his GI Bill through Congress – the GI Bill that made leaving the military more attractive than staying. The GI Bill that was so big that the VA still hasn’t been able to administer it properly yet after nearly two years to prepare.

    Now he’s investigating whether military members are making too much money. Now, I know everyone loves the new GI Bill, and I’m not arguing for it’s repeal. What I’m saying is that it appears to me that Senator Webb is trying to hobble active duty retention using compensation.

    It’s funny that Congress is investigating ways to save money through personnel compensation cuts after spending last year porking up the defense bill with systems the military said they didn’t need. I’m just sayin’….

  • Third SEAL acquitted

    I’ve been in DC all day and the first news I saw when I got home was PO Matt McCabe’s acquittal. So this one’s for you, Matt.

  • The million dollar question for James Branum.

    Awhile back I wrote about Eric Jasinski and how James Branum helped him in getting jail time for going AWOL. Well James replied to me that he has many clients that he has defended successfully. It is only the ones that have been public have gotten the jail time and bad conduct discharge. It was just by chance that all the public ones got the bad verdict. Also he gives a excuse for any questions we have made so far about him..

    I have a policy of not responding to anyone affiliated with TAH. Responding to them gives their website credibility, which is why I do not respond to their posts on their website anymore.

    So I go back and check to find a un-named person asking the same type of questions we have. I guess it might take a person on the other side of the spectrum to get the point across.

    I like how no one can give a direct and honest answer to mastersporks simple question. How many people who refused deployment for moral or medical reasons that Branum represented not get the worst outcome possible? Eric Jasinki should be getting medical treatment and the fact he got jail time is absurd and while a strike against the Army it is also a strike against Under The Hood Cafe for feeding another Soldier who needed help to this incompetent practitioner of the law.

    The UCMJ allows for a Soldier to choose free representation from any lawyer from any branch all paid for by the Military. So there would be no need for Branum.

    AWOL does not mean automatic jail time. For anyone to suggest that is grossly misinformed. They just want to get that person off the books and move on. Branum seems to go in a botch things up so bad they end up getting jail time. No one is also the wiser because people on the outside like these activists don’t understand the UCMJ, hate the Army, so they will blame the Military because they are already predetermined to. Lack of knowledge and true understand allows Branum to operate in this manner. People need to look at the actual numbers for how many Soldiers actually get jail time for going AWOL. It is very very low.

    Another absurd accusation is that anyone who stands up to the Military will get punished to the severity in which Bramun’s clients do. How these people have forgotten active duty troops who stood up and all walked away with Honorable Discharges and zero jail time is sad. Colby Buzzel, Ronn Cantu, Casey Porter, Selena Coppa, just to name a few.

    Support war resisters, keep them away from Under The Hood and James Branum.

    James gives a typical reply about the John Doe clients.

    Anonymous, as I stated earlier, the overwhelming majority of my clients do NOT get jail time. I don’t know how much more clear I can get on this point.

    Even for my clients who aren’t just garden variety AWOL’s but actually refuse deployments, a high percentage get no jail time. (if you wait until the last minute to refuse, your odds go down obviously).

    But I make no guarantees. Sometimes I can swing a good deal. Sometimes I can’t. Any lawyer who claims they get good deals all of the time, either only take easy cases, is a liar, and/or is a fool.

    But this is the money shot question in the reply.

    Then Mr. Branum I ask you to answer a straight forward question: How many war resisters have you represented that did not get a negative discharge or get jail time? I’m not asking for court documents, or anything that would violate client attorney privilege. Actually, giving out such information would not violate that trust because any case would be a matter of public record and there is no foreseeable legal reason I can think of as to why a case like that would be sealed. So please, sir, can we get that number?

    So what is your answer James?

  • 35 years ago…

    The Armorer reminds us that the Vietnam War ended 35 years ago today.

    I was in jump school at the time, I think I graduated the following week because a week after that I was a 128 pound 5 jump chump drawing ammo at Hunter Army Airfield for our aborted preparations to rescue the Mayaguez from the Khmer Rouge – the last US operation related to the Vietnam War.

    At that time, nearly every enlisted soldier above the rank of E-5 was a Vietnam veteran among infantrymen. Every officer above the rank of captain had a combat patch on their right shoulder. Their experiences in Vietnam added color to every training operation with real life lessons. They were the ones who remained to train us newbies, to make sure that what happened to them would never happen to us. They stayed with the Army even though they were mischaracterized by the popular culture, they continued doing their duty and few ever mentioned their cultural enemies on the Left.

    I was fortunate in that the 1/75th Infantry was populated with the heroes of Vietnam – everyday was like some sort of class reunion when the very best soldiers of that era relived their multiple tours of the war with their old classmates. Some had earned battlefield commissions and then gave them back when the Army started drawing down. More than few kicked my young ass with legs that were held together with pins. Most are now remembered in the Ranger Hall of Fame.

