User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Trump to take imminent action on cases of three military members accused of war crime

  1. #11
    Points: 40,615, Level: 49
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,235
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181006
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    17,904
    Points
    40,615
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 12,691x in 7,904 Posts
    Mentioned
    191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The facts remain what they are.

    Gallagher stabbed a wounded, out of combat prisoner. The prisoner died. Those facts are not even disputed. Gallagher even bragged about stabbing him. The medic who confessed to killing him, after receiving immunity, said he killed him as an act of mercy AFTER Gallagher stabbed him.

    Whether the prosecution made procedural errors or engaged in misconduct doesn't change the basic facts. Gallagher stabbed a wounded, out of combat prisoner. There have been posters here on this very forum who have cheered him for that, which I actually find kind of disturbing. The laws of land warfare exist for a reason. Gallagher violated those laws. He disgraced his uniform and brought shame on an old and proud branch of service.

    He should have been tried in country and hanged in front of the civilian populace as an example to show everyone that we will not condone US forces committing atrocities.

    Gallagher committed murder.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (11-07-2019)

  3. #12
    Original Ranter
    Points: 535,295, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428301
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    160,472
    Points
    535,295
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,434
    Thanked 79,280x in 53,463 Posts
    Mentioned
    2234 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    The facts remain what they are.

    Gallagher stabbed a wounded, out of combat prisoner. The prisoner died. Those facts are not even disputed. Gallagher even bragged about stabbing him. The medic who confessed to killing him, after receiving immunity, said he killed him as an act of mercy AFTER Gallagher stabbed him.

    Whether the prosecution made procedural errors or engaged in misconduct doesn't change the basic facts. Gallagher stabbed a wounded, out of combat prisoner. There have been posters here on this very forum who have cheered him for that, which I actually find kind of disturbing. The laws of land warfare exist for a reason. Gallagher violated those laws. He disgraced his uniform and brought shame on an old and proud branch of service.

    He should have been tried in country and hanged in front of the civilian populace as an example to show everyone that we will not condone US forces committing atrocities.

    Gallagher committed murder.
    Right away, naval prosecutors saw their case against Gallagher start to fall apart. The medic said that Gallagher didn’t kill the ISIS fighter, but that he killed him by holding his thumb over the tube going down the fighter’s throat, AKA: asphyxiation. The Iraqi general a year before all of this kept saying, that Gallagher did not kill him and that he had no injury to his throat.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  4. #13
    Points: 40,615, Level: 49
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,235
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181006
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    17,904
    Points
    40,615
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 12,691x in 7,904 Posts
    Mentioned
    191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Right away, naval prosecutors saw their case against Gallagher start to fall apart. The medic said that Gallagher didn’t kill the ISIS fighter, but that he killed him by holding his thumb over the tube going down the fighter’s throat, AKA: asphyxiation. The Iraqi general a year before all of this kept saying, that Gallagher did not kill him and that he had no injury to his throat.
    The medic didn't confess to killing the prisoner until AFTER he was granted immunity. He said it to get Gallagher off because he knew he, himself was in no danger of being charged.

    Scott (the medic) testified that he saw Gallagher stab the prisoner in the neck. Gallagher stabbed him AFTER he out of combat and in US custody.

    What part of that is so difficult to understand? Your argument doesn't even make sense. You say you accept Scott's confession to killing the prisoner, but you don't accept his testimony that he personally witnessed Gallagher stab him in the neck.

    What happened here should be obvious to anyone. The prosecution offered Scott immunity in exchange for his testimony because he said in his initial statement that he witnessed Gallagher stab the prisoner in the neck. Somewhere along the way, either Gallagher or another party got to him and told him he had nothing to lose by confessing because he couldn't be prosecuted for it and if he confessed, Gallagher would get off. Suddenly, his testimony changed. He said yes, Gallagher stabbed him in the neck, but the neck would didn't cause the prisoner's death. The prisoner was asphyxiated by Scott himself as an "act of mercy".

    The Court Martial Board jumped on it because it cleaned things up nice and easy for them. No one would be charged in the prisoner's death and they wouldn't have to convict one of their SEALS of war crimes and murder.

    How wonderfully convenient.

    The whole thing is disgusting.
    Last edited by Cletus; 11-07-2019 at 01:55 PM.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  5. #14
    Original Ranter
    Points: 535,295, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428301
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    160,472
    Points
    535,295
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,434
    Thanked 79,280x in 53,463 Posts
    Mentioned
    2234 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    The medic didn't confess to killing the prisoner until AFTER he was granted immunity. He said it to get Gallagher off because he knew he, himself was in no danger of being charged.

    Scott (the medic) testified that he saw Gallagher stab the prisoner in the neck. Gallagher stabbed him AFTER he out of combat and in US custody.

