
Originally Posted by
apb
If the terrorist was hurt, maimed, killed, etc. during capture, I agree, the SEALS were doing their job and there is no reason to bring them up on trial. They were doing what their country asked of them, and doing it well as usual. However, something doesn't smell right and I don't think we have all the info. For example, this part of the story:
"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."
Suggests that the terrorist was in good health and that the assault happened long after he was captured. That would be a problem. In addition, it was the SEAL leader (not some mongrel liberal) that reported the charge. I want to see more info before I make a comment on it.
Andrew