    The Vietnam veterans didn’t lose their war, yet they shouldered the blame for it silently. Their real victory is in the wars that we’ve fought since. There are soldiers walking around today that live because the Vietnam veterans didn’t abandon the country that largely abandoned them. I count myself in that number of troops who are alive because of the Vietnam veterans that taught me to soldier. That is a debt I’ll never be able to repay.

    This latest generation of veterans, from our more recent wars, have taken the cue from the Vietnam generation and serve in difficult times. My generation is lucky to have been bracketed by these heroes.

  • Proof the Army is confused about blogging

    There’s an article in Wired’s Danger Room entitled “Actually, the Army Kind of Likes Your Blog” by Noah Shachtman that reports on the Army’s attempt to get a grasp of the milblogosphere’s opinion of them;

    Every week, the defense contractor MPRI prepares for the brass a “Blogosphere and Social Media Report,” rounding up sites’ posts on military matters. It’s meant to be a single source for top officers to catch up on what’s being said online and in leading social media outlets. Items from about two dozen national security and political blogs are excerpted, and classified as “balanced,” “critical,” or “supportive.”

    Well, the problem is that they’re looking at “This Ain’t Hell” way too much to be at all helpful to them. 18 times in the three week period that Danger Room evaluated – more than almost any other blog. That’s not healthy – we don’t know what we’re doing here.

    To demonstrate how clueless they are, they included some of your comments in the report, too. See what I mean?

  • Vets as politicians

    In Washington Irving’s book “The Life of George Washington”, the president was quoted as saying “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.”

    The Washington Times reports this morning that, in the spirit of that quote, more veterans are choosing to run for political office this season than they have in the past. The Times highlights the campaign of Bill Russell’s run at the seat vacated by the late John Murtha’s ample ass;

    Mr. Russell’s battle with the party establishment is one that many veterans face when looking to make the jump into politics, said D. Patrick Mahoney, an Iraq veteran and president of the Veterans for Congress political action committee.

    Mr. Mahoney has been sharply critical of the Pennsylvania Republican leadership’s decision to pass over Mr. Russell, saying the move had less to do with qualifications than with the Republican establishment’s obsession with Mr. Burns’ wealth.

    “That’s why you don’t see more veterans running for Congress. It’s so expensive,” he said. “It’s tough for veterans who have been fighting a war, stationed around the world. Veterans who come back and want to seek office — especially the recent vets — generally are not going to be the rich guys.”

    Some organizations have tried to overcome that cash shortfall. VoteVets, for an example, has run such stellar candidates as party perv, Eric Massa and the unbalanced Joe Sestak. Of course, with VoteVets, they require their candidates to adhere to the agenda of MoveOn.org and embrace issues that have nothing to do with veterans.

    Other organizations that focus strictly on electing veterans are emerging like Iraq Veterans for Congress and Combat Veterans for Congress. I’ve linked their endorsed candidates for your perusal.

    Our buddy, Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets For Freedom, tells the Times why so many veterans are stepping up;

    Mr. Hegseth said veterans are getting into the 2010 races for many of the same reasons as other reform-minded candidates.

    “Veterans are driven by the same frustrations that the public has with what is happening in Washington … the fiscal irresponsibility and the financial crisis that our country is facing,” the 29-year-old Iraq veteran told The Washington Times.

    I’ve been asked why so many in the military are conservative, and it’s really quite simple; No one knows how incompetent the government is than the military – we’ve seen how absolutely worthless politicians and bureaucrats are at completing simple tasks. Veterans have a history of being competent despite the government that works against them at every turn. If you want your government reformed, veterans are the folks who can do it.

  • Pols want NG troops patrolling Chicago

    The Associated Press and Stars & Stripes report that Chicago politicians are pleading for National Guard troops to bring down the crime rate. Their reasoning is that an equal number of Americans have been killed in Afghanastan and Chicago so far this year. Yeah, that makes sense. Not.

    I can imagine the hoopla once an un-armed Guardsman gets popped by a street thug who has no rules of engagement. Or the reverse- a Guardsman shoots a thug in self defense.

    National Guardsmen, generally speaking, are not trained in police operations, nor should they be. Guard duty in the military is basically walking around looking mean with an empty magazine in your weapon. That might work in the daytime on Chicago streets, but I figure nights are little different.

    There are more 13,000 sworn officers in the employ of the Chicago PD, that’s the size of an infantry brigade. According to Wikipedia, there are 9700 Illinois National Guardsmen. If even half of them are MPs or combat arms troops (the usual ratio of combat arms troops to their support troops is 1:7), they’re not much of a reinforcement especially if you consider the time and effort it would take to train them.

    Funny how you can apply Kipling to civilians and their view of the troops today; For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
    But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot….