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

originally posted by: Freeborn
If the roles were reversed what would the ISIS fighter have done?

Our guys aren't ISIS. When they start acting like them we've lost.

originally posted by: UKTruth
These guys are heroes.

No there not heroes don't kill because they can. Killing a prisoner who has all ready surrendered to you Is murder. Having been in a similar situation in Iraq we chose the higher ground. If you become an animal to fight animals they have already won.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I admire your idealism....I just think in this case the opposition only understands one approach, anything else is viewed as a weakness to exploit and use against 'us'.

You make valid points; but we sometimes care too much about 'our' opponents rights without meting out justice and punishment.
Like all vermin they need eradicating.

Rules of engagement are nice for those of us who aren't actually in the thick of it and doing the kill or be killed we've trained them to do.

But on the flip side I can't support indiscriminate killing.

As with most things in this world nothing there's no black and white here.

originally posted by: Freeborn
You make valid points; but we sometimes care too much about 'our' opponents rights without meting out justice and punishment.

Frankly I don't really care much about their rights, I care more about an ideal that we should be espousing to the rest of the world. It's more about being better than the pieces of **** that we are fighting.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus.

Again, valid point.

We may ultimately disagree on this....but you've certainly made me question my initial gut reaction.

Do we become that which we allege to despise if react in a likewise manner?

Something for me to ponder on.

a reply to: Freeborn


Star for you.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's more about being better than the pieces of **** that we are fighting.

Sadly it seems many here cannot make that distinction, maybe it's lost already.

originally posted by: Freeborn
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?

Damn, this is what I was trying to post and you literally took it right out my mouth and in much better context than I could have ever posted.

Right on, it is what it is.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
He also told me about all the drop weapons they used to carry in the back of the Humvee as well. Killed the wrong guy? No worries drop an AK on him and move on.

And this is why we read about police in the US doing the same thing..

originally posted by: network dude
www.foxnews.com...

A medic testifying in the trial of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher – who is accused of killing an injured ISIS prisoner of war in Iraq – shocked trial observers when he testified Thursday that he, not Gallagher, was responsible for the Islamic militant's death. Special Operator 1st Class Corey Scott, a SEAL Team Seven medic, revealed during cross-examination in the courtroom at Naval Base San Diego that he killed the fighter by asphyxiation. Scott testified that he saw Gallagher stab the fighter, but then he himself held his thumb over a breathing tube that had been inserted into the militant's mouth.

“Did Chief Gallagher kill this terrorist?” Gallagher's attorney Timothy Parlatore then asked Scott.
"No," Scott replied.

Just wow. It seemed the writing was on the wall for this one, but it seems like Gallagher was straight up. This guy lead his group, just just a member. And his press encounters were passionate. He seemed as if he believed he didn't do what he was charged with. well, it looks like he was right. Lots of folks prejudged this one, but it's a really good instance for letting the facts speak, all of them. I know this isn't over just yet, but it sure did take a wild turn today. I hope true justice happens, and all involved are OK.

Honestly, it sounds like a cowardly thing to do. The teen couldn't fight back and there was no process to establish if the teen was actually an ISIS terrorist.

As near as I can tell, an Iraqi Emergency Response Division called in an air strike on a building in Mosul. The Iraqi's captured the wounded prisoner and he was briefly interviewed by an Iraqi journalist:

The injured boy was passed to the Seal Team Medics for treatment.

Gallagher briefly left as other SEALs began to help with medical treatment of the fighter, who was having trouble breathing and was apparently hit with shrapnel in the left leg. But one other SEAL medic, C.S. (witnesses were reduced to initials in the proceedings to shield them from potentially being placed on so-called "ISIS kill lists"), told NCIS he believed he had just stabilized the fighter before Gallagher "walked up without saying anything at all" and started stabbing him.

C.S. told investigators it left him in "complete disbelief."

Afterward, according to the charges, Gallagher posed next to the body and took pictures, in addition to carrying out his reenlistment ceremony.

In total, there were three eyewitnesses to the alleged murder. Others on the team or attached to it commented on other aspects to NCIS, according to Warpinski, who said that EOD Chief M.M. “couldn’t believe what had happened” to the wounded man.

