America’s Finest ... On the Defensive

Special to The Bold Pursuit … Robert Arvay, former military, shares his unique perspective on the attempted courts-martial of three Navy Seals.


During my twenty years of military service to the United States, I was privileged to see some of the very finest Americans on a daily basis. From the lowest private to the highest general, and in all branches of the service, I witnessed constant dedication and devotion to our highest ideals.

I am now in my twentieth year of post-military retirement, and I have never had anything disparaging to say about our Armed Forces. But the recent courts-martial of three heroic Navy Seals compels me to speak my mind.

Every house has its soiled laundry, and as a general rule, we are all better off not mentioning it. The bad apples in the military are few and far between, but sometimes, they have a negative influence all out of proportion to their small numbers. And I warrant that the vast majority of military veterans know exactly whereof I speak.

So it is that I call for an investigation of exactly how it was, that three American heroes were not only falsely accused of a crime they did not commit, but actually brought to trial on the basis of a prosecution case that could not survive two hours of jury review before the just verdict of acquittal on all charges.

This was never a case about a crime. It was never a case about serving justice. From the very earliest stages of this case, superior officers had the discretion and the duty to exonerate these men on the basis of the flimsiness of the prosecution evidence, if evidence it was.

Let us consider the very worst case scenario possible, that the three men had presumably been guilty as charged. Guilty of what? Of punching a terrorist who had murdered Americans? Which they did not, but let us presume guilt. How serious was this charge? Serious enough to warrant a court-martial?

Remember, these men had risked their lives to capture the terrorist. They had risked death to take him alive. During the capture operation, they had every opportunity to punch, kick, stab, shoot and even bomb the terrorist, to insult, hurt, wound or kill him. They did not do that. But according to the prosecution, the Navy Seals chose to bloody the terrorist in front of a witness whom they did not know well enough to trust with a secret. Preposterous!

So why did the commanders, after seeing the Navy Seals refuse the dishonor of nonjudicial punishment, then proceed with a full blown court-martial? Why did they choose to believe the discredited witness, who admitted dereliction of duty?

To answer that, we have to understand that there are two kinds of people in the military. First are the warriors, those willing to risk their lives in the performance of dangerous, often thankless duties. Second, there are a small number of the politically correct.

And if you think that is of little consequence, you are tragically mistaken.

To prove that, ask yourself which of these two kinds of people supervised Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Warriors or bureaucrats? Hasan is the man who murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood massacre. There was strong reason for Hasan’s superiors to report him for terrorist sympathies, long before he actually murdered his victims. He had a long history leading up to the murders. But you see, Hasan is a Muslim. You might not know that. The press either did not report his religion at all, or downplayed it. Because you see, it is politically incorrect to associate terrorism with Islam. The politically correct do not wish to offend Muslims.

This is the kind of thinking that led to the courts-martial of the Navy Seals, but not even nonjudicial punishment against Major Hasan prior to his act of terrorism. The thinking is that we must not offend the terrorists who are killing us. We must instead punish those who defend us.

This is the kind of thinking that requires American warriors in Afghanistan to warn the enemy of our impending attacks, and to read them their (nonexistent) Miranda rights on the battlefield.

This is the kind of thinking that gets us killed. And it is well past time that Americans put a stop to this insanity.

Fort Hood: Terrorism or just a tragedy? Propaganda, Part I

by Clio

In my earlier blogs (“Man-Caused Disasters” and “Grab Your Merriam-Websters…”), I expressed disdain for the Obama administration’s terminology tinkering. “Man-Caused Disasters” focused on taking out terrorism and replacing it with an easier to digest “man-caused disaster.” “Grab Your Merriam-Websters…” examined the new policy of wiping out “war on terror,” giving preference to “global overseas contingency operations.”

When those exchanges were announced earlier this year, I felt so strongly about the White House’s word wrangling that I grabbed my laptop and pounded out a couple of blogs to express my disapproval. I had a feeling that these subtle substitutions marked the beginning of a campaign to change our opinions about the new government’s domestic and foreign policies.

It seems that Mr. Obama believes that if he expunges a certain word, such as “terrorism,” and replaces it with a less offensive term like “man-caused disaster,” the result will negate or change reality.

Reality arrived home last week in the form of an Army major at Fort Hood, Texas. Major Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people and wounded 29 others in first act of terrorism on American soil since September 11, 2001. News reports are surfacing regarding Major Hasan’s ties to radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki and Hasan’s attempts to contact members of Al Qaeda. In fact, there is enough information regarding Major Hasan, his activities and statements to launch a Senate inquiry into the shootings; other agencies will follow suit with their own investigations.

How did Mr. Obama respond to last week’s terrorist attack? During a brief press conference in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama spent two minutes acknowledging a member of the audience and touting his health care package before he mentioned the Fort Hood attack: “… some of you might have heard there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas,” he told the assembled guests and cautioned “not to jump to conclusions” about the event.

Mr. Obama used poor judgment in failing to mention the attack on Fort Hood before giving “shout outs” and promoting ObamaCare, but I concur with his prudent advice about jumping to conclusions. Meanwhile, the facts are beginning to emerge and the evidence collected thus far suggests that a thorough examination of Major Hasan and his deadly acts is warranted.

On Tuesday, November 10th, the Commander-in-Chief spoke at a memorial service in honor of the fallen soldiers at Fort Hood Army Base. Again, Mr. Obama refused to use the term terrorism or even his own spin, “man-caused disasters.”

“This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.” Barack Hussein Obama, Fort Hood Memorial Service, November 10, 2009

The attack was a “tragedy,” not terrorism, according to Obama, and Major Hasan is a “gunman” and a “killer,” but not a terrorist. The exclusion of the expunged terms is pertinent because there is significant evidence, not far-fetched right-wing conclusions, that Major Hasan is a terrorist and his words and deeds provide substance to the charge. Mr. Obama may not want to acknowledge that, after eight years without a terrorist attack on America, one just occurred during his first year in office.

“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion” – Joseph Goebbels

Author’s note: after posting this blog around 4am, I turned on the television. Commentators on FoxNews were discussing Major Hasan’s legal defense and his attorney’s intent to use a mental illness defense for his client. I’m quite certain that Major Hasan suffers from some mental malady (the diagnosis was psychopath, according to the commentators), but that begs the question: are all terrorists suffering from mental illness?

Surely, strapping explosives to one’s chest and walking into a building filled with innocent adults and children qualifies under that presumption. Piloting airplanes filled with highly explosive jet fuel and frightened passengers into skyscrapers and government offices – those 19 terrorists on September 11, 2001 were clearly mentally disturbed, as well as terrorist militants who engage in variety of murderous activities.

It all makes perfect sense to me; anyone who shouts “death to America” or carries signs that read “America is the Great Satan” is obviously a few nails short of a dirty bomb.

Will psychological illness become the new defense for terrorism? If so, what will that mean for those who were detained at Guantanamo Bay or tried, convicted and jailed for their attacks on America, its people and military? Should we release all of them for humanitarian reasons or ship them to a mental hospital to be tended by trained psychiatric staff?

If Major Hasan’s legal defense is successful, this could open a Pandora’s box in the prosecution of terrorism.

Psychopath or terrorist? Oh, here we go again… Shall we just trash our dictionaries and let liberals tell us what words mean and what we should or should not believe? It’s PROPAGANDA, my friends, an insidious ploy to stage manage our perception of the world and its dangers.



© The Bold Pursuit, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED