Like the recent case of US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, are the pending courts-martial of three US Navy SEALs for allegedly punching captured terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed, the purported planner of the 2004 Fallujah killings of four Blackwater security guards, another case of political correctness displacing common sense?

In Hasan’s case, fear of accusing a Muslim officer of highly questionable behavior allowed him to escape the scrutiny common sense dictates he should have gotten before it was too late. Now, many suspect that fear of detainee-abuse allegations may have led to charges against the SEALs that are not warranted.

Abed, codenamed “Objective Amber,” made the allegation when he was in Iraqi custody following his capture in September, leading to a US military investigation. Originally offered non-judicial punishment--a captain’s mast--the three SEALs, Petty Officers Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Huertas, said they had done nothing wrong and requested courts-martial to clear themselves.

A captain’s mast on their records would negatively impact their careers, denying them advancement and the best assignments. If they clear themselves in courts-martial, their records will be clean. But they’re taking a big risk. If they fail, they face dishonorable discharge from the Navy and time in the brig. This in itself is a strong testimony to their innocence.

On December 7, the SEALs were arraigned in a Norfolk, Virginia, military courtroom. McCabe is charged with dereliction of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault. Keefe and Huertas are charged with dereliction of duty and making a false official statement. Huertas is also charged with impeding an investigation. The Navy would not say whether Abed could be a key witness in the SEALs' courts-martial or if he had been or will be charged with any offense.

I don’t know if Abed is lying, but al-Qaeda terrorists are trained to claim they’ve been mistreated and tortured when they are captured. Perhaps he stumbled and fell. Maybe the SEALs did handle him roughly. Even if the later is true, did the actions of these brave men truly warrant punishment that would leave an indelible stain on their records? What were the circumstances? Did the commanding officer authorized to make the non-judicial-punishment decision do so because he believed the men truly deserved discipline or because political correctness has biased the system in favor of it?

According to Bob McCarty writing for BigGovernment.com, "The charges or accusations against the three Navy SEALs were not made from within the SEAL community. Sources tell me they came from someone within the Navy’s Master-at-arms community. . . At no time did anyone within the Naval Special Warfare community have any control over these accusations or events other than providing advice or guidance to the accused SEALs. . . The integrity of the chain of custody of the prisoner is at question. . . There are extenuating circumstances that indicate there is questionable evidence in some of the accusations made."

In light of this information and after seeing what resulted from political correctness with Major Hasan, we have good reason to ask if it's affected the decision to charge the SEALs.

In today’s politically correct environment, commanders increasingly are hamstrung and deprived the opportunity to use their common sense and discretion in leading our troops. And this is denigrating the ability of our military professionals to do their job.

At one extreme, as demonstrated by US Army Chief of Staff General George Casey’s statements after the Fort Hood shootings, they have to be as concerned about threats to “diversity” as they are about threats to the troops. At the other extreme, as may be demonstrated by the decision to courts-martial the SEALs, they have to be as concerned about the slightest perception of detainee abuse as they are about taking out the enemy.

Political correctness in the US armed forces is nothing new. Nevertheless, recent counterterrorism decisions by the Obama administration have only made things worse. President Obama decided to close Guantanamo and limit interrogation techniques to those in the Army field Manuel--name, rank, serial number (terrorists don’t have one), three hots and a cot if an individual refuses to voluntarily provide information.

President Obama has removed the interrogation of high-value detainees from the CIA altogether and given it to an interagency group headed by the FBI. A move intended to protect the “rights” of terrorist and the admissibility of evidence in US civilian courts and a vote of no confidence in the CIA.

Attorney General Eric Holder decided to investigate CIA contractors who interrogated high-value al-Qaeda terrorist during the Bush administration and to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial in a US criminal court were he will enjoy the rights and privileges of every US citizen under the Constitution.

While these decisions were concerned principally with the intelligence community, they also have an impact on the military. They cause military law enforcement to overreact; and they send a disheartening message to special operators like the SEALs who hunt down terrorists like Abed.

It tells them that every action they take, every decision they make will be scrutinized and second-guessed by prosecutors up to and including the Attorney General of the United States. Even the smallest infractions can result in his charging them with a crime for the oft stated purpose of preventing torture and demonstrating US values to the world.

We should all watch closely the courts-martial of the three US Navy SEALs. If they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice then they should be appropriately punished. If, on the other hand, they are found innocent and charges against them are dismissed, then we have the right, indeed the duty, to ask if the entire affair was just a case of political correctness displacing common sense. And we should demand that our government and our military not place such unnecessary pressure on the men and women who are under enough pressure already. We ask them to take the greatest risks and make the greatest sacrifices any society can ask of its young men and women. They are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and our utmost support.