Edward Gallagher found not guilty

[OH58D]

I make a distinction between "aggressive killing" as a means to a military objective and consequence of battle, and sticking a knife into a wounded and unconscious enemy combatant (for example). I confess that I do have a problem with the concept that that might be OK just because that enemy himself is an inhuman barbarian.

Those of us who were raised in a Christian Church environment have had to come to grips with the morality and ethics of killing in war. You do realize I have thought about this sort of thing so many times that it's painful. When you're killing, do you kill just what is required or do you go that little extra to guarantee mission success without any additional chance of problems? Do I kill these right at hand, and what about those approaching who MAY be an issue? In the civilian environment, it's called being proactive. In places like Mogadishu, if you're a woman, kid or even a teenager, and it looks like you're armed, you get taken out - even if they're not pointing the weapon at you.

Since we're talking about Gallagher, what about the Trump release of 1LT Clint Allen Lorance, a soldier who worked his way up thru the ranks and his career basically ended because he was proactive in his killing of a perceived threat in Afghanistan. I won't rehash his story but it's worth a look for anyone studying the Gallagher mess.

[26 Inf]

I kind of think it might do some good to look at this perspective:

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster (for) when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”― Friedrich Nietzsche

IF Gallagher did what he was accused of versus what he was convicted and pardoned of and you would still want to defend him, well, you probably need some oil on the jeweled bearing of your moral compass.

[yoni]

I have ZERO problem with Special ops, killing wounded terrorist. This is not a war between nation states. You engage in action, at the end of the fight you have a couple of low level terrorist that have no value from an intelligence stand point what do you do with them?

Give them first aid and save them. What for? They are followers of true Islam, the Islam of Mohamed, which is spreading Islam with violence.

Send them to GitMo for ever, what for to cost the tax payers money?

[OH58D]

I kind of think it might do some good to look at this perspective:

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster (for) when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”― Friedrich Nietzsche

IF Gallagher did what he was accused of versus what he was convicted and pardoned of and you would still want to defend him, well, you probably need some oil on the jeweled bearing of your moral compass.

That's what some of us have to deal with. Where is the morality and ethics in warfare? This is not a recent issue. In WW2, there were incidents of American troops killing German troops who were surrendering, but there were also incidents of Germans doing the same thing. The victors get to hold war crimes trials - the losers don't.

I have interacted with Special Operations members after I retired - some have risen to higher levels in the Army, some went into private industry. Some of them have had issues with their marriages, alcoholism and just life in general. A lot of them are doing just fine.

Maybe I'm not the one to discuss these kinds of issues because I was usually above the real hard and nasty conditions, providing CAS and a means for infil and exfil. A lot of us have come to the conclusion that in warfare, morality and ethics get temporarily suspended for a lot of it, but not all of it. ROE only works perfectly when things are going according to plan - after that things get kind of fluid.

[chuckman]

Those of us who were raised in a Christian Church environment have had to come to grips with the morality and ethics of killing in war. You do realize I have thought about this sort of thing so many times that it's painful. When you're killing, do you kill just what is required or do you go that little extra to guarantee mission success without any additional chance of problems? Do I kill these right at hand, and what about those approaching who MAY be an issue? In the civilian environment, it's called being proactive. In places like Mogadishu, if you're a woman, kid or even a teenager, and it looks like you're armed, you get taken out - even if they're not pointing the weapon at you.

Since we're talking about Gallagher, what about the Trump release of 1LT Clint Allen Lorance, a soldier who worked his way up thru the ranks and his career basically ended because he was proactive in his killing of a perceived threat in Afghanistan. I won't rehash his story but it's worth a look for anyone studying the Gallagher mess.

As a Christian, I do not have a problem with reconciling my behavior and faith with killing booger-eaters in war. I totally agree with your other post, last post, regarding slippery slope of ethics and morality in war. You are also right in how people cope, regardless if one is a Ranger-beret-recon-SEAL or an E1 in whatever infantry unit, cover a whole span and host of effects.

[Averageman]

Lots of MSM drama about how this move concerning both Ed Gallagher and the Sec. of the Navy has hurt POTUS Trump's credibility with the Pentagon.
I have to tell you, I don't believe that to be so. Maybe 10% of O-6 and above have anything to worry about.
The rest very likely see this for what it is. Is the Sec of the Navy, who doesn't have the capacity to bring in ships on time and under budget have the overwhelming majority support of the Navy and the Pentagon?
Of some of what has been written is true, going after Gallagher was a puffed out chest, dick move of a guy wanting to throw some weight around the Bosses office before being told to clear out his desk.
If guys like that don't irritate the living hell out of you, you've never worked for one.

[glocktogo]

I kind of think it might do some good to look at this perspective:

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster (for) when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”― Friedrich Nietzsche

IF Gallagher did what he was accused of versus what he was convicted and pardoned of and you would still want to defend him, well, you probably need some oil on the jeweled bearing of your moral compass.

In theory, IF he did what he was accused of I would not support it or him. Having worked directly with a Team for 4 months many moons ago, and seeing what I see coming from the Teams today, you cannot call me an apologist.

However, I prefer to deal in practice, not theory. In practice, the Navy failed to prove it's case. He was found not guilty and unless someone comes up with verified, un-doctored video proof he did it, it's over. "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on."

The Navy as an institution did a big No-No. Rather than accept it and move on when it backfired on them, they doubled down. Their credibility with me is gone. They don't get to play the aggrieved party or blame Trump. They own the disgrace they made all to themselves.

[Diamondback]

In theory, IF he did what he was accused of I would not support it or him. Having worked directly with a Team for 4 months many moons ago, and seeing what I see coming from the Teams today, you cannot call me an apologist.

However, I prefer to deal in practice, not theory. In practice, the Navy failed to prove it's case. He was found not guilty and unless someone comes up with verified, un-doctored video proof he did it, it's over. "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on."

The Navy as an institution did a big No-No. Rather than accept it and move on when it backfired on them, they doubled down. Their credibility with me is gone. They don't get to play the aggrieved party or blame Trump. They own the disgrace they made all to themselves.

Don't forget the in practice Prosecutorial Misconduct like bugging the defense counsel. I believe the legal term is "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree," and those JAG lawyers should be facing both Court-Martial of their own and Disbarment for their egregious violation of professional ethics in their Ahabesque pursuit of their chosen white whale. Even IF Gallagher were guilty, there are few greater menaces to society than when those tasked with enforcing the laws openly flout them themselves.

[Uni-Vibe]

[QUOTE=Diamondback;2790835]Don't forget the in practice Prosecutorial Misconduct like bugging the defense counsel. I believe the legal term is "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree," and those JAG lawyers should be facing both Court-Martial of their own and Disbarment for their egregious violation of professional ethics in their Ahabesque pursuit of their chosen white whale. Even IF Gallagher were guilty, there are few greater menaces to society than when those tasked with enforcing the laws openly flout them themselves.[B]/QUOTE]



three years into this administration and we're now concerned with this?

[mack7.62]

No Uni-Hate I have been concerned about what the FBI/CIA/Deep State and Dems has been doing for the entire three years.