TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ ... 10871.html

If this is the case I have heard about before, he was treating the ISIS fighter for his wounds when he woke up and began fighting, thus he became an enemy combatant again and the Chief then killed him.

Not sure about the photograph mentioned. But probably never a good idea.

either way he was an ISIS member... since when do we punish our own people for dispatching terrorists?

Grundy1133 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:44 am since when do we punish our own people for dispatching terrorists?

Since the American people's elected representatives, senators and presidents became too squishy to engage and defeat an enemy by any means necessary, regardless of what their donors and the media said. That made it easy for squishy flag officers to rise in the ranks and make the military a social experiment instead of an organization to destroy things and kill the enemy.
Thus, the rules of engagement were turned over to lawyers occupying modor on the potomac to make it increasingly difficult for our war fighters to kill the enemy without fear of reprisal by the government that sent them to do so.
I believe the beginning of this phenomenon began in Vietnam.

Grundy1133 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:44 am either way he was an ISIS member... since when do we punish our own people for dispatching terrorists?

THIS!!!
The military's job is to kill the enemy and break his stuff!

"The defense says Gallagher was turned in by his subordinates because he was too tough on them."

I think this is a weak defense. Seal's are a tight group and whining about something too tough would get you laughed at. I think it all depends on who the subordinates are. If they are in the same team then I would fear for the Chief.

In 2017, Gallagher was ranked as the top SEAL chief and his platoon was ranked as the top SEAL platoon, the website said.

If that's true, I would expect he was extremely tough on the guys.


So he's treating a wounded enemy. I suspect if he wanted him dead, he would not have been treating him. Enemy comes to and resumes trying to kill the man treating him and is killed in the struggle. Sounds to me like the right thing happened. I always have a heavy heart when I read about a soldier of ours getting killed. Benefit of the doubt should go to the guy who was rendering aid to a wounded combatant.

flechero wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:51 pm

In 2017, Gallagher was ranked as the top SEAL chief and his platoon was ranked as the top SEAL platoon, the website said.

If that's true, I would expect he was extremely tough on the guys.


So he's treating a wounded enemy. I suspect if he wanted him dead, he would not have been treating him. Enemy comes to and resumes trying to kill the man treating him and is killed in the struggle. Sounds to me like the right thing happened. I always have a heavy heart when I read about a soldier of ours getting killed. Benefit of the doubt should go to the guy who was rendering aid to a wounded combatant.

It may be that at some point a soldier is required to aid a wounded enemy. So a soldier may be under orders to assist a bleeding enemy once fighting has stopped. Any one know?

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:25 pm
It may be that at some point a soldier is required to aid a wounded enemy. So a soldier may be under orders to assist a bleeding enemy once fighting has stopped. Any one know?

Yes

https://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war2.htm

Seems the thread has failed to mention this from the article posted by the OP.

"Gallagher is also charged with aggravated assault for shooting Iraqi civilians."

If the charges are true, this won't be the first time an exellent fighting man went too far.

There must be more to this story. It appears that multiple people who kill terrorists for a living felt that a crime was committed; that by itself raises many red flags.

While true, aren't many/most isis fighters in iraq, iraqi or just "civilians"?? Wasn't that part of the reason it's so hard to root them out? This whole thing could stink or he could be a murderer. Nothing reported makes the case, either way.

Sure, because ISIS wears uniforms with distinct markings separating them from "civilians".

Gimme a break already. The very nature of insurgency and guerilla warfare is that telling who is a bad guy and who is a good guy is extremely complicated. Old guys can shoot (as a lot of us well know), kids can carry grenades, and women can be strapped with an IED...and any variation on those things, as well. I'm sorry, call me names if you must, but I would ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to any US service member in a combat situation.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:51 pm Sure, because ISIS wears uniforms with distinct markings separating them from "civilians".

Gimme a break already. The very nature of insurgency and guerilla warfare is that telling who is a bad guy and who is a good guy is extremely complicated. Old guys can shoot (as a lot of us well know), kids can carry grenades, and women can be strapped with an IED...and any variation on those things, as well. I'm sorry, call me names if you must, but I would ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to any US service member in a combat situation.

Pat the guy on the back and send him home, ISIS are terrorist and get none of the protections afforded a regular soldier by the Geneva convention

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:52 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:51 pm Sure, because ISIS wears uniforms with distinct markings separating them from "civilians".

Gimme a break already. The very nature of insurgency and guerilla warfare is that telling who is a bad guy and who is a good guy is extremely complicated. Old guys can shoot (as a lot of us well know), kids can carry grenades, and women can be strapped with an IED...and any variation on those things, as well. I'm sorry, call me names if you must, but I would ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to any US service member in a combat situation.

Pat the guy on the back and send him home, ISIS are terrorist and get none of the protections afforded a regular soldier by the Geneva convention

He is being tried under UCMJ, Article 118 (murder), not violation of conventions.

He shouldn't be being tried at all!

He shouldn't be being tried at all!