Orange Duce

[cradleandshoot]

There is a lot of truth to what cradle says above, MDlax. I've said many times in the past that rules of engagement is an oxymoron (that's a bit strong but no so wrong either). You dehumanize the enemy and view them as no higher life form than a cockroach or rat. Now hype the troops up, work them into a frenzy, tell them to kill, kill, kill and what do you think is going happen (My Lai)? "Rules" of engagement falls to the bottom of your list of things you're concerned about, believe that from a person who has been in that environment. While I never went into the bush and fought alongside any infantrymen, I spent a whole lot of time hanging out with the 101st Airborne boys in Tan My who did. I think you have to experience that in order to understand the mentality of the folks you send out to do that kind of work.
Suffice it to say that none of us know what was going on in Gallagher's unit, but it appears as if there was some dissention among the troops. Everybody doesn't always get along with everybody in the military just as in the civilian world. Nasty little derogatory things are said (talk to a divorced couple and tell me how much truth you're hearing there) which might have an iota of truth to them but you're not getting an accurate picture there. Fact is, these are pre trial vidoes and some of these stories changed during the trial, enough so that he was aquitted of everything except for posing in a picture (alongside a whole bunch of other guys) with their kill. I maintain my BFD attitude about that. As for the under oath part, is that to say people don't lie under oath?
Can we get this part right (this has got to be about the 40th time I've pointed this out), it's SEALs, not seals. There's a real big difference there.

I also know of several Vietnam vets who knew soldiers that made those necklaces from ears cut off from dead VC. Try and explain that to someone who was never over there. Mans inhumanity to man knows no limits. I am guessing all of us read the Lord of the Flies when we were in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

[MDlaxfan76]

TLD your momma cried home last night
TLD is it 4 or 5 - I worked in that community, i can spit out 30 names without thinking - none are cowards BUT rules of engagement - those pesky rules created by bureaucrats who have never done it - go do it man - seriously you have an 18 year old have him or her go do it. Some follow the rules of engagement, others just ignore them for their and their mens safety. Do not send people in harms way if they cannot defend themselves. If you have never done it, be careful of your criticism.
Dmac thank you for your posts - I say we sit and have a beer

You do understand that Gallagher is calling his fellow Seals cowards, right?
Not for reporting him, but for their own behavior in combat.

You think he's probably right, and unlike the 30+ you know these guys all in one unit are cowards? Or do you think it's more likely that these guys know that, one guy, Gallagher, is indeed a 'psychopath' and 'evil'?...their words under oath, not ours.

this is not as black and white as it is being made out to be. I would also be interested in hearing from the Navy Seals that served with Chief Gallagher over all of his deployments. This is only my speculation but when you train someone to kill and you send him on a mission to do what he has been trained to do, after repeated deployments they become oblivious to their own inhumanity to the enemy. I would think the higher ups in the Navy would understand what happens to any person who spends as much time in combat as Chief Gallagher did. The bottom line is to complete your mission. If a person has spent 6 or 7 deployments in harms way, you lose all sense of humanity. I can't defend what the Chief may or may not have done. I understand the indifference to human life that may have been ingrained in his mind after years of front line combat.

I agree that it's quite understandable how someone could devolve to "lose all sense on humanity" and have an "indifference to human life."

I think we can agree that this need not happen to every soldier, indeed does not necessarily happen with most or even many who go through such experiences.

But it can.

His fellow trained warriors are the best observers of his behaviors and state of mind in the deployment they were with him on.
I tend to believe them, not him.

I can't ignore what they are saying. The Chief also served with a number of different team members over multiple deployments. If he had mentally crossed over from spending too much time in combat, his superiors should have recognized and pulled him back. I find it disturbing that his own team members were concerned about his behavior. I am even more disturbed that his superiors did not recognize he was becoming unstable and undisciplined. I have all the respect in the world for the chiefs combat service. The navy may have kept him out there fighting for too long. He may have started enjoying the job too much. The question I would ask is how many combat deployments do you ask of these men?

Fair question, for sure.

I'm also disturbed by his calling his fellow SEAL's cowards in combat.

I agree with you about his superiors.
I'd certainly want to understand what those in his immediate chain of command knew about his state of mind.

[cradleandshoot]

There is a lot of truth to what cradle says above, MDlax. I've said many times in the past that rules of engagement is an oxymoron (that's a bit strong but no so wrong either). You dehumanize the enemy and view them as no higher life form than a cockroach or rat. Now hype the troops up, work them into a frenzy, tell them to kill, kill, kill and what do you think is going happen (My Lai)? "Rules" of engagement falls to the bottom of your list of things you're concerned about, believe that from a person who has been in that environment. While I never went into the bush and fought alongside any infantrymen, I spent a whole lot of time hanging out with the 101st Airborne boys in Tan My who did. I think you have to experience that in order to understand the mentality of the folks you send out to do that kind of work.
Suffice it to say that none of us know what was going on in Gallagher's unit, but it appears as if there was some dissention among the troops. Everybody doesn't always get along with everybody in the military just as in the civilian world. Nasty little derogatory things are said (talk to a divorced couple and tell me how much truth you're hearing there) which might have an iota of truth to them but you're not getting an accurate picture there. Fact is, these are pre trial vidoes and some of these stories changed during the trial, enough so that he was aquitted of everything except for posing in a picture (alongside a whole bunch of other guys) with their kill. I maintain my BFD attitude about that. As for the under oath part, is that to say people don't lie under oath?
Can we get this part right (this has got to be about the 40th time I've pointed this out), it's SEALs, not seals. There's a real big difference there.

Thanks for the 'correction' on capitalization...talk about rule bound though.

My understanding is that our SEALs (and other special forces) are far better trained and prepared for their roles than would have been the case in the bulk of soldiers in the Vietnam era. If I'm not mistaken, this "dehumanize the enemy" etc is no longer how they are trained.

Which in no way is to suggest that it's not understandable how that psychological defense mechanism wouldn't be a very possible outcome of combat, much less many deployments.

On these SEALs, are you really saying these guys all lied under oath and it's Gallagher telling the truth??? The guy calling SEALs cowards??
My understanding is that our SEALs (and other special forces) are far better trained and prepared for their roles than would have been the case in the bulk of soldiers in the Vietnam era. If I'm not mistaken, this "dehumanize the enemy" etc is no longer how they are trained.
If I'm not mistaken, the change of story that mattered to the most serious charge was that the medic claimed he'd actually delivered the final act, attempting to be actually merciful under the expectation that the young fighter was about to be tortured....by Gallagher.

"Psychopath" and "evil" were not retracted.

My understanding is that our SEALs (and other special forces) are far better trained and prepared for their roles than would have been the case in the bulk of soldiers in the Vietnam era. If I'm not mistaken, this "dehumanize the enemy" etc is no longer how they are trained.

The best trained soldiers on the planet can only sustain so many deployments back to the meat grinder. In Vietnam the average GI had to serve a tour of duty for 12 months. Exactly for the reason they had some sort of hope of getting the hell out of there and coming back home. Personallyl I could not fathom the thought of coming back home only to be sent back over time and time again.

[Typical Lax Dad]

There is a lot of truth to what cradle says above, MDlax. I've said many times in the past that rules of engagement is an oxymoron (that's a bit strong but no so wrong either). You dehumanize the enemy and view them as no higher life form than a cockroach or rat. Now hype the troops up, work them into a frenzy, tell them to kill, kill, kill and what do you think is going happen (My Lai)? "Rules" of engagement falls to the bottom of your list of things you're concerned about, believe that from a person who has been in that environment. While I never went into the bush and fought alongside any infantrymen, I spent a whole lot of time hanging out with the 101st Airborne boys in Tan My who did. I think you have to experience that in order to understand the mentality of the folks you send out to do that kind of work.
Suffice it to say that none of us know what was going on in Gallagher's unit, but it appears as if there was some dissention among the troops. Everybody doesn't always get along with everybody in the military just as in the civilian world. Nasty little derogatory things are said (talk to a divorced couple and tell me how much truth you're hearing there) which might have an iota of truth to them but you're not getting an accurate picture there. Fact is, these are pre trial vidoes and some of these stories changed during the trial, enough so that he was aquitted of everything except for posing in a picture (alongside a whole bunch of other guys) with their kill. I maintain my BFD attitude about that. As for the under oath part, is that to say people don't lie under oath?
Can we get this part right (this has got to be about the 40th time I've pointed this out), it's SEALs, not seals. There's a real big difference there.

