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

originally posted by: highvein
Better? When you let those "pieces of ****" live, it doesn't make you better. It makes you stupid.

Does it? Then why did his men have an issue with his behavior?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Are we going to start charging the ones firing missles and dropping bombs with war crimes?

If we're not then we should.

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?

Yeah, that's how the UMCJ is written and they knew that prior to enlisting.

originally posted by: seagull
Which means from behind, in the dark, with whatever tool is best for that particular job.

But this wasn't the case now, was it?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

Stabbing and asphyxiating a prisoner are no better, they're both animalistic and emotional actions.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Nah, sane people understand that jailing soldiers for killing terrorists is not so smart.

Which is why he's on trial, right?

originally posted by: highvein

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.

During war time yes, but after you have captured them, then it’s time for courts. It’s pretty simple that way.

a reply to: network dude

he should have just let him bleed out.

im sure the real reason he put a breathing tube in was so he couldnt yell if he woke up.

i don't get the idea of stabbing someone and then rendering aid to them, the ISIS guy would have no issues killing these guys.


ISIS are a virus in human form and granted this is a rather elaborate method of death, unless they were trying to capture him for whatever reason what difference does it make? he got stabbed in an effort to kill him and it didn't work so the other guy finished him off.

bullet, bomb or thumb what difference does it make?

a reply to: Woodcarver

have you been to war?

war is dirty and violent and this ISIS guy didn't end up in the hands of a SEAL team for handing out bread to the starving.


YES he broke the law and should be punished and US forces are usually held to high standards but you also have to take into account these 'tip of the spear' forces have very high casualty rates and often have to deal first hand with the terror inflicted on a region by the man they killed.

do you think ISIS would follow the ROE with our guys? or follow the G.C rules for people in their custody?

no they drown people in cages in pools or blow them up with det cord and the newest ive seen is having toddlers shoot people point blank.


look at WWII war is hell

a reply to: penroc3

“Why did you kill him?” Parlatore asked Scott during one point of the cross-examination.

“Because I knew he was going to die anyway,” Scott answered. “I wanted to save him from what was going to happen next to him.”


sounds like he knew the guy was going to a black site and did the guy a favor.

Democrats and liberals hate seeing ISIS fighter not treated with respect..

Islamic militant aka Jihadist or terrorist.

Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva convention. This is a historical fact, terrorists are supposed to be killed.

We don't provide protections to terrorists because they are terrorists. Extension of such to them, is a mistake being instigated by an enemy sympathizer who is looking to use our politics against us.

If fighters want Geneva protections they can wear a uniform, as is required.

Problem is, the political option is off the table when it comes to war. War, combat, conflict and direct action is what happens when politics fails.

Once the military option is chosen, its because nothing else worked and is a last resort. To that end, let the military do its damn job and don't interfere politically.

Because that's what got the war or conflict started in first place...

So, instead of allowing politicians to interfere politically, arrest them for insubordination or treason.

Because if it wasn't for the politicans starting these wars, the military wouldn't have to fight them.

My personal vote, if a political dip# wants war then say they don't later, too damn bad. The military don't tell politicians how to do their job, maybe they should.

Then we could see how men and women of action, measure up to those who only have words.

I'm tired of career parasite politicians acting like they are in charge. When in fact they are our subordinate ie representative because they were supposed to act on their Constituents behalf, and best interests.

When lately its been the opposite and these corrupt parasite politicians are just greedy POS mofos who deserve to be rotting in gitmo.

Now, I'll tell you how I really feel.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No kidding. I hadn't noticed.

I'm in no position to be overly critical of people killing people who've actively been trying to kill them...as I'd might react in much the same fashion.

It's time, and past, that that we come to the realization that there are times when the rules simply don't apply. Was this one of them? I don't know, as we're not likely getting the full, unabridged, story.

What little we know, is, to put it mildly, unsavory. But let's stop pretending that we've got all the information. I doubt we do.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Are we going to start charging the ones firing missles and dropping bombs with war crimes?

If we're not then we should.

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?

Yeah, that's how the UMCJ is written and they knew that prior to enlisting.

Really? Can you please show the relevant UCMJ passage and how it applies? And how do you figure they "knew this before enlisting"? Is studying the UCMJ a requirement before enlisting? Also, have you ever served?

Here is the entire UCMJ for reference. I find the section on dueling particularly compelling.

originally posted by: seagull
What little we know, is, to put it mildly, unsavory. But let's stop pretending that we've got all the information. I doubt we do.

I'm certain we don't have it all but what we do have does not make me proud of his behavior.

originally posted by: schuyler
Really? Can you please show the relevant UCMJ passage and how it applies?

802.11 Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to...

Which would cover the Geneva Conventions.

And how do you figure they "knew this before enlisting"?

802.12B The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection

From the United States Army Study Guide, #18:

What disciplinary action will be enforced if a member of the U.S. Armed Forces deliberately violates the Geneva Convention?

Trial by Court-Martial under UCMJ.

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.

This.

If we want to be the "good guys" then we have to act like "good guys."

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: seagull
What little we know, is, to put it mildly, unsavory. But let's stop pretending that we've got all the information. I doubt we do.

I'm certain we don't have it all but what we do have does not make me proud of his behavior.

Sucks to be you, but many other Americans are quite proud of both men here.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Congrats, you have recognized that warfare is animalistic and emotional... it's sort of the point.

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: network dude

During WW2 when an SS officer was wounded or captured many units just shot them on the spot for they were not redeemable human beings in the eyes of the Russians and American units ( in Patton's army it was common from what I was told).. I used to have a German Luger (actually Dad's) from the war that was once an SS officer's side arm.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Wereth_11_Massacre.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.army.mil...

In a number of cases the SS could not be trusted to surrender and laid traps for US troops.

And after the large number of massacres by the SS it was felt it was safer just to shoot the SS.

a reply to: network dude

I still can't believe he was on trial for killing a terrorist cockroach.