In the large expensive mistakes category:

Comanche Project

ARH-70 Project

Future Combat Systems Project

Army Combat Uniform being so awful troops have to force congress to force the Army to come up with new camouflage pattern

Crusader Project

Let’s not even talk about how the Bradley Fighting vehicle program went on for decades.  So the Pentagon is complaining that we are spending too much money on paying the troops.  It would be my opinion that maybe the Pentagon should get it’s act together since the amount of money they have wasted on projects that were supposed to revolutionize the military, or at least replace aged equipment has turned into embarrassing failures.  The increase in pay to troops is in nowhere in comparison to how much money they wasted on these projects.  The worst part is the double edged sword of the cancellation.

The military just doesn’t lose new weapons, they also lose millions, sometimes billions of dollars for pulling out of the contracts.  How absurd is it to spend decades paying for R&D, then one day saying, opps, we need this but we’re going to do something else, and here is a few billion for us backing out of our contract.  Like it really hurts the company when they back out!  Please, come one.  With the ARH-70 project they need to replace the Kiowa because the frackkin helicopters have been in service since the Vietnam war.  Considering their are only like two competitors for the replacement, it’s very likely that the company that couldn’t deliver is going to win another contract for the replacement of the replacement of the replacement.  I remind you that the ARH-70 was to replace the Comanche which got over budget.  How much money do we have to spend for multiple projects aiming at the same goal that never deliver and only end with wasted R&D?

I say to the Pentagon, don’t mess with the troops money!  Get your act together with procurement before you start pretending like your frugal.  That and from what I understand the pay raises are just to cope with raise in cost of living.

I truly believe we need to move towards a free market system with procurement.  Either that or DARPA should make all our buys from now on.  The only success story I know of are the MRAPs.  We need the Pentagon to start doing the rest of our procurements like they did with the MRAPs.  When we need to replace something, we get it down now and with off-the-shelf technology.  None of this, “Hey let’s spend the next 2 decades researching future technology; which by the time we get around to finishing our R&D the civilian market already has already made our advancements look like stone age technology.”

I’m serious when I say this.  What we need is to get rid of these high ranking officers at the Pentagon that run these projects.  What we need to do is just get a couple of smart PFCs and Specialists and put them in front of the military industrial complex and tell them to go hog wild.  It’s been my experience that anyone who is old enough to work at the Pentagon, is old enough that you have to show them how to use a computer.  People who have no understanding of technology shouldn’t be in charge of the future of our military weaponization.  I’m telling you, young 20 to 28 year old Soldiers play enough video games and read enough about technology that they know what they need.  If you put the “Smart” Soldiers who have been in combat and know what is needed next to their peers in the industry building said weapons, we’re going to be better off.

Hot air!

I can see and understand some people’s comments on YouTube that the Soldiers (Pilots) were a bit blood thirsty, callous, and a little to casual with humor in killing the insurgents. I think their wrong! Frankly, I’d never hold it against anyone in taking enjoyment out of their job. You might find that callous as well. Tough. If your living this 24/7 I doubt you would spend a year without laughing and having a good time. This is war, the thing video games are based upon and billions of dollars are spent for enjoyment (video games, paintball, chess, D&D, movies, ect).

(Update: I’d like to add to the comments I made in the paragraph above in regard to the Pilots.  My Marine housemate likes to remind me from time to time, “No one ever said Marines are Saints or Angels; They are the exact opposite; they are some brutal mother_____ers!”  These men aren’t Saints, they are life-takers.  Don’t confuse them with some ambivalent pansy politically correct Soldier in a movie who is highly benevolent.  They are trained killers, and guess what; they have potty mouths to be coupled with their desire to eliminate threats.  As the Bradleys came under fire nothing they went into action and became angered when they couldn’t perform their job.  Soldiers feel intense emotions when they know their fellow Americans lives are on the line.

The one thing I can never remove from my head is the Spirit of the Bayonet.  During my training our drill sergeants made us repeat it over and over again.  I’ll repeat it for you; Drill Sergeant screams, “What is the Spirit of the Bayonet.” Answer. “To KILL. To KILL! To KILL without mercy. Make the grass grow green with blood. Huah!”  If you enter the world of a Soldier you have to put away your Disney channel mindset.

To further push this.  Here are some vulgar quotes from a Great Soldier George S. Patton,

“I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”

“Some goddamn fool once said that flanks have got to be secure. Since then son-of-a-bitches all over the globe have been guarding their flanks. I don’t agree with that. My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I’ll be cutting the bastard’s throat.”)

