US Navy Seal on trial for War Crimes

neckbeardthethird said:
Trump is apparently considering pardoning him if he is found guilty
Click to expand...
The article I found said that this was from two anonymous source and they stated this would happen on memorial day (30th May) along with other solder who had been charged with war crimes

Considering that trump didn't pardon anyone on memorial day I think we might be getting played here
 
Bit of a twist in the trial

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/20/us/eddie-gallagher-navy-seal-trial/index.html


Chuk_Chuk said:
The article I found said that this was from two anonymous source and they stated this would happen on memorial day (30th May) along with other solder who had been charged with war crimes

Considering that trump didn't pardon anyone on memorial day I think we might be getting played here
Click to expand...

Can you pardon someone whilst they are awaiting trial and have yet to be convicted?

edit: Yes you can, although it's apparently not been utilised this way since the Nixon era.
 
StriderX said:
No he didn't, the American forces did that along with other forces by themselves, why a president should be attributed that is beyond me, he didn't put them there.

He constantly tried to say it was over when it wasn't, endangering the mission on several occasions as alluded to by Pentagon officials and commanders on the ground in Baghdad and surrounding bases, if anything it's 'over' in spite of him.
Click to expand...

Because the president ultimately says what the US military can and cant do.

Anyway when they say he killed "civilians", were they actually enemy fighters who dropped their guns when the US troops started firing back? Because that is what they did in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
steve45 said:
The disturbing part here is that its not just one isolated incident of questionable judgement, this appears to be a pattern of behaviour over multiple extremely serious incidents, for such a highly trained soldier its inexcusable, LOAC is not optional and ROE should be strictly adhered to, even for SF.
Prosecution to the fullest extent should not even be questioned if the allegations are true, the fact that even his colleagues have come forward is telling...
Click to expand...

Probably a psychopath who has chosen a career that allows him to murder legally. Unfortunately, it sounds like he's overstepped the mark.
 
From my understanding of this so far there's basically 2 groups of "witnesses" to this event -

Group A - Some SEAL's who didn't like the accused due to previous severe personality clashes.
Group B - Some SEAL's who were friends of the accused.

and a court case where both groups A & B are giving different versions of the same event, neither denying it took place but just different versions.

It's no wonder that with zero physical/forensic evidence, only statements to go on and a prosecutor who was fired for malice during the case (spying on the defence team and overly aggressive attitude to the case), this courts martial is turning into a farce with no real outcome other than a dismissal of all murder charges likely (unless something drastic changes) as statements by both sides mean that the "beyond all reasonable doubt" level needed for a guilty verdict can't be had.

He may still get charged with lesser offenses and his military career is over regardless but I just can't see a "guilty of murder" verdict based on "he said/she said".
 
ianh said:
From my understanding of this so far there's basically 2 groups of "witnesses" to this event -

Group A - Some SEAL's who didn't like the accused due to previous severe personality clashes.
Group B - Some SEAL's who were friends of the accused.

and a court case where both groups A & B are giving different versions of the same event, neither denying it took place but just different versions.

It's no wonder that with zero physical/forensic evidence, only statements to go on and a prosecutor who was fired for malice during the case (spying on the defence team and overly aggressive attitude to the case), this courts martial is turning into a farce with no real outcome other than a dismissal of all murder charges likely (unless something drastic changes) as statements by both sides mean that the "beyond all reasonable doubt" level needed for a guilty verdict can't be had.

He may still get charged with lesser offenses and his military career is over regardless but I just can't see a "guilty of murder" verdict based on "he said/she said".
Click to expand...

It seems the Navy SEALs reputation (as an organisation) is going to take a bit of a battering regardless of how the trial turns out, they are meant to be elite honorable men but if your summary is accurate then one group is definitely lying under oath. I still can't get my head around how anyone could try to get a man jailed for life just because they didn't like his style of leadership but I guess anything is possible.
 
Not sure who exactly Cadet Bone Spurs things he'd be appealing to if he goes for a pardon for this and other war crimes. Plenty of military members are disgusted by people like this, it seems it is just some (but certainly not all) bat **** crazy republicans that would be happy to pardon these people.
 
The Seal medic said that he witnessed Mr Gallagher unexpectedly begin stabbing the fighter after the two men had stabilised his injuries following an airstrike, but that the stab wounds did not appear to be life-threatening.

When the chief walked away, Mr Scott said he plugged the youth's air tube as an act of mercy. When asked why, Mr Scott replied, "I knew he would die anyway."

Mr Scott was granted immunity from being prosecuted for criminal charges before he testified. Prosecutors accused him of trying to protect Mr Gallagher, alleging that he never mentioned that he committed the crime in previous interviews.
Click to expand...

Seems a nice get out. Surely this testimony shouldn't absolve him?

Did they look at the other accusations?

edit: Seperately, not directly related to this talking about crimes in war zones in general:

Unfortunately there is a large list of crimes that are likely only the tip of the iceberg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident
etc.

Throw soldiers into a foreign country and tell them they are fighting for justice and freedom, then some will murder innocent civilians living in their own country (obviously the IS fighter shouldn't be of the utmost concern).

I do think there are people within the justice system that do take things seriously when uncovered. However, politics takes over after as jailing a soldier is never gonna go down well as there will always be apologists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom