Law Wow! Edward Gallagher, SEAL Trump pardoned is a piece of garbarge

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
0
Anguish and Anger From the Navy SEALS Who Turned In Edward Gallagher


The Navy SEALs showed up one by one, wearing hoodies and T-shirts instead of uniforms, to tell investigators what they had seen. Visibly nervous, they shifted in their chairs, rubbed their palms and pressed their fists against their foreheads. At times they stopped in midsentence and broke into tears.

“Sorry about this,” Special Operator First Class Craig Miller, one of the most experienced SEALs in the group, said as he looked sideways toward a blank wall, trying to hide that he was weeping. “It’s the first time — I’m really broken up about this.”

Video recordings of the interviews obtained by The New York Times, which have not been shown publicly before, were part of a trove of Navy investigative materials about the prosecution of Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher on war crimes charges including murder.

They offer the first opportunity outside the courtroom to hear directly from the men of Alpha platoon, SEAL Team 7, whose blistering testimony about their platoon chief was dismissed by President Trump when he upended the military code of justice to protect Chief Gallagher from the punishment.

“The guy is freaking evil,” Special Operator Miller told investigators. “The guy was toxic,” Special Operator First Class Joshua Vriens, a sniper, said in a separate interview. “You could tell he was perfectly O.K. with killing anybody that was moving,” Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a medic in the platoon, told the investigators.

Such dire descriptions of Chief Gallagher, who had eight combat deployments and sometimes went by the nickname Blade, are in marked contrast to Mr. Trump’s portrayal of him at a recent political rally in Florida as one of “our great fighters.”

Though combat in Iraq barely fazed the SEALs, sitting down to tell Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents about what they had seen their platoon chief do during a 2017 deployment in Iraq was excruciating for them.

Not only did they have to relive wrenching events and describe grisly scenes, they had to break a powerful unwritten code of silence in the SEALs, one of the nation’s most elite commando forces.

The trove of materials also includes thousands of text messages the SEALs sent one another about the events and the prosecution of Chief Gallagher. Together with the dozens of hours of recorded interviews, they provide revealing insights into the men of the platoon, who have never spoken publicly about the case, and the leader they turned in.

Platoon members said they saw Chief Gallagher shoot civilians and fatally stab a wounded captive with a hunting knife. Chief Gallagher was acquitted by a military jury in July of all but a single relatively minor charge, and was cleared of all punishment in November by Mr. Trump.

Video from a SEAL’s helmet camera, included in the trove of materials, shows the barely conscious captive — a teenage Islamic State fighter so thin that his watch slid easily up and down his arm — being brought in to the platoon one day in May 2017. Then the helmet camera is shut off.

In the video interviews with investigators, three SEALs said they saw Chief Gallagher go on to stab the sedated captive for no reason, and then hold an impromptu re-enlistment ceremony over the body, as if it were a trophy.

“I was listening to it, and I was just thinking, like, this is the most disgraceful thing I’ve ever seen in my life,” Special Operator Miller, who has since been promoted to chief, told investigators.

Special Operator Miller said that when the platoon commander, Lt. Jacob Portier, told the SEALs to gather over the corpse for photos, he did not feel he could refuse. The photos, included in the evidence obtained by The Times, show Chief Gallagher, surrounded by other SEALs, clutching the dead captive’s hair; in one photo, he holds a custom-made hunting knife.

“I think Eddie was proud of it, and that was, like, part of it for him,” Special Operator Miller told investigators.

Chief Gallagher’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, said the video interviews were rife with inconsistencies and falsehoods that created “a clear road map to the acquittal.”

Since his arrest nearly a year ago, Chief Gallagher has insisted that the charges against him were concocted by six disgruntled SEALs in his platoon who could not meet his high standards and wanted to force him out.

“My first reaction to seeing the videos was surprise and disgust that they would make up blatant lies about me, but I quickly realized that they were scared that the truth would come out of how cowardly they acted on deployment,” Chief Gallagher said in a statement issued through his lawyer.

