Medic testifies that he, not Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, was responsible for ISIS fighter's death

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Great, they showed initiative - one less terrorist to worry about.

The Navy disagrees with you, obviously.

As do most sane people.

Ah, the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. Always a solid debate tactic...

Forgive me if I don't hand over ownership of the definition of sanity to you in this or, well, essentially any argument we're having.

The idea behind military justice, and The Conventions, is that soldiers in uniform can expect the same treatment in return.

Soviet army prisoners going to Germany were not afforded protection, because their country were non signatures. Same for Japan in regards to US soldiers, they did not recognise such agreements.

So, no. I don't think ISIS fighters who are not even wearing a uniform deserve protection.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Why is this even resulting in charges or a trial?

Because we're supposed to be a nation of laws and above that type of behavior but I'm sure someone will give me an awesome whataboutism why stabbing and asphyxiating a prisoner is super excellent.

Yeah? And? I don't need excuses for this particular thing, espcially sub creatures, I go home, sleep like a baby, carry on the next day. You'll forget, most likely don't care and move on with your usual forum shenanigans 😌 and we all continue to do what it is we do.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Great, they showed initiative - one less terrorist to worry about.

The Navy disagrees with you, obviously.

The Navy really had no choice. Gallagher is a Senior Chief, an E-8, who apparently was disliked by the men under him. They are the ones who turned him in after many months of discord. Perhaps they were justified in doing that, but it set a ball in motion that could not be stopped and it became quickly political. Further, the Navy prosecutors engaged in severe misconduct by salting defense computers with a virus designed to show who they corresponded with. This was an attempt to find a "leaker" and affected the Navy, the Air Force and a private publication called "Navy Times" not run or owned by the Navy. They got caught and as a result the original prosecutor was sacked and has probably ruined his Navy career. Well, in fact, I'm sure he has.

The Rules of Engagement, for the record, are not set in stone. They change all the time and usually involve handicapping American forces. They remind me of the old skit where battles were settled by coin toss. The side that won the toss got to decide the Rules of Engagement. In the Revolutionary War the colonists won. The decreed that they could wear anything they wanted to, shoot at the enemy from behind trees and run away, or anything else they decided to do. The British however, were required to wear red and march in a straight line.

That pretty well describes what American forces are subject to in these conflicts.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicusHe got stabbed because he deserved it at that time- an extremely dangerous prisoner made a move towards him.Cutting off the airway is not acceptable for a medic but in war self preservation is the law.Military Justice i don't think so.

a reply to: network dude

well, it looks like he was right.

WTF are you smoking??

From the testimony..Gallagher stabbed the guy!! whether the militant was a POS or not..I don't get it

Scott testified that he saw Gallagher stab the fighter, but then he himself held his thumb over a breathing tube

You think this is far above ISIS behavior..not by far.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: network dude

well, it looks like he was right.

WTF are you smoking??

From the testimony..Gallagher stabbed the guy!! whether the militant was a POS or not..I don't get it

Scott testified that he saw Gallagher stab the fighter, but then he himself held his thumb over a breathing tube

You think this is far above ISIS behavior..not by far.

The military trains people to kill other humans and not feel remorse about it.
This is what you get.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: network dude

In the eyes of the law, gallagher stabbed a prisoner, which is very much against the rules, and a heinous crime. Even during war. The rules of engagement strictly forbid harming or torturing prisoners.

Scott killed a prisoner, which is of course a heinous crime. Not through neglect, or ineptitude, but an active murder.


So, just understand the actual rules when they go about sentencing these two. Many of you are happy to call ISIS fighters animals for murdering people, but are happy to hear when one of our own does something just as deplorable.

Both will recieve court marshals, Scott will lose his medical license, and both will serve time military time.

I personally want our soldiers to be held to a higher standard.

Collecting trophies of teeth, ears, fingers, whatever. Is the act of an animal. No human should even think of taking human trophies. That is why there are very strict laws against it.

No. You are either there to tear their heart out or go home.
there is no sympathy in a fight to the death.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Ah, the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.

Yeah, let's set aside the UCMJ.

originally posted by: Arnie123
Yeah? And? I don't need excuses for this particular thing...

I'm sure you don't, but I'm glad to see that it's taken seriously by others since the United States military should be acting in a manner outlined by it's own policies.

a reply to: butcherguy

Ya, I get it, just don't pretend from now on that there is some kind of moral superiority from the U.S.

Rules are rules, right? why should anyone follow the rules, police, civillian, politician, executive..etc

originally posted by: schuyler
The Rules of Engagement, for the record, are not set in stone.

Do they ever include knifing or asphyxiating a prisoner?

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
He got stabbed because he deserved it- an extremely dangerous prisoner not following instructions.

Pretty sure you didn't read the allegations or any of the related testimony.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: butcherguy

Ya, I get it, just don't pretend from now on that there is some kind of moral superiority from the U.S.

Rules are rules, right? why should anyone follow the rules, police, civillian, politician, executive..etc

Read the newspaper.
You will see examples every day of people that don't follow the rules.
The biggest reason that anyone follows them is fear of punishment.
When people are actively trying to kill you, sometimes that fear of punishment takes a back seat.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: butcherguy

Ya, I get it, just don't pretend from now on that there is some kind of moral superiority from the U.S.

Rules are rules, right? why should anyone follow the rules, police, civillian, politician, executive..etc

Read the newspaper.
You will see examples every day of people that don't follow the rules.
The biggest reason that anyone follows them is fear of punishment.
When people are actively trying to kill you, sometimes that fear of punishment takes a back seat.

People follow rules because they fear punishment..that is true, but not the only determining factor, doing the right thing..I would hope, is what the majority does.
Anyway, it is what it is. No point arguing about how other people determine what is right or wrong.
Peace.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

These guys knew what the ROE were and still decided to act like this.

Which is all well and good if both sides are playing by them....but they weren't.

I don't support indiscriminate killing but war is war, especially with scum like ISIS.

For once I can't agree with you my friend.

It sickens me that our military are being treat like war criminals when thousands of real war criminals are facing no retribution at all.
ISIS were/are abhorrent and need eliminating without prejudice.

originally posted by: Freeborn
It sickens me that our military are being treat like war criminals when thousands of real war criminals are facing no retribution at all.

I'm fairly certain that if the prisoner wasn't knifed and asphyxiated he would have been interrogated (possibly providing valuable intel) and then prosecuted as an enemy combatant.

I'm all for winning a war once you're in and not pussyfooting around but indiscriminately killing prisoners isn't what we should be about.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's a very slippery slope.

originally posted by: vonclod
It's a very slippery slope.

Yes and no. I get the visceral aspect of it but all of them knew the ROE when they joined, these aren't them.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

How many of these pieces of crap have been released without trial?
Some have even since emigrated to 'western' countries.

It's a theatre of war and it's not as if he was a non-combatant.

I do understand your take on things, perhaps morally 'we' should take the high ground, but put me in that position I suspect I'd probably do something similar....and I'm not particularly proud of that....but war is war and in this instance the enemy was pure scum.

If the roles were reversed what would the ISIS fighter have done?