You ok with Gallagher’s attorney calling those guys cowards? Gallagher’s said the guys at times acted cowardly. That’s not the same thing as being a coward. His attorney said they were covering up the fact that they were “cowards”.... I don’t like the characterization.

[ggait]

I think six guys came forward to testify against Gallagher. Seems like pretty many, though I don't know how big the platoon was.

Are those guys mutinous cowards? Certainly possible.

But I'd be inclined to believe them before I'd believe Bone Spurs and a bunch of Fox News Bots.

[DMac]

I'd bet you'd also believe that there was some fancy lawyering going on there on both sides to paint a picture of how awful the "other" person(s) is/are. Kinda like in a rape case when the accuser's past sex life is painted as that of a whore's (when in fact that's not the case).

TLD, no, I don't like it but I attribute it to "fancy lawyering".

[LandM]

ggait - that is why you are a lawyer - you create the rules but do not have to follow them.

MD- what did you sign up for - your and Comey are boy scouts - must be good living on your wife - yes, I am an Eagle Scout.

I do not agree with what what he did - I do understand the rules of engagement and if you send young men in into harms way - you get what you pay for.....like it or not

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'd bet you'd also believe that there was some fancy lawyering going on there on both sides to paint a picture of how awful the "other" person(s) is/are. Kinda like in a rape case when the accuser's past sex life is painted as that of a whore's (when in fact that's not the case).

TLD, no, I don't like it but I attribute it to "fancy lawyering".

Tough guy. He could have chosen his words more carefully.

[DMac]

Yes, as in a whole lot more carefully.

[old salt]

TLD your momma cried home last night
TLD is it 4 or 5 - I worked in that community, i can spit out 30 names without thinking - none are cowards BUT rules of engagement - those pesky rules created by bureaucrats who have never done it - go do it man - seriously you have an 18 year old have him or her go do it. Some follow the rules of engagement, others just ignore them for their and their mens safety. Do not send people in harms way if they cannot defend themselves. If you have never done it, be careful of your criticism.
Dmac thank you for your posts - I say we sit and have a beer

You do understand that Gallagher is calling his fellow Seals cowards, right?
Not for reporting him, but for their own behavior in combat.

You think he's probably right, and unlike the 30+ you know, these guys all in one unit are cowards? Or do you think it's more likely that these guys know that, one guy, Gallagher, is indeed a 'psychopath' and 'evil'?...their words under oath, not ours.

Those leaked videotapes are preliminary interviews with NCIS. They were not made under oath.
There were not 30+ accusers. It was a small number in Gallaghers squad.
As their Chief, perhaps Gallagher felt they did not perform up to his standards in combat.
The most graphic video is from PO Moss, who admitted at trial that he had killed the prisoner.
The others were heard, under oath & cross examination, at trial.
Their testimony was not credible enough to convince the panel of combat vets who heard them to vote to convict.
Chief Gallagher was acquitted by a Court Martial panel comprised of combat veterans, who heard his accusers.

[old salt]

I think six guys came forward to testify against Gallagher. Seems like pretty many, though I don't know how big the platoon was.

Are those guys mutinous cowards? Certainly possible.

But I'd be inclined to believe them before I'd believe Bone Spurs and a bunch of Fox News Bots.

Do you know enough to substitute your judgement for the combat vets on the court panel who heard the 6 (not 30+) accusers relate the specific details of their accusations, & defend them under cross examination ?

Rather than cowards, might they have held a grudge against a Chief who was hard on them & that some of their accusations were shared hearsay which amplified each other.

There was obvious dysfunction in that platoon. Gallager's accusers were less experienced, junior members who chafed under his leadership style.
The LT platoon commander did not share the accusers assessment of Gallagher. The LT staged the infamous picture with the platoon, to commemorate Gallagher's re-enlistment ceremony, which he had just administered. Gallagher was selected for promotion & submitted for a Silver Star. The 6 junior SEALs who were his accusers were not a happy crew, but possible poor leadership is not murder or a war crime.

[LandM]

OS,
The 30 plus was in a comment created by TLD who knows 4 or 5 SEALS. MY last three years of service I worked in that community, I can name 30 off the top of my head. TLD does not know whether he knows 4 or 5 - comment has nothing to do with the Gallagher trial.