“I felt sorry for them that they thought it necessary to smear my name, but they never realized what the consequences of their lies would be. As upset as I was, the videos also gave me confidence because I knew that their lies would never hold up under real questioning and the jury would see through it. Their lies and N.C.I.S.’s refusal to ask hard questions or corroborate their stories strengthened my resolve to go to trial and clear my name.”

The video interviews and private group text conversations obtained by The Times do not reveal any coordinated deception among the SEALs in the chief’s platoon. Instead, they show men who were hesitant to come forward, but who urged one another to resist outside pressure and threats of violence, and to be honest.

“Tell the truth, don’t lie or embellish,” one sniper who is now in SEAL Team 6 told the others in a group text in 2017, when they first tried to report the chief. “That way, he can’t say that we slandered him in any way.”

When several SEALs in the group questioned what would come of reporting the chief to their commanders, another wrote: “That’s their decision. We just need to give them the truth.”

It is an unspoken rule among their teams that SEALs should not report other SEALs for misconduct. An internal investigation could close off choice assignments or end careers for the accusers as well as the accused. And anyone who reported concerns outside the tight-knit SEAL community risked being branded a traitor.

“In a perfect world, there would be no risk, but that is not where we are,” Rick Haas, a retired command master chief who served in the SEALs for 30 years, said in an interview with The Times. “The teams are now divided over this, like I’ve never seen happen before.”

In cramped interview rooms in San Diego, SEALs who spoke to Navy investigators painted a picture of a platoon driven to despair by a chief who seemed to care primarily about racking up kills. They described how their chief targeted women and children and boasted that “burqas were flying.”

Asked whether the chief had a bias against Middle Eastern people, Special Operator Scott replied, “I think he just wants to kill anybody he can.”

Some of the SEALs said they came to believe that the chief was purposefully exposing them to enemy fire to bait ISIS fighters into revealing their positions. They said the chief thought that casualties in the platoon would increase his chances for a Silver Star.

Special Operator Vriens told investigators he had wanted to confront the chief in Iraq but had worried that if he did, he would be cut from missions and no longer be present to protect other SEALs from the chief. As he spoke, he struggled to keep his composure.

“I can speak up, stand my ground,” he said in the interview. “He’s just going to do this to a new guy who he can manipulate. So I was like, I’m going to be his right-hand man, so — so no one else got hurt.”

He pressed his forehead into his fists and started to cry. Then he took several deep breaths, rubbed his hands together and tried to continue.

“So I worked for him and I kept my mouth shut,” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...als-who-turned-in-edward-gallagher/ar-BBYnIkN


_________________________________


First thing is first. This is a lesson to any active duty folks out there. Don't report guys like this. Just frag the mother fucker. Throw that grenade in his tent while sleeping and be done with it.

This dude is a piece of shit, and what really pissed me off was reading about him calling his whole crew liars.

Nope, fuck you. You are the liar, and anyone who believes this one guy over his whole crew is as dumb as that draft dodging bitch named Trump.

Discuss.......
 
Actually, left wingers dislike him so he's a good guy.
 
I'll never understand this one. Who did this pardon appeal to?

Can I coin iniquity signaling?
 
Crying subtracts from your credibility, it doesn't add to it.

Emotional outbursts broadcasts a message to the audience that you lack substance in your argument and are therefore resorting to emotion to dictate their stance. Unless they have IQ <100 (which admittedly is common) they're going to have an aversion to it.

All this is regardless of whether your stance is valid or not. And it appears their stance was valid. They shouldn't have cried, or been emotional. They should have been cold and surgical with their statements.
 
seal.gif
 
Crying subtracts from your credibility, it doesn't add to it.

Emotional outbursts broadcasts a message to the audience that you lack substance in your argument and are therefore resorting to emotion to dictate their stance. Unless they have IQ <100 (which admittedly is common) they're going to have an aversion to it.

