It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Edward Gallagher found not guilty on all accounts except for taking a photo

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Your question was irrelevant


So, you're not going to show me where it's ok to kill wounded incapacitated prisoners?
edit on 2-7-2019 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2019 by vonclod because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Lumenari

Your question was irrelevant


So, you're not going to show me where you it's ok to kill wounded incapacitated prisoners?


My question was quite relevant.

You see, a jury of his PEERS (actual soldiers with actual combat experience) just found him not guilty.

So I find the opinion of someone who has watched Full Metal Jacket and has some game time in Call of Duty to not be relevant at all.




posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Lumenari

Your question was irrelevant


It wasn't. It shows where your head is at. You've never been in battle. You don't get it.


So, you're not going to show me where it's ok to kill wounded incapacitated prisoners?


Where does it say you cannot?



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I don't play video games. Was a military cadet for a few years, did consider joining, but did not.

And yes, he was found not guilty, just like OJ..it means nothing really.

So are you going to show me where it's stated in the operating manual where it's all good to kill unarmed incapacitated prisoners. I'm going to go out on a limb this time and guess, no?



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

All is fair in love and war, I get it, but we all have rules.


Where does it say you cannot?

Interesting question..worth exploring. I found this, not sure how it applies to ISIS, I imagine the laws stand whether the enemy is a signator to the GC or not.



Like the sick or wounded, prisoners of war (POWs) are protected under the Hague and Geneva laws from any violence, indignity, or biological experimentation. POWs must receive medical treatment if they need it, and medical staff must be brought in to the POW camp at least once a month to make sure everyone is okay.

edit on 2-7-2019 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

www.ohchr.org...

Article 2 is pretty clear, even if the enemy is not a signator, the signator must comply..so there it is, for what it's worth..not much apparently.





Article 2 In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Sad he gets away with murdering a 15 yr old kid. You dont stab people that surrender to you. And his buddy should be ashamed he knew he had immunity so he admitted he killed him to save his buddy.

12 members of his team testified against him they knew what kind of person he was.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




And his buddy should be ashamed he knew he had immunity so he admitted he killed him to save his buddy.


About a 98% chance, that is exactly what happened.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: 727Sky

Why is taking the photo wrong?


I would guess some of the desk jocks thought a war trophy Pic was inappropriate so thus a rule with punishment was made ? The yuck factor runs high for some no doubt.. If all the captured ISIS radicals were lined up and shot my only regret would be the cost of the bullet.

Some more of what actually transpired www.zerohedge.com...


Gallagher's defense portrayed him as an "old-school, hard-charging warrior" who was targeted by younger "millennial" SEALs who harbored "personal animosity" toward him.


The guys who tried to get Gallagher relieved of command did not want to get into the fight they were tasked to do.

The medic who actually killed the ISIS fighter said it was a mercy killing and Gallagher had not provided a fatal stab wound .


"This case is not about murder, it’s about mutiny," said Parlatore during his prior opening statements, referring to Gallagher as a seasoned and decorated fighter leading a team of SEALs who were skittish about real combat.


Amazing how innuendo and fake news can convict a person before the facts are known. May none of us ever have to face the fake news mob.

edit on 727rdk19 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 12:28 AM
link   
... pretty sure if he isn't being charged with killing a wounded combatant he didn't do it.
Thus all of the huff and puff of people saying he stabbed someone who was being actively treated are wrong.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod


show me in the regs where it says...

In combat, there is only one reg that matters: make the other guy dead before he makes you dead.

Everything else is purty words written by imbeciles.

War is a dirty business. Crap happens. People fall down and don't get up. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. If you had served, you might know that. You also might know that the only reason you get to bad-mouth these heroes is that these heroes were heroes whether you liked it or not.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 01:05 AM
link   
www.aljazeera.com...