Once again, these pilots did their job. They probably even saved American lives that day.

Now that I think of it this reminds me of the Battle of Mogadishu. During the Battle of Mogadishu when the blackhawk went down and the horde of angry skinnies and enemy Soldiers were on their way, it was said that US Troops fired indiscriminately into the crowd on unarmed civilians. Once again law of war has to be explained to naive college idiots. If you are walking with and it would seem to be in cohorts with the enemy, no matter if armed or not during a battle; that makes you a valid target. Especially during the Battle of Mogadishu, you don’t need an AK-47 or RPG to smash in the head of a pilot laying on the ground. People can kill with their bare hands and feet.

Update:

Little Green Footballs says, “Quite a few people are calling this clear evidence of a war crime. I’m not so sure it is, because at least in the initial group of men, some of them were evidently armed. The shooting of the rescuers, however, is highly disturbing.”

While I claim to be an expert on the military, I don’t claim to be an expert on Law of War.  However, I’m going to open my keyboard to my thoughts anyway. Is the shooting of the rescuers really that disturbing? While at first I thought the same thing, they didn’t seem to pose any kind of threat and were acting in the manner of medics. But the bullet is, they aren’t identifying themselves as such. Here is a good example, in Saving Private Ryan Vin Diesels’ character gets shot by a sniper. His buddies try to save him, which is a reoccurring scene in war movies, and the sniper takes shots at them. If your trying to perform the actions of a medic, but are either armed or/and not displaying the red cross your thus an enemy combatant. While it didn’t appear they were carrying weapons in the video, they did have a van which we all know has to be considered in the hands of insurgents to be a possible vehicle borne IED. While this is a stretch, this is war. Tough.

Oh.  Also.  The US never ratified the 4th Geneva Convention and hopefully will never be part of the International Court.  So suck it!

Update 2:

While a little unrelated.  I’d like to add a thing about my military training.  I was always told you should never make all your shots, kill shots.  Sometimes it’s a good idea to wound your enemy so his friends feel obligated to rescue him.  Which means with one bullet you’ve now taken at least three people out of the fight.

Update 3:

Sorry, thinking like a cop again. In wartime you don’t need a reason to kill the enemy. Just seeing the enemy is good enough. They don’t have to pose a threat or be armed. That’s what we call an advantage! If you drop a bomb on a barracks full of Soldiers while they are sleeping, that’s a victory. The only way you cannot kill your enemy is when they are actively surrendering. When that van showed up and assisted the insurgents they made themselves a valid target. By assisting them they showed the Apache pilots whose side they were on and made themselves a target.

For those who comment saying it doesn’t look like an RPG or Ak47s. Bull! Your not in a combat zone, your not flying 120mph at 1,000 feet in the air worrying about possible RPGs, and if you wait any longer lives are on the line.

Other people are just ignoring that out of a crowd of 8 to 10 people only 2 were journalist. The others were Insurgents.

To the people that comment and say that these guys aren’t combatants because they aren’t seeking cover from the helicopter till after it shoots at them. Your an idiot! Watch the video again. Notice the time difference from the weapon firing to the time it hits the ground. The Apache was at least a mile away. The Insurgents probably had no clue the helicopter was in the area or if they did was observing them.

Update 4:

I’d just like to add that bloggers have the ability to see the google search you used that brought you to their site.  I have an enormous amount of hits from people searching “Collateral Murder pilots names.”  I know what that’s about and I just want to comment, that is completely screwed up and very unethical.  What are you going to do?  Find out who the pilots are and try to find their home address and send them a nasty letter, bomb, hate mail?  Leave the troops alone, they don’t need to go to war and have to come home and be dejected to trolls like you.

For those who don’t know, I was stationed at Guantanamo Bay.  Many times the families of military police officers stationed there would get death threats through phone calls and in the mail.  It’s abhorrent, unethical, and un-American to treat America’s uniformed services with such disrespect (besides criminal).

A little Ambien is all the kid needs to get some sleep. Many times once you get the sleep you need you don’t need the drugs anymore. Well the Air Force has changed policies and you cannot just show up and say your sick anymore. You got to get yourself an appointment. The problem is the earliest appointment they could give him was 15 days away. If you need to sleep and haven’t slept in a month, do you think another 15 days is going to be an easy thing?

He could just go to a doctor off base, but without a referral from a base doctor he would have to pay totally out of his own pocket. Which defeats the whole reason why we have health insurance; and this is Government Health Insurance in the first place! Doesn’t sound so great to me. I personally have Blue Cross and Blue Shield and I haven’t ran into this problem; and they are a private company. Isn’t Government supposed to be better for the patient?

