JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[tech37]

Nope, just a patriotic American there short chain.

Although you could be right, I have seen so called patriotic Americans come of as pretty much jerks.

Was that you, the old fat guy out in Portland with the black mask on hitting patriots with metal pipes 72?

Never too late for anarchy

You can't spell "patriotic" without "riot" can you 72?

[LandM]

72,
Fell out of my chair - locked and loaded means you went from pre-K to second grade - now go get that Masters degree in hot metallurgy - it is fun

[MDlaxfan76]

This conversation is getting a bit gross.
Especially the personal cracks.

Do we at least all agree that if Gallagher had done what all these fellow Seals said, that's not excused by 'flying lead'?
Or how about that sometimes warriors go bad? Even US ones?

History would certainly suggest that it happens, even among the most disciplined and professional of military organizations.

Instead of personal insults, how about sharing with us where the line really should be drawn.

[a fan]

Alright fellas, put down your weapons and move on, eh.... we all had our say. Let's not make our Forum host do any work....and be good guests.

[cradleandshoot]

This conversation is getting a bit gross.
Especially the personal cracks.

Do we at least all agree that if Gallagher had done what all these fellow Seals said, that's not excused by 'flying lead'?
Or how about that sometimes warriors go bad? Even US ones?

History would certainly suggest that it happens, even among the most disciplined and professional of military organizations.

Instead of personal insults, how about sharing with us where the line really should be drawn.

My father told this story only once at my sisters wedding rehearsal party back in 1974. The old man had a couple of pops in him and several of the WW2 folks there started jibber jabbing. They had liberated a town in Germany towards the end of the war. White flags in all the windows declared it an open city... that meant there would be no resistance. A sniper shoots one of their men and kills him. They drag a very young Hitler Nazi youth laughing and smiling into the street very happy about what he had just done. The old mans platoon sgt. pulls out his 45, walks up and shoots the kid in the head. Perfectly legal for a violation of a declaration of an open city. Where do you draw the line? Very good question MD. We train these people to kill and send them over to wherever to do what our nation trained them to do. If you don't like the results then don't send them over there in the first place.

When I did my JOTC training in Panama way back in 1980 the cadre there were all hard core Vietnam vets. I remember them "explaining" the rules for assaulting through an objective. You could shoot, stab, and do whatever you wanted to the bad guys until the objective was "secured" Once the objective was secured you had to treat the people you were just trying to kill 1 minute ago with kid gloves. When some of us young privates questioned the sense in this a really rough around the edges SFC said something like... "those are the f***ing rules... do all your killing before the objective has been taken after that your ass is grass and the army is the lawnmower. You are more correct than you know MD... you tell me where that line is drawn? I lived through it and I never figured it out.

[LandM]

afan - mine is in the locker and locked
MD - you hit on a critical question. The rules of engagement change constantly. Saying that,there is allot of testosterone which you want in bad situations and as you know it is sometimes tough to turn that off. Yes there are bad apples and yes they need to be dealt with. But please do not interject politics over the hatred of the guy in the left seat because of a failure of leadership in a close knit community that unfortunately is having issues. That comment is not directed at you btw.
Canada - yep freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and I wish more people would respect a difference of opinion.

[OCanada]

Why were the charges brought in the first place. Was it not because fellow SEALS raised the issue because in their opinion his behavior was so outrageous as to rise to the level of criminality. In their opinion. In order to acquit, the testimony of people he served with was discounted. Many of then as I recall. That has upset a number of people.

I suggest people who are interested read the available information and decide for themselves. The Hail Mary pass that was the sudden surprise witness at the last minute for a miracle save....

[tech37]

This conversation is getting a bit gross.
Especially the personal cracks.

Do we at least all agree that if Gallagher had done what all these fellow Seals said, that's not excused by 'flying lead'?
Or how about that sometimes warriors go bad? Even US ones?

History would certainly suggest that it happens, even among the most disciplined and professional of military organizations.

Instead of personal insults, how about sharing with us where the line really should be drawn.

My father told this story only once at my sisters wedding rehearsal party back in 1974. The old man had a couple of pops in him and several of the WW2 folks there started jibber jabbing. They had liberated a town in Germany towards the end of the war. White flags in all the windows declared it an open city... that meant there would be no resistance. A sniper shoots one of their men and kills him. They drag a very young Hitler Nazi youth laughing and smiling into the street very happy about what he had just done. The old mans platoon sgt. pulls out his 45, walks up and shoots the kid in the head. Perfectly legal for a violation of a declaration of an open city. Where do you draw the line? Very good question MD. We train these people to kill and send them over to wherever to do what our nation trained them to do. If you don't like the results then don't send them over there in the first place.