All in all, the charges were brought by NCIS and it doesn't sound like the rules of engagement were followed, no matter who is to blame.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Freeborn
You make valid points; but we sometimes care too much about 'our' opponents rights without meting out justice and punishment.

Frankly I don't really care much about their rights, I care more about an ideal that we should be espousing to the rest of the world. It's more about being better than the pieces of **** that we are fighting.

Better? When you let those "pieces of ****" live, it doesn't make you better. It makes you stupid. You just gave them another chance to kill you or your men.

EVERY person who has been spouting on about allowing these pieces of sheet to live are the very ones who screech that “ALL white supremacists should be killed” or “he was a racist anyway so good riddance”

Etc etc

How about we all agree that ALL raping, murdering extremist pieces of sheet, INCLUDING islamic ones, should not be given the basics of human rights?

Or ALL of them, INCLUDING ‘white’ ones, should be treated with full Human rights.

The goose and the gander instead of the cherry picking.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: network dude

Why is this even resulting in charges or a trial? A subhuman animal is dead, good riddance, soldiers did their duty, move on.

We don’t treat our enemies like animals. Not because they deserve better, but because it lessens who you are. We want our soldiers to come back here and be honerable members of society. Once you have pulled an enemies teeth, or scalped another human, that path is gone for you.

His teeth weren't pulled, nor was he scalped. He was executed for cause. If your position on this was accurate, then we'd not be a society with capital punishment, but yet here we are. Killing that ISIS animal doesn't lessen any US soldier in my eyes, quite the opposite, in fact.

Capital punishment is something that is decided by courts. Judges and juries. Soldiers are none of those things.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: network dude

Why is this even resulting in charges or a trial? A subhuman animal is dead, good riddance, soldiers did their duty, move on.

We don’t treat our enemies like animals. Not because they deserve better, but because it lessens who you are. We want our soldiers to come back here and be honerable members of society. Once you have pulled an enemies teeth, or scalped another human, that path is gone for you.

His teeth weren't pulled, nor was he scalped. He was executed for cause. If your position on this was accurate, then we'd not be a society with capital punishment, but yet here we are. Killing that ISIS animal doesn't lessen any US soldier in my eyes, quite the opposite, in fact.

Capital punishment is something that is decided by courts. Judges and juries. Soldiers are none of those things.

Unless you have them in your scope. Then it's fine.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Freeborn
You make valid points; but we sometimes care too much about 'our' opponents rights without meting out justice and punishment.

Frankly I don't really care much about their rights, I care more about an ideal that we should be espousing to the rest of the world. It's more about being better than the pieces of **** that we are fighting.

Isn't treating prisoners nicely kinda pointless as a show of us being better than them while we're dropping bombs on them constantly?

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to think we're better. Are we going to start charging the ones firing missles and dropping bombs with war crimes? The people that didn't make it through the strike that injured this guy are just as dead as he is.

Just seems kinda arbitrary to me. If he dies in the blast nobody gets charged, but if he's stabbed it's a war crime? It seems to me that dropping bombs in a foreign land is more of an issue and our constant 'wars' that aren't really wars are the real moral failure.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not from me you won't.

It's a gray area. I don't want them taking unnecessary risks. Which means from behind, in the dark, with whatever tool is best for that particular job.

Once they're down? The fights over so far as I'm concerned. Having said that? I'm not in their shoes, I've not had their experiences, nor their training. I'm not competent to judge them.

They're trained to do a dirty, nasty job. One that we don't want to do, nor could most of us do it in any case.

If someone breaks into my house intent upon harming my family, they're going down hard. While they're down gasping for breath, I'm going to finish them. In the context of playground rules...that's wrong. Decidedly.

In the world in which the SEAL teams operate?? Let's just say the gray areas are quite a bit larger and murkier then the playground ever was.

I don't like it. Never will. Wish it wasn't necessary...but. We all know what the "but" is, don't we? Or we can pretend that there isn't one.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Let me know when US soldiers start cutting off heads in the name of a death cult while ululating in the streets and I'll stand right with you in saying we're acting like the enemy. In this case, though, you're wrong to suggest it.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You're right, soldiers actually have honor.

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.

Nah, sane people understand that jailing soldiers for killing terrorists is not so smart.

nm