The jury found Gallagher "not guilty of murder, not guilty of stabbing, not guilty of shooting, not guilty of all those things, they found him guilty of taking a photograph," Timothy Parlatore, one of Gallagher's lawyer's, told journalists outside the court.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Lumenari

I don't play video games. Was a military cadet for a few years, did consider joining, but did not.

And yes, he was found not guilty, just like OJ..it means nothing really.

So are you going to show me where it's stated in the operating manual where it's all good to kill unarmed incapacitated prisoners. I'm going to go out on a limb this time and guess, no?


Forgive me Mr clod but I'm at a loss to understand this - are you saying if you are found 'not guilty' - "it means nothing really"

Only thing in this reply I can't get my head around.

My kind regards,

bally



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The first interview with one lawyer and his wife...He is almost deaf so he misses some of the questions.... youtu.be...



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: bally001

Innocent people are sometimes found guilty, guilty people are sometimes found innocent. Legally he is free and clear, the court of public opinion(not that it matters) might think differently.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I used "hero" in regards to killing the wounded kid, do these people otherwise do very heroic stuff..of course.
Killing the kid was not heroic..sorry you believe it is.

We will agree to disagree.

If you want it to be ok to kill prisoners, better call the Hague and sign off the GC.

Peace



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   
He was busted from E7 back to E6 and given a 4 month sentence for the photo with the dead ISIS even though the rest of the squad was in the photo too.

Since he has already served 9 months behind bars no further time being incarcerated will be served.

Since he will be or is retired now the reduction in rank is pretty serious as far as retirement pay.

Hopefully this will be the last entry on this whole affair: youtu.be...



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod


Killing the kid was not heroic..sorry you believe it is.

Over the years, I have befriended many Vietnam vets... most of them just want someone they can talk to without being judgemental. They are holding in a mountain of pain and are afraid to let it out... and I can understand that, reading your responses.

In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese at one point were attaching grenades to dead infants and throwing them into foxholes. Our soldiers were so horrified that several died; they hesitated too long about throwing the baby out and the attached grenade went off. After a while, when the dead infants weren't working any more, they started attaching the grenades to live infants. A Vietnam vet told me about this, with hands shaking and tears in his eyes. He was one of the lucky ones... he chucked a live, crying infant out of his foxhole, seconds before the grenade went off. He still had nightmares about that.

War is hell. Neither of us can even imagine what it is like. I will at least accept that, barring solid evidence that stands up to a military trial, the soldier should be given the benefit of the doubt. Never, ever, for any reason, should a civil trial be held over something that happened in a combat situation.

You call the guy a "kid"... perhaps he was, but he was also a soldier. A soldier of the enemy, who is sworn to kill as many of our soldiers... our "kids"... as possible. Neither of us know what the actual circumstances surrounding the incident were. All we know is what lawyers... you know, those guys who are such good liars that some become politicians... told us in court.

Walk a mile in his shoes and then get back to me.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Lumenari

Right, he stabbed the guy a bunch of times, that was no lie.


The guy was an enemy combatant.

I'm assuming you don't know what that means.

Ever served?

Right cupcake, show me in the regs where it says you should kill incapacitated wounded prisoners receiving treatment.


Except he didn't....

show in in ISIS, Irani, Taliban, haqqani, etc that spares soldiers from burning alive, drowning alive, beheading alive...

Yeah...



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Lumenari

Right, he stabbed the guy a bunch of times, that was no lie.


The guy was an enemy combatant.

I'm assuming you don't know what that means.

Ever served?

Right cupcake, show me in the regs where it says you should kill incapacitated wounded prisoners receiving treatment.


Except he didn't....

show in in ISIS, Irani, Taliban, haqqani, etc that spares soldiers from burning alive, drowning alive, beheading alive...

Yeah...


Your missing the point. You do t want to fall to there level. We don't execute prisoners of war. Well we didn't bow apparently it's ok if your a navy seal.

I was special ops and I can tell you beyond a doubt that what he did would get someone in the army a long stay in Leavenworth.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join