Decorated US Navy SEAL to Face Court-Martial for Charges, Including Premeditated Murd

[Peter1469]

So 4 months (served already in pretrial confinement) and demoted one ranks. He will probably get it back if he stays in long enough.

[Standing Wolf]

As they pertain to this news item, I am particularly interested in the views of our forum's military veterans.

Seven Navy and Marine Achievement medals and three commendations issued to prosecutors involved in the court-martial against Navy SEAL Edward “Eddie” Gallagher were rescinded by order of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer late Wednesday, military officials confirmed hours after President Donald Trump tweeted he had directed they be withdrawn.

“The secretary of the Navy revoked 10 items,” said Lt. Ben Anderson, a Navy spokesman. He did not know the time frame of the decision.

Earlier on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a string of Tweets, starting with: “The prosecutors who lost the case against SEAL Eddie Gallagher (who I released from solitary confinement so he could fight his case properly), were ridiculously given a Navy Achievement Medal.”

He said he “directed the Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer & Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson to immediately withdraw and rescind the awards.”

The awards had been given to the various members of the prosecution team in a ceremony on July 10 at Naval Base San Diego – less than a week after the court-martial ended.

The awards acknowledged performance by the team related to the trial preparation and included efforts such as sailors making personal sacrifices and some working outside their military specialty, Navy officials said.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...sidents-tweet/

https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/trump-...die-gallagher/

I think it would be great if participants in this thread managed to leave politics of the discussion; I guess we'll see if that's a possibility.

My own opinion is that the awarding and retention of a military decoration for service - for doing one's duty in an exemplary manner - should in no way be dependent on whether or not ANYONE in the chain of command either favors or has a problem with what was lawfully done. The prosecutors were recognized for the job they did - and had a duty to do - period, full stop. Can anyone justify something like this? @Peter1469, unless I'm confusing you with another member you were a military attorney; what is your take on this?

[Peter1469]

As they pertain to this news item, I am particularly interested in the views of our forum's military veterans.

Seven Navy and Marine Achievement medals and three commendations issued to prosecutors involved in the court-martial against Navy SEAL Edward “Eddie” Gallagher were rescinded by order of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer late Wednesday, military officials confirmed hours after President Donald Trump tweeted he had directed they be withdrawn.

“The secretary of the Navy revoked 10 items,” said Lt. Ben Anderson, a Navy spokesman. He did not know the time frame of the decision.

Earlier on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a string of Tweets, starting with: “The prosecutors who lost the case against SEAL Eddie Gallagher (who I released from solitary confinement so he could fight his case properly), were ridiculously given a Navy Achievement Medal.”

He said he “directed the Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer & Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson to immediately withdraw and rescind the awards.”

The awards had been given to the various members of the prosecution team in a ceremony on July 10 at Naval Base San Diego – less than a week after the court-martial ended.

The awards acknowledged performance by the team related to the trial preparation and included efforts such as sailors making personal sacrifices and some working outside their military specialty, Navy officials said.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...sidents-tweet/

https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/trump-...die-gallagher/

I think it would be great if participants in this thread managed to leave politics of the discussion; I guess we'll see if that's a possibility.

My own opinion is that the awarding and retention of a military decoration for service - for doing one's duty in an exemplary manner - should in no way be dependent on whether or not ANYONE in the chain of command either favors or has a problem with what was lawfully done. The prosecutors were recognized for the job they did - and had a duty to do - period, full stop. Can anyone justify something like this? @Peter, unless I'm confusing you with another member you were a military attorney; what is your take on this?

I was a military attorney. Prior to that airborne infantry NCO.
I don't know why any commander would worry about what someone above them in the chain of command though about awarding awards within their authority.

I never got an award for trying a case. Including a murder case that was almost capital. It is simply doing your job.

[Standing Wolf]

I don't know why any commander would worry about what someone above them in the chain of command though about awarding awards within their authority.

I never got an award for trying a case. Including a murder case that was almost capital. It is simply doing your job.

At least one of the articles cited does go into it a bit, with regard to why the awards were issued. As you probably know, an Achievement medal from any of the Services is not considered to be a high honor, exactly. It can, in fact, and often is awarded to individuals "who have performed commendably in routine duties". What the prosecutors did in this case was more than that, obviously, but still... In my time in, I saw NAMs passed out pretty routinely to folks who were "simply doing their jobs". Officers tended to receive Meritorious Service Medals pretty routinely, too, unless they already had one and played golf with the Admiral, in which case they might get a Legion of Merit.

Anyway, where the NAM appears on the precedence chart isn't really pertinent, in my view. My problem is with the idea that somebody in the chain of command should be able to rescind an award based solely on his or her personal opinion as to whether the duties performed SHOULD have been performed. The awarding of a NAM only requires the approval of the first O-6 in the recipient's chain of command.

[Peter1469]

At least one of the articles cited does go into it a bit, with regard to why the awards were issued. As you probably know, an Achievement medal from any of the Services is not considered to be a high honor, exactly. It can, in fact, and often is awarded to individuals "who have performed commendably in routine duties". What the prosecutors did in this case was more than that, obviously, but still... In my time in, I saw NAMs passed out pretty routinely to folks who were "simply doing their jobs". Officers tended to receive Meritorious Service Medals pretty routinely, too, unless they already had one and played golf with the Admiral, in which case they might get a Legion of Merit.

Anyway, where the NAM appears on the precedence chart isn't really pertinent, in my view. My problem is with the idea that somebody in the chain of command should be able to rescind an award based solely on his or her personal opinion as to whether the duties performed SHOULD have been performed. The awarding of a NAM only requires the approval of the first O-6 in the recipient's chain of command.

In the army, and Army Achievement medal can be approved by the company commander. An O-3. The Army Commendation medal is the brigade commander- an O-6.

I wouldn't hand out awards for doing your job. I know some units do. I have 9 Army Achievement Medals and all of them were for doing something extra that others didn't want to do. It is headquarters units that over-award. Which is where these Navy JAGs were.

[DGUtley]

I don't know anything about the medals. I am uncomfortable with the CiC directing that they be rescinded b/c he didn't like the outcome. He should've stayed out of it. Just my opinion.

[Peter1469]

I don't know anything about the medals. I am uncomfortable with the CiC directing that they be rescinded b/c he didn't like the outcome. He should've stayed out of it. Just my opinion.

The issuing commander should have ignored him.

[Beevee]

You don't have much knowledge of the United States military justice system.

Lol. Cletus does. Ask him. He would hang them all.

[Tahuyaman]

Lol. Cletus does. Ask him. He would hang them all.

It’s comforting to know he’s not in charge. I prefer the system which is existence now.

[Cletus]

Here is the problem... They did not do an exemplary job of carrying out their duties. The prosecution was a goat $#@! from the getgo. It was poorly handled. It was not a success. In effect, those medals were awarded for sucking at their job. The commander who authorized them should be relieved and investigated. His actions make one wonder whether he was in collusion with Cunningham.

I have no problem with the Secretary of the Navy or the President intervening if they believe the awards were not warranted. I may have handled it slightly differently. If I was the Secretary of the Navy, I think I would have called the officer who authorized the awards on the carpet and when he was standing in front of me, made him explain exactly WHY he thought the awards were warranted. Then, if the answer was unsatisfactory, order them rescinded and tell the officer to start looking for a new job.