When I did my JOTC training in Panama way back in 1980 the cadre there were all hard core Vietnam vets. I remember them "explaining" the rules for assaulting through an objective. You could shoot, stab, and do whatever you wanted to the bad guys until the objective was "secured" Once the objective was secured you had to treat the people you were just trying to kill 1 minute ago with kid gloves. When some of us young privates questioned the sense in this a really rough around the edges SFC said something like... "those are the f***ing rules... do all your killing before the objective has been taken after that your ass is grass and the army is the lawnmower. You are more correct than you know MD... you tell me where that line is drawn? I lived through it and I never figured it out.

This bit of dialogue from one of all time great films IMHO, puts into words what is being discussed here about as well as can be...

Breaker Morant, 1980

Major Thomas: The fact of the matter is that war changes men's natures. The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations. Situations in which the ebb and flow of everyday life have departed and have been replaced by a constant round of fear and anger, blood and death.

Drawn lines may be irrelevant.

[LandM]

MD,
Last post here. I read the 9/11 report as it hit deeply. BC had the opportunity to take out out OBL 4 times. Never pulled the trigger as his family was with him so a bunch of lawyers talked him out of it, assuming they used a Geneva Convention rule(s). Had he pulled the trigger 9/11 might not have happened although the planning was in the works. It was a failure of the intel agencies not to put the pieces together. Now Jr seems to be taking his dad's penchant for fun. Rules of engagement and collateral damage - it has cost a few friends lives.

[DMac]

SEALs.
Not SEALS, not seals.
Carry on.

[LandM]

Kept the cap lock on

[OCanada]

Where do you draw the line? We teach that at the Academies and at places like the Naval War College.

The charges were brought because of reports filed by his fellow SEALS. They are ones that decided he had gone way over the line. This was initiated by people who served with him and knew the situation as it occurred. I understand the point of the story but it is not analogous.

[MDlaxfan76]

This conversation is getting a bit gross.
Especially the personal cracks.

Do we at least all agree that if Gallagher had done what all these fellow Seals said, that's not excused by 'flying lead'?
Or how about that sometimes warriors go bad? Even US ones?

History would certainly suggest that it happens, even among the most disciplined and professional of military organizations.

Instead of personal insults, how about sharing with us where the line really should be drawn.

My father told this story only once at my sisters wedding rehearsal party back in 1974. The old man had a couple of pops in him and several of the WW2 folks there started jibber jabbing. They had liberated a town in Germany towards the end of the war. White flags in all the windows declared it an open city... that meant there would be no resistance. A sniper shoots one of their men and kills him. They drag a very young Hitler Nazi youth laughing and smiling into the street very happy about what he had just done. The old mans platoon sgt. pulls out his 45, walks up and shoots the kid in the head. Perfectly legal for a violation of a declaration of an open city. Where do you draw the line? Very good question MD. We train these people to kill and send them over to wherever to do what our nation trained them to do. If you don't like the results then don't send them over there in the first place.

When I did my JOTC training in Panama way back in 1980 the cadre there were all hard core Vietnam vets. I remember them "explaining" the rules for assaulting through an objective. You could shoot, stab, and do whatever you wanted to the bad guys until the objective was "secured" Once the objective was secured you had to treat the people you were just trying to kill 1 minute ago with kid gloves. When some of us young privates questioned the sense in this a really rough around the edges SFC said something like... "those are the f***ing rules... do all your killing before the objective has been taken after that your ass is grass and the army is the lawnmower. You are more correct than you know MD... you tell me where that line is drawn? I lived through it and I never figured it out.

This bit of dialogue from one of all time great films IMHO, puts into words what is being discussed here about as well as can be...

Breaker Morant, 1980

Major Thomas: The fact of the matter is that war changes men's natures. The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations. Situations in which the ebb and flow of everyday life have departed and have been replaced by a constant round of fear and anger, blood and death.

Drawn lines may be irrelevant.

Great movie. Beautiful and tragic.
But the truth of the story was that Morant summarily executed non-combatants and POWS.

Yes, war is incredibly brutal and undoubtedly changes the behavioral control of some combatants. In some cases, total loss of control. All the more so if such is applauded by others.

Which is why there need to be rules, lines drawn. They need to be clear.

The horrors committed in WWII led to the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not asking you guys to just punt and tell me what Atilla would have done, I'm asking where the line should be drawn today.

For instance, was My Lai across the line?

[MDlaxfan76]

Why were the charges brought in the first place. Was it not because fellow SEALS raised the issue because in their opinion his behavior was so outrageous as to rise to the level of criminality. In their opinion. In order to acquit, the testimony of people he served with was discounted. Many of then as I recall. That has upset a number of people.

I suggest people who are interested read the available information and decide for themselves. The Hail Mary pass that was the sudden surprise witness at the last minute for a miracle save....

The puzzling aspect is that he confirmed the stabbing and simply said that he actually, secretly, finished the guy off. So, where's the punishment of Gallagher for the stabbing, if not 'murder'?

If I understand correctly there were a whole bunch of witnesses to the stabbing, as well as to other behavior. These are SEALs as witnesses. Is the jury really saying they think weren't telling the truth?

[tech37]

Of course lines should be drawn but my point is the lines won't matter to some overcome by war's insanity.

[SCLaxAttack]

Which is why it’s so important to prosecute those who cross those lines.

I preface this with the acknowledgement that I didn’t serve. My draft number was 33, but my birth year was the first year in which no draft numbers were called to serve.

The first line is easy - no “trophy photos” should ever be taken. It seems to me that Gallagher’s conviction on that charge was right.

As for the dead ISIS kid, it seems from what I’ve read that the combatant was alive when captured. If that team could have moved him as a POW, they should have. If moving him, or releasing him, would have jeopardized the mission (think Marcus Lutrell or the German soldier released in the fictional Saving Private Ryan, only to return to combat to kill one of the soldiers who released him), I believe a fast death would be an acceptable solution. Fast in my book isn’t a stab to the neck if Gallagher did that or suffocation if we believe the medic who changed from his expected testimony.

I don’t know if that solution meets with international law or our UCMJ, but it meets with what I believe would be my ethics if I were in that situation.

[MDlaxfan76]

Of course lines should be drawn but my point is the lines won't matter to some overcome by war's insanity.

We certainly agree that there will be those who do cross the line.
Should there be repercussions of crossing the line?
What happens culturally when the repercussions are that the person who crossed the line is applauded by many?

This set of questions applies to all parts of society.
We draw lines. We seek to build cultures in which those lines are respected.
We have repercussions, accountability.
And we have redemption and forgiveness.

Again, this stuff shouldn't be partisan.
But then, maybe that's why I'm a 'moderate'.

[a fan]

This bit of dialogue from one of all time great films IMHO, puts into words what is being discussed here about as well as can be...

Breaker Morant, 1980

Major Thomas: The fact of the matter is that war changes men's natures. The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations. Situations in which the ebb and flow of everyday life have departed and have been replaced by a constant round of fear and anger, blood and death.

Drawn lines may be irrelevant.

Never served, but the one thing I"m sure of is that if you put me in a real war zone where friends are getting killed, the odds of my being able to have the same moral lines that I had before hitting that war zone are very low.

If you ask me, Gallagher should be in a psychiatric facility until cleared.

Same goes for that Bergdahl guy. Some minds just snap after the experience of war....makes perfect sense to me. For Bergdahl.....I can't imagine what would have to happen to me to make me wander off into enemy territory unarmed...in Afghanistan. I'm sorry, but that's not an act of a rational, sane man.

We should be taking care of Gallagher.

[DMac]

The signs were there that he was/isn't a rational, sane man and the Army should have seen those signs.

Ames argues that Bergdahl was a contradictory character, who never should have been accepted into the military and sent to Afghanistan. As a recruit in the US Coast Guard, he lasted only a month before being discharged. Nevertheless, the Army, so desperate for soldiers that it lowered its standards, later accepted him.

From his arrival in Afghanistan in May 2009 he questioned the rationale behind US military involvement in that country. Ames says that Bergdahl had always planned to walk away from his remote military post into the desolate countryside.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/04/12/the-l ... ghanistan/

Gallagher's case is a bit more complicated and one which I believe tech37's quote describes quite nicely.

[OCanada]

One reason we have lines is to protect our own troops when they are on the other side of the equation. There have been rules of warfare forever. Giving every one a pass because it is war is counter productive.

There is a reason they teach these things at the various academies and war colleges and seminars. They believe in them and believe they are proper. These aren’t civilians imposing conditions because they don’t understand war. Stop with that stuff