So the question becomes: Is this on purpose or just a unavoidable thing? If it’s on purpose it’s exactly what the republicans and Tea Party goers have been saying. When the government takes over anything it’s going to have to worry about budget, so if you make something hard to get the person might just end up paying for it themselves and give up their right to the money that was owed to them. If it’s just something that’s unavoidable, well it still supports the republicans and Tea Party goers but isn’t something corrupt, just mismanaged.

I was about to have a conniption watching Obama’s speech.  It took me several days, but now that I’m no longer angry about it; I think I can write a valid blog without sounding like a complete ranting lunatic.

The first thing I’d like to point out is something he does in almost every speech.  He doesn’t realize he’s the president of the United States and not a candidate for election of the president of the United States.  His Surprise Afghanistan speech is one of many speeches that just sound like campaign propaganda.  Seriously!  Mr. President when are you going to get off the campaign trail?

The second thing is (which kind of relates to the first) stop talking about yourself to much.  It’s always me… me… me… (adversely I’d like to include I… I… I…) Can the people of the United States get a break from your Cult of Personality?  I assume that all politicians are pretty self-centered, but Obama takes first prize in the I Love Myself, and Talk About Myself All Day competition.  I’m pretty sure he would beat out Paris Hilton.  I mean who goes to support the troops and then talks about numbro-Uno?  If your going to entertain the troops you need to stay focused on them, not yourself.

And, Stop with the, “Oh, I’m such a great guy because I’d never make you do anything unless it was REALLY REALLY important.” Please, I’m tired of his propaganda that he’s so intelligent and that the War in Iraq was a huge worthless piece of crap. He’s basically walking up there and saying, “Hey, don’t blame me for any past wars, wasn’t this guy. If you were part of those wars they were really stupid weren’t they!”

A little taste I skimmed real quick:

“And to the Afghan people, I want to say that I’m honored to be a guest in your country.” (2 times in one sentence.)

“Now, I know for most of you, you didn’t get a lot of notice that I was coming. But I want you to understand, there’s no visit that I considered more important than this visit I’m making right now, because I have no greater honor than serving as your Commander-in-Chief. And it is a privilege to look out and see the extraordinary efforts of America’s sons and daughters here in Afghanistan. So my main job here today is to say thank you on behalf of the entire American people.”  (Seriously! He mentioned himself 7 times in the first 2 sentences.)

My third problem with this speech is that he’s either lying or forgetful or just plain stupid.  Let me just show you and then I’ll say my peace.

You are part of the finest military in the history of the world, and we are proud of you. And so I want you to know that everybody back home is proud of you. Everybody back home is grateful. And everybody understands the sacrifices that you have made and your families have made to keep America safe and to keep America secure in this vital mission.

So I want you to know, I want every American serving in Afghanistan, military and civilian, to know, whether you’re working the flight line here at Bagram or patrolling a village down in Helmand, whether you’re standing watch at a forward operating base or training our Afghan partners or working with the Afghan government, your services are absolutely necessary, absolutely essential to America’s safety and security. Those folks back home are relying on you.

So thanks to you, there’s been progress these last several months. But we know there are going to be some difficult days ahead. There’s going to be setbacks. We face a determined enemy. But we also know this: The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. (Applause.) You don’t quit, the American armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that. (Applause.)

Right there I want to use that sound effect that Steven Crowder does, “Bahhh WHAA!! BAHHH WHAA!”  Clearly from a logical standpoint this paragraph is blatantly wrong.  It’s impossible that Everybody back home is grateful.  Obama clearly didn’t go to every single house in America and ask if they were grateful for the troops or not and there are no polls showing a 100% gratefulness in America.  While I clearly know this is a figure of speech I’m bringing this up because only a couple years ago Harry Reid made this sentiment about Iraq, “This war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”  We don’t quit?  During the whole war the democrat party has been waiving the french flag… the one that’s all white.  The democrats have also be actively betraying our own troops and CIA operatives.  Doesn’t sound like you got our backs!

The last thing I want to add I can’t verify so take it with a grain of salt.  Every time I see president Obama speak to troops that are in a combat zone they appear to be missing their rifles.  At least for the Army once you go into the war zone you don’t get rid of it until you leave the war zone.  So that either means they aren’t letting in combat troops or they are taking away weapons when you enter the building that the president is in.  Now I would be fine with this if Bush did it; however, several Soldiers I’ve spoken too who were in Iraq while Bush and Cheney visited said that they walked amongst the troops and never took weapons away.  So what does this mean?  Is Obama scared of his own troops?  Does he fear the military?  Or, is it just his liberal democrat Chicago ideology that just makes him feel weak in the knees around guns?

From the Wall Street Journal

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their “police power” are now dominated by Washington.

The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.

The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the state legislatures demand it. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers of this process: “[W]e may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

What the Framers did not anticipate, however, was the profound reaction to their own “runaway” convention in 1787. By junking the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new Constitution, they gave us strong and stable government. They also showed exactly what constitutional conventions can do. As a result, no similar body has ever been assembled, and even suggesting a new convention can freeze the marrow in constitutional lawyers.

Hmmm…. the ability of the states to directly make amendments. Where have I heard that before. Oh. Wait! It’s called the Senate! Well, the old senate. Maybe if they read the constitution they would have noticed that in 1913 the seventeenth amendment was  ratified making the senate directly voted in by the people. Before this legislation Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. Which is why we have a bicameral congress, one part is elected directly by the people and the other is by the state government (which is elected directly by the people). It was this awesome nifty thing that allowed the states to make sure one state’s population couldn’t control another state through the Federal government. The State would be able to appoint people that would ensure that the states stayed powerful and the federal government wouldn’t slowing but surely make them obsolete.

So!? Why not just redact the 17th amendment? We did it to prohibition and that turned out well for us! I mean it is stupid to have two houses in congress that are elected to do the same job by the same people. It’s like having two carpenters build 2 different chairs, argue about the best design of a chair, then compromise and build a third chair and then charge you for three chairs; but you get one.

Just to point out you can’t get anymore anti-American than the UCMJ and the American Military. It blows my mind how I and my fellow military members deal with such a slap in the face of American ideals.

To understand how America could allow something so anti-American to exist it important to understand American history. The United States never had a standing army until after World War II. We always had a very small force that could train a larger force very quickly. The US only raised an army when it was going to war. So in the sense of living under an authoritarian rule for the length of a war was a sacrifice that had to be paid. Since we never had a standing army the rights and privileges of the citizens inside of the organization was never an issue. Their can’t be any change when 2 or 4 years after enlistment the millions of fighters leave and go back to their farms and never care about the Army they had just left.

Many American Soldiers I speak with believe that every military must be the same because the way we run our military must be the most logical. This is of course is what happens when you brainwash people. Don’t get me wrong, in basic training it’s very fundamentally important to get a person to learn how to kill. Everything in our humanity pushes us away from wanting to kill another person.

Our brothers in Europe have a bit more liberty. It mostly stems from the fact that they have always had a standing military and things like the possibility of mutiny and voters demographic come into play. The voters demographic is a big one. Our total military power makes up roughly 3 million out of 300 million; which for my math challenged friends is 1% of the population. In America it’s becoming very rare that the common citizen is even related to uniformed service member. Also, deep rooted customs play a considerable role. The United States Military forces all of it’s males to pretty much have a high and tight hair cut with the side burns very high, and the only authorized facial hair is a small mustache. The only military guys your ever going to see with facial hair are special forces operatives trying to blend in with the local population. Even though in American history it was customary of our our generals to have very large beards. When the invention of chemical warfare came around, the US was very quick to nix the wear of beards. Unlike our Germany pals who to this day still rock awesome side burns and I’ve seen many beard wearing German Soldiers, even officers.

Which seems odd considering how as citizens Americans are much more free from their government than citizens of European countries.

Maybe not the best example but when Americans deploy to a combat zone it’s sure enough that the first order out of the commanders mouth is, “You are no longer authorized to drink beer.” Just like that. When I’ve worked with British and German troops I’ve brought this up and they have all agreed that if their commanders would order such a thing that their would surely be mutiny among the men. I’ve also noticed that the British, German and Canadian leaders treat their people with much more respect.

Once again we must look at history to understand the way things are. Before World War II it was very common for men to reach the 6th grade and leave school to pursue work. The common man was very uneducated. Officers were those who had received education and enlisted were the uneducated. In the simplest of terms you can’t have a uneducated moron running things. Officers were always with the men. Officers led the troops. They were responsible for everything they did.  However, in our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you’ll find it very hard to find an officer anywhere off base. Officers very rarely go on missions. Everything is run by Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO). In the past you might have had a captain or a major in charge of a convoy you will now find a First Sergeant or Sergeant First Class in charge of a large convoy. In our current wars officer stay inside the base and write memos and push paper. They make strategy, policies, look at the broader war and run command and control or much larger elements.

This isn’t just possible because the world has changed, or that majority of Americans graduate high school with a degree but because the military requires a GED or High School Diploma to enlist. Because of educational benefits most senior enlisted possess a bachelors degree.

With this knowledge it seems absurd that people like LTC Allen West was brought up on charges for the actions of his men below him. Who shouldn’t have been in trouble in the first place. They assaulted an Iraqi Police Officer who betrayed his country and was selling it out to terrorists. He most likely had 200 to 300 men under his command, how can he be responsible for the actions of so many?

To expand on this, when I joined the military I had always believed that if I did something wrong accidentally or for the greater good that the military had your back. Your leaders had your back. Your country had your back.  Maybe because of the actions of those at My Lai during Vietnam that sent our policy to sell out our men for the smallest of infraction. Which is insane, it’s a war people are dieing and someone gets punched in the face and it’s to jail with you! How many enemies did those Soldiers kill for their country and your going to throw them in jail for punching one?

Warriors like the Navy Seals who are being charged for punching some low-life terrorist in the mouth and/or stomach could face time in prison for something they might or might not have done. The absurd thing is that it went so far that they requested a court-martial, but that it should have ended with their commander saying, “Don’t do that again *wink wink* Now get out of my face! Oh and take some much needed R&R.”

Something is wrong with our Leaders, our law, and our military that these things have to be even spoken about.

How many times did our World War II vets probably go a little over-the-line, we don’t know? Because that generation knew how to keep it’s mouth shut and watch each others back. We’ve lost Esprit de corps and it makes me sick.

article from CNSNEWS.com

The accuser, Ahmed Hashim Abed, is the alleged architect of the murder of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. The bodies of the four Americans were burned and hanged from a bridge for display.

The three Navy Seals–Matthew McCabe, Jonathon Keefe, and Julio Huertas–will be arraigned on Monday in Norfolk, Va. They are facing a special court martial–which is equivalent to a misdemeanor charge–and have each denied the allegations of abuse and cover-up.

The trial date for McCabe, the Seal charged with the alleged assault, is tentatively set for Jan. 19, 2010, McCabe’s attorney Neal Puckett said.

Defense attorneys told CNSNews.com that they are waiting to see the evidence from military prosecutors because it is still under review to determine if it is classified. Even the charges, the only court filings in the case thus far, are still under review.

“The government has not handed over anything,” Huertas’ attorney Monica Lombardi told CNSNews.com. “They are now claiming that things are classified, but they are not saying what’s classified and what’s not classified. I filed my discovery request, and they denied it, pending a classification review. … We have no photographs of the alleged injuries. We have no medical reports of these alleged injuries.”

Attorneys for both McCabe and Huertas said they would insist on cross-examining Abed. The Constitution grants Americans the right to face their accuser at a trial.

“If somebody was trying to claim that you assaulted them, but they refused to come into court, what prosecutor in what state would deny you your right to confrontation of the alleged victim?” Lombardi said.

When CNSNews.com asked what would happen if the military declined to bring Abed to the United States to testify for security reasons, Lombardi said, “It would be, at that point, we could ask the judge to dismiss the charges.”

McCabe, a special operations petty officer, second class, is charged with assaulting the detainee for reportedly punching him in the midsection; with dereliction of duty for failure to safeguard the detainee; and with making a false official statement on the matter.

Though news reports differ on whether it was a punch to the gut or a bloody lip, Puckett says the official charge is a punch to the mid-section.

Huertas, a special operations petty officer, first class, is charged with dereliction of duty, making a false official statement and impeding an investigation.

Keefe, a special operations petty officer, second class, is charged with dereliction of duty and making a false official statement.

Under special court-martial rules, all three defendants would face the same maximum penalty, Puckett said, even though the charges against each one deviate slightly. The maximum penalty for the charges would be one year in military confinement, reduction of two-thirds of their pay for a year and discharge from the military for bad conduct.

Lombardi said Huertas greatly appreciates the public outpouring of support since the reports first surfaced of the arrest.

“My client is extremely grateful for all the support from the American public,” Lombardi said. “He’s a career professional who’s just doing his job. It boosts your morale when you know that you go over there and are doing your job and the American public actually does care about what you’re doing. He’s really humbled by it.”

The military first sought non-judicial punishment, called a “captain’s mast.” It would have spared them any chance of imprisonment but would have severely harmed and possibly ended their military careers, Puckett said.

“There was some pressure on them to accept a lesser form of punishment,” Puckett said. “That would have meant that some commander had predetermined their guilt and would have punished them in a way that would have ended their careers. They weren’t willing to accept that and felt that it would not be a fair hearing.”

They each refused the captain’s mast and opted for a court martial, which is a military trial, to clear their names. The punishment from a court-martial conviction could be greater.

Though it was a better option than accepting guilt, Puckett said, such charges should have never been brought.

“Forget what the punishment would be, even a conviction would be a federal conviction for these guys,” Puckett said. “A federal conviction alone–even before you consider what punishment they get–is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct that’s alleged.

“If we’re talking about the detainee getting punched in the gut by Petty Officer McCabe, given the evil that guy [Abed] is alleged to have wrought on American contractors back in 2004 in Fallujah, it seems that it’s overkill to think that it’s appropriate to send these guys to court martial,” Puckett added.

Puckett suspects this was an overreaction by military brass in regards to detainee abuse.

“The most obvious speculation to me seems to be that the American military and particular Army commanders, and this was an Army commander, are overly sensitive to allegations of detainee abuse in the wake of Abu Ghraib,” Puckett said. “I think they feel a need to overly punish, overly react to these allegations to keep future ones from happening again.”

The alleged punch happened on Sept. 1 when Abed was in captivity.

Abed, after his capture, was held at Camp Baharia, a U.S. base outside of Fallujah. He was briefly handed over to Iraqi authorities and then returned to U.S. custody. Another petty officer, not a Navy Seal, reported the alleged abuse, Lombardi said. It then went up the chain of command, and the commanding general ordered the charges.

Lombardi believes if there was any abuse, it might have happened on the Iraqi side.

“He was turned over to the Iraqi police,” Lombardi said. “He is an Iraqi citizen. Eventually, he’ll go home. Wouldn’t it be a lot better to claim the Americans abused you than the Iraqi police?”

Lombardi said there is a legal defense fund for the Seals, and that she is glad the public can see the Seals were doing the right thing.

“They were capturing a terrorist that we’ve been searching for, for five years. They did it in a professional manner,” Lombardi said. “When you think you’re doing everything right and you’ve got somebody saying, ‘no, you did it wrong,’ it’s really nice to know everybody is saying, ‘you did it right. You did us a favor. Why are you being punished?”

Go ahead and link to your favorite military videos.

Sorry, Jerk wouldn’t allow embedding Kiowa Warrior

It’s really great that Steven could go entertain the Troops at Club Survivor (the dinky outdoor bar and club inside Camp America).  I remember seeing Toby Keith and other bands like Ballentine while I was there.

Cocktail; We used that terminology. My personal favorite was snicker attack, or being snickered; AKA Brown-log Attack! That’s when a detainee poops in his hand and throws it at a guard. They did however install a poop shield back in 2005 to prevent such things. However, the government as usual isn’t very effective at anything they do.

My only advice would be to Steven is to go back to Gitmo as a journalist (I’m pretty sure Pajamas Media can hook him up with that) and actually visit the detention facility.  If he went as a comedian I know for a fact they would have let him drive past Camp Delta; however he wouldn’t have had a tour of Camp Delta and or X-Ray.  All he has to do is go back with media credentials and he can get a first hand experience of the place instead of rely on his information from other sources.  Not that he’s wrong, but as someone who’s seen the entire place; it’s worth seeing first hand.

It’s also important to note that Camp Delta and X-Ray were completely built from the ground up.  Sometimes I cry at night thinking about how much money the government spent to build the place; only to have Obama close her down.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think they (They being the Dirty Stinking Detainee terrorists expletives) should be tried in court.  However, it should be the military tribunals that the Bush administration had intended.  While I was there the administration had continually tried to give them their day in court.  Except the stupid US Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit over and over again put a hold on the process.  In the case of the detainees getting their due process we can only blame San Francisco Elitists who think they should dictate to the military our right to try the detainees in a military court.  We found’em we should get to Fry’em.  Many have already plead guilty so I don’t know what’s the big deal.

The meanest thing on that island isn’t even the detainees, it’s those darn iguanas. Their mean suckas! They don’t give up either. The only difference between a detainee and an iguana is that if the detainee attacks you at least you can beat the crap out of him. The Cuban Iguana are protected by law as endangered species.

One thing Steven you forgot to mention about the health care of the detainees. If a detainee attacked a guard and both were injured in the process… the detainee would be treated first over the American Guard… It’s true, and it’s sad.