The Washington Times has weighed in on the SEALS controversy, coming to the same conclusion I did in an earlier post: We can't fight terrorism and win by punishing our troops for victories.
The Times editorial says the SEALS are accused of hitting the terrorist in the midsection. The original stories said he displayed a bloody lip, indicating he had been struck in the face.
This is a bit puzzling. Here is a guy eager and willing to blow himself to bits to kill Americans but he complains about being punched out? Maybe he just feels shortchanged because they didn't make him a martyr.
Meanwhile the point remains. Any of our troops captured by the enemy wouldn't complain about a punch. Instead, they are brutally slaughtered.
Terrorist troops that Americans capture see an improvement in their living standards, even if they are bruised while being subdued. In addition, under the Obama standard, they are given protections under a Constitution they despise and seek to destroy.