Navy Seal Charged with war crimes

[avvidclif]

Actually back up a few steps. Someone told the MSM about the incident. They blew it all up to the point that the Senate noticed it and pressure was applied from there onto the military. Shit rolls downhill.

 

[vmax]

They trained a man to kill people
They trained him to kill enemies
They trained him to kill terrorists
They trained him to kill insurgents

So he kills one, but not the way they want him to and they try and send him to prison.

I think its chicken shit for the government to do that but that is MY viewpoint.

Remember what Rambo said..
"You just cant turn it off"

 

[majormadmax]

They trained a man to kill people
They trained him to kill enemies
They trained him to kill terrorists
They trained him to kill insurgents

So he kills one, but not the way they want him to and they try and send him to prison.

I think its chicken shit for the government to do that but that is MY viewpoint.

Remember what Rambo said..
"You just cant turn it off"

Spend any time in the military? We have something called the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement, both of which dictate what is allowed and not allowed during combat operations. Principles that govern those codes are Military Necessity, Humanity, Proportionality, and Chivalry. Everyone in uniform is trained annually on all that, as well as before ever going into a combat area.

Secondly, thousands are trained to kill, yet they don't repeatedly stab a badly injured individual no matter who he is or what he was doing. If anything is chickenshit, it's that. Anyone in the state of the insurgent in this case is no longer considered a combatant; and US forces have a legal and moral obligation to render aid and protect civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked.

Thirdly, quit basing arguments on what you see in the movies. Rambo is pure fiction, as are most military films out of Hollywood. They are entertainment, not documentaries. There is a big difference.

Lastly, and most importantly, this "confession" is pure bullshit. No one should be immune from charges of murder simply because they testified in court. Whoever gave him that deal should be brought up on charges themselves.

 

[Dad_Roman]

Sadly the investigative branches within each military branch and some of the JAG officers leave something to be desired also.

.......and while your at it, some Warrant Officer somewhere that chickenshitted my boy out of his Bronze Star he had comin.

 

[majormadmax]

Actually back up a few steps. Someone told the MSM about the incident. They blew it all up to the point that the Senate noticed it and pressure was applied from there onto the military. Shit rolls downhill.

Gallagher had already been the subject in an investigation of the shooting of a young girl in Afghanistan in 2010, and allegedly tried to run over a Navy police officer with his car in 2014 after being detained at a traffic stop. He was the subject of a number of reports from his fellow sailors of actions not in keeping with LOAC and ROE during his 2017 deployment when this incident occurred, and the SEAL community was trying to bury this. It wasn't until it was reported by several SEALs to NCIS was it properly investigated.

Gallagher currently has 12 UCMJ charges and nearly a dozen lesser offenses against him at the moment, to include sniping innocent civilians during the same deployment. He has also been charged with witness intimidation, allegedly threatened to kill fellow SEALs if they reported his actions which is why he was confined in the brig for a time with heavy restrictions on his ability to communicate.

Shit may roll downhill, but Gallagher brought all of this on himself; and I have zero sympathy for him even if he's only found guilty of one of the numerous charges he's facing.

 

[karlac]

Sentiments of chivalry and fairness are noble, but misguided in war.

If you don't fight to win, you have no business in the fight in the first place ...

 

[majormadmax]

Sentiments of chivalry and fairness are noble, but misguided in war.

If you don't fight to win, you have no business in the fight in the first place ...

They aren't "sentiments," they are components of international law that the US has formally subscribed to through treaties, of which the U.S. Constitution (Article VI) states are the "supreme law of the land."

Here's 1236 pages of "light reading" if you want to educate yourself more on the matter...

DoD Law of War Manual

By the way, Section II of that document goes over those principles I mentioned earlier.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Sentiments of chivalry and fairness are noble, but misguided in war.

If you don't fight to win, you have no business in the fight in the first place ...

It isn’t sentiment, but it is what separates us from the animals.

The military fights within the rules prescribed to us by our civilian leaders, both in the executive and legislative branches.

As for winning, that’s a goalpost set by politicians. In terms of destroying any significant military capability in AFG, that was pretty much done by the end of March 2003.

 

[satx78247]

karlac; majormadmax; All,

Further, the Geneva & Hauge Conventions specifically do NOT protect insurgents, saboteurs, spies, "line crossers", guerrillas, terrorists, etc., when they are NOT wearing a UNIFORM or a EASILY IDENTIFIED badge or other device that makes it OBVIOUS that they are a COMBATANT. = IF you are armed but "unidentified" you are NOT protected by the Conventions.
(In point of fact, The Conventions firmly state that "the disposition of " such ILLEGAL COMBATANTS are to be "reported to the International Controlling Authority" & ONLY AFTER the conflict is over. = Groups like ISIS & HEZBOLAH are NOT lawful combatants & are intentionally NOT protected. Instead they are CRIMINALS.)

yours, sw

 

[karlac]

This country is in a fight for its existence.
Both you guy's pleasing platitudes ain't gonna cut it ...

 

[Younggun]

This country is in a fight for its existence.
Both you guy's pleasing platitudes ain't gonna cut it ...

I don’t think their platitudes were all that pleasing. At least not based on the reactions if seen.


Also, I don’t think the actions that put this guy on trial had much effect on the existence of the United States. Probably be in the same position had he followed the rules everyone else swore to follow when they put on the uniform.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karlac]

Here's 1236 pages of "light reading" if you want to educate yourself more on the matter...
By the way, Section II of that document goes over those principles I mentioned earlier.

My opinion is based on a six month tour as CO of a combat unit, and is the bonfide education from which I speak.

Use any source at your disposal to confirm that.

ITMT, use a similar combat experience that refutes that considered opinion instead of quoting a military manual as gospel.

 

[karlac]

followed the rules everyone else swore

The enemy combatant "swore" to those rules??

 

[satx78247]

To All,

Fyi, I once taught THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE at USAMPS & what the main-SLIME media constantly howls about us "targeting civilians" is KNOWINGLY FALSE & a PACK of LIES.
(Everybody needs to understand that the MSM is KNOWINGLY LYING; it is NOT a case of their ignorance of facts.)

YES, "armed civilians" are NOT normally protected under the Conventions BUT at various times the US government had CHOSEN to interpret the LoW to allow the ILLEGAL COMBATANTS to be protected. - This was, ImVho, a SERIOUS MISTAKE in judgement, should be reversed & never be changed back to the current "policy".

yours, satx

 

[birddog]

Spend any time in the military? We have something called the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement, both of which dictate what is allowed and not allowed during combat operations. Principles that govern those codes are Military Necessity, Humanity, Proportionality, and Chivalry. Everyone in uniform is trained annually on all that, as well as before ever going into a combat area.

Secondly, thousands are trained to kill, yet they don't repeatedly stab a badly injured individual no matter who he is or what he was doing. If anything is chickenshit, it's that. Anyone in the state of the insurgent in this case is no longer considered a combatant; and US forces have a legal and moral obligation to render aid and protect civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked.

Thirdly, quit basing arguments on what you see in the movies. Rambo is pure fiction, as are most military films out of Hollywood. They are entertainment, not documentaries. There is a big difference.

Lastly, and most importantly, this "confession" is pure bullshit. No one should be immune from charges of murder simply because they testified in court. Whoever gave him that deal should be brought up on charges themselves.

Sstatements like that really piss me the fk off. You have no right to run your fkn mouth about something YOU'VE NEVER EXPERIENCED. Your so goddamn naieve your no better than a fkn libtard spouting idealistic morality about a world they know nothing about.

Hostile attribution bias
Fundamental Atribution Error
Confirmation Bias
and on, and on, and on......knowledge vs intelligence, confusing apparently

Your thinking is littered with psychological biases left and right and deflect context to an appeal to emotion and morality. And what exactly does morals have to do with combat? Wounded opfor and I need intel to keep my guys alive, I can accomplish a hell of a lot more with a hammer, pliers, and a fkn blowtorch than 50 trucks full of morals. Combat isn't gentl. Iman knights jousting, or dandy's dueling for honor, it's a goddamn fight for survival against an enemy that will slit my throat cut my sac and shove it in my mouth. Whatever it takes, I'm gonna win that fight. It's my job, people have a compelling need to see my mission objectives completed. If I fail, there are potentially significant consequences that could affect more than those that will greive for me. It could be one step in a path that destroys my country and everyone in it. Stabbing a mfkr is nothing. He fought and lost. Fk him.


Collateral damage including mass casualties of non-combatants ae acceptable when it's done out of sight,. Yet a man fighting the same fkn fight face to face, not sitting on his ass in a comfy air conditioned seat, is persecuted for the same actions the other is praised for executing his mission.

Would you argue the finer aspects of brain surgery with a professional neurologist? Apparently so. Your thinkiing is so flawed it's embarasing. I can't beleivve you have the gall to say anything.

 

[Younggun]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

The enemy combatant "swore" to those rules??

I don’t care what they swore to, it’s the oath I took that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karlac]

I don’t care what they swore to, it’s the oath I took that matters.

As you should.

I took two, one as a draftee on induction; and one as a commissioned officer. Both began pretty much the same, but the latter varied in that it contained this phrase at the time:

I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;...snip ...; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

One of the listed duties in the above was specifically stated as: "to lead our troops in combat and win our nation's wars".

The latter, enumerated duty, and the first and second sentence in the actual oath, are the overriding matters to me.

Too damn many politicians get in the way of the last above.

 

[toddnjoyce]

...and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

One of the listed duties in the above was specifically stated as: "to lead our troops in combat and win our nation's wars".

The latter, enumerated duty, and the first and second sentence in the actual oath, are the overriding matters to me.

As they should be. The oaths we take distinguish American military members in that we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not a political leader or body. There is great responsibility in that, greater than some can live up to, and others should be afforded.

The commissioning oath hasn’t changed since. And the oath of enlistment still contains the phrase “obey the orders of President, and the officers appointed over me.”

 

[benenglish]

Whoever gave him that deal should be brought up on charges themselves.

Normally, deals are contingent on "You've told us everything or the deal is null and void." The deal, if it was written correctly, will go away. If it doesn't, then the deal was written poorly and, yes, whoever gave him that particular deal does, indeed, deserve to be brought up on charges.