    What part of that is so difficult to understand? Your argument doesn't even make sense. You say you accept Scott's confession to killing the prisoner, but you don't accept his testimony that he personally witnessed Gallagher stab him in the neck.

    What happened here should be obvious to anyone. The prosecution offered Scott immunity in exchange for his testimony because he said in his initial statement that he witnessed Gallagher stab the prisoner in the neck. Somewhere along the way, either Gallagher or another party got to him and told him he had nothing to lose by confessing because he couldn't be prosecuted for it and if he confessed, Gallagher would get off. Suddenly, his testimony changed. He said yes, Gallagher stabbed him in the neck, but the neck would didn't cause the prisoner's death. The prisoner was asphyxiated by Scott himself as an "act of mercy".

    The Court Martial Board jumped on it because it cleaned things up nice and easy for them. No one would be charged in the prisoner's death and they wouldn't have to convict one of their SEALS of war crimes and murder.

    How wonderfully convenient.

    The whole thing is disgusting.
    I don't believe that you have the facts straight. The Iraqi general supports my version of the facts.

    The Seals and Army Special Forces have major issues now that their training standards have been lowered. The older operators are upset about it and treat the younger operators poorly. And the younger operators are committing misconduct and trying to get the older operators into trouble to get them out of the way.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  6. #15
    Points: 40,615, Level: 49
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,235
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181006
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    17,904
    Points
    40,615
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 12,691x in 7,904 Posts
    Mentioned
    191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I don't believe that you have the facts straight. The Iraqi general supports my version of the facts.
    Scott testified that he personally witnessed Gallagher stab the prisoner in the neck. That is a fact. He was the medic treating the prisoner, so I am guessing he probably had a better look at the prisoner's condition than some Iraqi general.

    I very seriously doubt that even a bunch of SEALs would try to get their Chief court martialed for murder because he was "hard" on them. That is just a bull$#@! theory and an excuse to discredit their testimony that put Gallagher in a very bad light. That whole premise is just absurd.

    Have any of them been charged with perjury?

    No, they haven't. They haven't been charged with perjury or making false statements, because their testimony was true. Gallagher was a loose cannon who crossed the line more than once and got away with it.

    The Seals and Army Special Forces have major issues now that their training standards have been lowered. The older operators are upset about it and treat the younger operators poorly. And the younger operators are committing misconduct and trying to get the older operators into trouble to get them out of the way.[/QUOTE]
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  7. #16
    Points: 40,615, Level: 49
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,235
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181006
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    17,904
    Points
    40,615
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 12,691x in 7,904 Posts
    Mentioned
    191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can't delete the last paragraph, which is actually part of Pete's quote, so ignore it.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  8. #17
    Original Ranter
    Points: 535,295, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428301
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    160,472
    Points
    535,295
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,434
    Thanked 79,280x in 53,463 Posts
    Mentioned
    2234 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Scott testified that he personally witnessed Gallagher stab the prisoner in the neck. That is a fact. He was the medic treating the prisoner, so I am guessing he probably had a better look at the prisoner's condition than some Iraqi general.

    I very seriously doubt that even a bunch of SEALs would try to get their Chief court martialed for murder because he was "hard" on them. That is just a bull$#@! theory and an excuse to discredit their testimony that put Gallagher in a very bad light. That whole premise is just absurd.

    Have any of them been charged with perjury?

    No, they haven't. They haven't been charged with perjury or making false statements, because their testimony was true. Gallagher was a loose cannon who crossed the line more than once and got away with it.

    The Seals and Army Special Forces have major issues now that their training standards have been lowered. The older operators are upset about it and treat the younger operators poorly. And the younger operators are committing misconduct and trying to get the older operators into trouble to get them out of the way.
    [/QUOTE]

    OK, we disagree. When the trial transcripts are public we can revisit this issue.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  9. #18
    Points: 27,105, Level: 40
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 1,145
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Sage of Main Street's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    14714
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11,107
    Points
    27,105
    Level
    40
    Thanks Given
    7,006
    Thanked 1,954x in 1,678 Posts
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post








    Who brought forth the charges?
    Turncoats for Pantsuits
    Brass who want to get promoted to the highest ranks if the Dhimmicrats take over.
    On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
    The born-rich hate and fear all other White people.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to The Sage of Main Street For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-07-2019)

  11. #19
    Original Ranter
    Points: 535,295, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428301
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    160,472
    Points
    535,295
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,434
    Thanked 79,280x in 53,463 Posts
    Mentioned
    2234 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sage of Main Street View Post
    Turncoats for Pantsuits
    Brass who want to get promoted to the highest ranks if the Dhimmicrats take over.
    You fought in Nam. What do you think of these charges against our troops who killed the enemy?
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO