Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Navy Seal Commander on trial

If what I have heard and read is true, this case is as big a scandal as the illegality surrounding Hillary, Comey McCabe, Strzok, Paige, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, et al..

Pussies is a relative term. The seal version of a pussy is the best of the rest. Relaxation of the standards is informal.

so his defence team will be arguing he is a victim of a vendetta organized by all those other pussy SEALs.






mY question was in what ways were selection and qualification stds relaxed, be it formally or informally.

look don't worry, Ill try the Breitbart gossip reports, maybe Gallaghers wife knows and has done an exclusive tell all
of the glaring flaws in USSOCOM.

Not really.

How many officers were Fragged by their men during Vietnam?

Which is what Zero wanted.

No idea. How many officers were accused by their men of committing three murders?

No selection or training process is perfect in getting rid of guys who don't belong.

Some units do a better job of getting rid of guys who for whatever reason can't hack it.

Ranger Regiment kicks guys out all the time. I served with several guys who got booted from Ranger Regiment for one reason or another. It is supposed to be a fairly easy process too from what I understand, because they are mostly 11 series so it's just a matter of cutting orders. All of them had the Ranger Tab which is a fairly grueling course from what I understand.

I knew a handful of guys who served in CAG either as Assaulters or Support and were sent back to Group for one reason or another. These guys are very tight lipped about anything having to do with the unit. The NDA must have some major teeth to it.

I knew four guys who had their SF Tab pulled for stepping on their crank. Pulling a SF Tab is harder than it should be in my opinion.

A SF Captain I know hid behind the HMMWV and wouldn't even talk on the radio when the bullets started flying. After that he did everything he could to avoid going outside the wire. The Team Sergeant had to switch the vehicle crews around because his original driver and gunner hated him for that episode of cowardice.

John Plaster talked about a guy in one of his books who was great in training, but as soon as he got to Vietnam he did everything he could to avoid combat so it isn't a new thing either.

You know, not everyone understands all the acronyms getting thrown around here.

He killed a wounded combatant who was in repose. The combat was over. He stabbed the guy to death while he was awaiting medical treatment and after specifically ordering the POW be brought to him. I have a friend whose father was one of four POW's who escaped the Germans in WWII when a contingent of German soldiers drove them out to a field to be shot. One of the POW's figured out what was about to happen and they overpowered and killed their German guards and got away. If it was okay for this SEAL to murder this wounded combatant, then doesn't it follows that it was also okay for these German soldiers to machine gun their American POW?. Wouldn't it also logically follow that Japanese atrocities committed against American troops are okay too? This was not a killing done in the heat of passion following an enemy ambush in which he lost his best friend, it was premeditated murder. I do think, however, that his years of meritorious service should substantially mitigate his sentence. He deserves prison time and to be stripped of rank and retirement, but not life in prison.

Quit making sense.

Additionally unnecessary killing violates the moral just war argument which the U.S. relies on and by which it judges other nations.

Just like the anti-Axis partizans in WW2, todays current crop of islamic fighters can be considered unlawful combatants
or unlawful belligerents not covered under the articles of war applying to legal combatant sovereign forces.
Did the Nazis face post war trial for their ruthless approach to partizans?

the US gov flip-flops and shifts on how it views non lawful combatant islamic fighters, they can consider them 'detainees'
rather than POW, but say they want to try them under military tribunal law applicable to legal combatants..yet deny them the
legal defence available to legal combatants. ..yet the Gov.can also agree [to treat] those captured according to the standards
set forth in the Geneva Conventions while still maintaining its position that they are "detainees" rather than POW....yet the
attacks of 911 were labelled 'Acts of War.' by gov.....'acts of war' term is normally reserved for actions conducted by legal combatants
of a sovereign nation eg; Germany WW2.


https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/ju...undervisningsmateriale/ingrid_detter.pdf

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1507&context=cilj

Turkey likes to view 'freedom fighter' Kurds as unlawful combatants and even terrorists, yet US does consider Kurds as 'friends'
and don't necessarily agree with the brutal campaign and treatment met to such Kurds by Turkey.

the Trump admin. is currently continuing negotiations to legitimise the Taliban as a recognized political entity in Afghanistan,
so is it possible the actions of the Taliban [long considered an insurgency].. may come to be covered under the Articles of war
as a legitimate sovereign force ..and as such would be considered legal status POW in the event of capture?

In regards to the allegations put against Gallagher, we don't know who if anyone is telling the complete truth.
and I don't know how anyone who has followed the story closely[ via media reports] can know or be privy to
important confidential details pertaining to the case, allowing them to make a sound judgement either way.
People with an alleged vendetta can build a certain picture, and a person under the criminal charges Gallagher is under ,
can in sheer desperation surmount a defence argument that itself can be filled with fabrication and distortions.

They maybe pussies who are 'out to get him' like some claim, or he may be a cutthroat mercenary parading in US uniform.
or the distinct possibility that the truth is somewhere between the two... I don't see it as something which the CF is capable
of properly judging and deciding.

It depends on the jury. If I were on it (and just from what has been made public) I would acquit, even though he's probably guilty. Why? because we've ROUTINELY killed prisoners is all the wars we've fought. We made a big deal about Malmedy, yet we did similar things to the krauts and japs, not to mention gooks, Zips, etc. I would also end his career with a bad evaluation and send him to count paper clips whilst his paperwork was processed. He's one of those guys that has gone over the edge (if the evidence is there). I'm not buying the defense argument that his underlings are "out to get him" by hanging a murder wrap on him. Besides, the "victim' was a terrorist and us such not subject to the Geneva protocols (which the US has not signed onto) and they all need to die.

jorge, I'm not sure I get your point, so murder is no big deal because it happened before? I think to be credible as a nation we need to develop standards based on a sound ideology and stick to it. Even where the victim is someone we'd all, or many of us, would like to stab to death.

Sure the facts are at issue, that's why we have courts martial. But what should be the law , and why, is always open for debate.

No, it is a big deal as a stand alone offense, but there can be in my opinion HUGE mitigating circumstances like for example when the japs used women and children (and the ragheads have done so as well) in order to get close to our guys to kill them. Those SEAL and other Special Ops guys worked in a hard, dark and dangerous world and if for example, that "victim" had been a known killer of our guys (I don't know I'm just speculating), it's just a tough call. Still, in that environment, I would have to have impeccably pristine and damming evidence in order for me to convict and so far, I'm not seeing it.

<<< THIS!!! >>>

I must agree with jorgeI.

Oh yeah , but you have to hold on to the principle. May be still true, but every leadership course used to have the hypothetical, you have an enemy prisoner. He has information that would wipe out most of your squad/platoon/company and he won't talk. How far do you go to save the lives of your subordinates? Taken seriously it's a hard question. But laws and command structure exist for good reasons.

Convict an American Seal for killing an ISIS savage? They must only have lieberal demoncraps on that panel. I'd be OK if he killed THEM!

fixt

I do know that if they convict Gallagher our SEAL teams will become less effective. This dog and pony show will have already made the best less aggressive.