It's repugnant when known terrorists get more favorable legal treatment than the soldiers who defend the United States against them. That injustice has been dealt a well-deserved blow.
Two of three Navy SEALs facing charges after an al-Qaida thug allegedly got roughed up -- he suffered a bloody lip -- have been cleared of any wrongdoing by a U.S. military court in Iraq. A third SEAL goes on trial on Monday. The trio reportedly sought military hearings instead of reprimands to clear their names.
The charges were lodged by a repulsive terrorist who had been regarded as a high-value military target. Authorities say Ahmed Hashim Abed plotted the grisly 2004 murders of four military contractors in Iraq, then saw to it that their bodies were dragged through the streets, burned and hanged from a bridge in Fallujah.
Instead of being commended for bringing Mr. Abed to justice, the SEALs faced strikes to their service records -- a likely overreaction from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. But if, in fact, Abed's abuse was as claimed -- the al-Qaida playbook urges captured terrorists to say they were abused -- why would his alleged attackers roll the dice on a court verdict and risk even worse punishment?
With military service comes honor -- sadly, even when service personnel have to step up and defend their own.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.