[Kismet]

It should also be noted that while acquitting Gallagher of 6 charges, the jury did find him guilty of the seventh charge, of "wrongfully posing for an unofficial picture with a human casualty" which carried a maximum prison sentence of four months. Since Gallagher had already served more time in jail than the sentence, he was released. The jury also gave Gallagher a demotion from Chief Petty Officer (E-7) to Petty Officer First Class (E-6). IMPOTUS vacated that jury verdict, restored him to rank and allowed him to retire at that rank as a SEAL and cancelling any further actions by the Navy. Can we assume you consider the jury (all naval officers) a bunch of vindictive bozos as well?

Funny how you never mention all this material when defending Gallagher to the hilt.....BTW did you read the entire case cover to cover to come up with your opinion?

[LandM]

So I am the tough guy,
Please select my words "more carefully"
Bottom line do not send young people in harms way to do a job you nor your kids want to to do

[old salt]

It should also be noted that while acquitting Gallagher of 6 charges, the jury did find him guilty of the seventh charge, of "wrongfully posing for an unofficial picture with a human casualty" which carried a maximum prison sentence of four months. Since Gallagher had already served more time in jail than the sentence, he was released. The jury also gave Gallagher a demotion from Chief Petty Officer (E-7) to Petty Officer First Class (E-6). IMPOTUS vacated that jury verdict, restored him to rank and allowed him to retire at that rank as a SEAL and cancelling any further actions by the Navy. Can we assume you consider the jury (all naval officers) a bunch of vindictive bozos as well?

Funny how you never mention all this material when defending Gallagher to the hilt.....BTW did you read the entire case cover to cover to come up with your opinion?

Actually. Gallagher was demoted to E-1, which is automatic when convicted at Court Martial of a crime which carries jail time.
CNO (acting as the convening authority of the Court), upon his review, restored Gallagher to E-6, which I believe was the recommendation of the court martial panel.
The President restored Gallagher to his origunal rank of E-7.
Gallagher was not promoted to the rank of E-8, to which he had been selected.

Dmac & I have mentioned the picture several times. It was a lesser included offense which, alone, would not merit a Court Martial.
It is an offense more often dealt with at the unit level via Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP), aka Captain's Mast, which could also have resulted in a reduction in rank, fine, &/or confinement via restriction. Possibly suspended (held in abeyance, pending future conduct).

[Kismet]

Dmac & I have mentioned the picture several times. It was a lesser included offense that would not normally be the subject of a Court Martial.
It is an offense more often dealt with at the unit level via Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP), aka Captain's Mast, which could also have resulted in a reduction in rank, fine, &/or confinement via restriction. Possibly suspended (held in abeyance, pending future conduct).

Would you have been OK with IMPOTUS invalidating that action/discipline as well?

[old salt]

Dmac & I have mentioned the picture several times. It was a lesser included offense that would not normally be the subject of a Court Martial.
It is an offense more often dealt with at the unit level via Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP), aka Captain's Mast, which could also have resulted in a reduction in rank, fine, &/or confinement via restriction. Possibly suspended (held in abeyance, pending future conduct).

Would you have been OK with IMPOTUS invalidating that action/discipline as well?

Red Herring. That would not have been know to POTUS. For that offense, in isolation, there would have been no publicity, no pre-trial restriction (let alone brig time & solitary confinement). Little or no involvement by NCIS or Navy JAG. It would all have been handled at the unit level.
You think that's the first time such a picture was taken ? How many prosecutions have there been ?

[Kismet]

Unless he or his his lawyer called another ex-con, Bernie Kerik who got in touch with FoxNews and then the IMPOTUS

[MDlaxfan76]

ggait - that is why you are a lawyer - you create the rules but do not have to follow them.

MD- what did you sign up for - your and Comey are boy scouts - must be good living on your wife - yes, I am an Eagle Scout.

I do not agree with what what he did - I do understand the rules of engagement and if you send young men in into harms way - you get what you pay for.....like it or not

Huh???

[old salt]

Unless he or his his lawyer called Bernie Kerik who got in touch with FoxNews and then the IMPOTUS

Chief Gallagher would not have needed a lawyer for NJP, let alone one experienced in handling high profile, capital cases.
It would have been stupid for him to request a Court Martial for an offense most likely to yield a suspended punishment via NJP, if even heard.
Kerik would never have heard of it either.