All this is regardless of whether your stance is valid or not. And it appears their stance was valid. They shouldn't have cried, or been emotional. They should have been cold and surgical with their statements.
What’s your point here? These SEALs lied? Or are not credible? Because some showed emotion?
 
Crying subtracts from your credibility, it doesn't add to it.

You're thinking of arguments, not statement credibility.

Emotional outbursts broadcasts a message to the audience that you lack substance in your argument
See? You're thinking about arguments.

and are therefore resorting to emotion to dictate their stance. Unless they have IQ <100 (which admittedly is common) they're going to have an aversion to it.
"and therefor" is redundant. We don't need to placate to sub-100s. No reason to be held hostage.

All this is regardless of whether your stance is valid or not. And it appears their stance was valid. They shouldn't have cried, or been emotional. They should have been cold and surgical with their statements.

We're not a society of sociopaths. What they experienced should bring forth emotion. There is nothing wrong with it.
 
We already had all of this information. We knew the man was a murderous maniac who was described as targeting innocent people, and he still had supporters on this board. Make of that what you will. Maybe it was just a need to support something Trump was doing, maybe a lack of empathy, maybe something more strange.
 
He sounds like every villain from American war movies from the 80's and 90's.

 
Crying subtracts from your credibility, it doesn't add to it.

Emotional outbursts broadcasts a message to the audience that you lack substance in your argument and are therefore resorting to emotion to dictate their stance. Unless they have IQ <100 (which admittedly is common) they're going to have an aversion to it.

All this is regardless of whether your stance is valid or not. And it appears their stance was valid. They shouldn't have cried, or been emotional. They should have been cold and surgical with their statements.
Actually you'd be surprised by how an emotional witness can play on a judge or jury. I observed a GBH trial and the defendant cried loads whilst giving evidence and the jury just lapped it up
 
From the article:

"Seven members of the 22-person platoon testified at the trial that they saw the chief commit war crimes. Two men from the platoon testified that they did not see any evidence of crimes. Others refused to cooperate with prosecutors. Crucially, one SEAL who had accused the chief during the investigation — Special Operator Scott — changed his story on the witness stand, testifying that he and not Chief Gallagher had caused the captive’s death."
 
Crying subtracts from your credibility, it doesn't add to it.

Emotional outbursts broadcasts a message to the audience that you lack substance in your argument and are therefore resorting to emotion to dictate their stance. Unless they have IQ <100 (which admittedly is common) they're going to have an aversion to it.

All this is regardless of whether your stance is valid or not. And it appears their stance was valid. They shouldn't have cried, or been emotional. They should have been cold and surgical with their statements.

This is doesn’t make sense. Having an emotion about a subject in no way infers that subject lacks substance. You yourself state it doesn’t invalidate a stance so why would anyone with a decent IQ dismiss anyone’s stance because they experienced it and have an emotion attached to it? Smart folks now dismiss valid stances for invalid reasons like an emotion?

You’re argument is crying doesn’t invalidate a stance but intelligent people assume it does? If they jump to that conclusion they aren’t intelligent.
 
What’s your point here? These SEALs lied? Or are not credible? Because some showed emotion?
No, I think I said the opposite-- that I find their story compelling.

Only that crying and being emotional dilutes said credibility.
 
No, I think I said the opposite-- that I find their story compelling.

Only that crying and being emotional dilutes said credibility.

but you contradict yourself in your own post, arguing against your own point which doesn’t make sense in the first place. That’s why no understands what you are actually saying
 
From the article:

Crucially, one SEAL who had accused the chief during the investigation — Special Operator Scott — changed his story on the witness stand, testifying that he and not Chief Gallagher had caused the captive’s death."


Even that guy said he said he saw the Chief stab a prisoner in the neck, and that he simply blocked his breathing tube so that he could avoid further torture if he survived.

The medic, Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, testified that he watched Chief Gallagher stab the prisoner, a teenage ISIS fighter, in the neck, but that the stab wound did not appear to be life-threatening. After the chief walked away, Special Operator Scott told the court, he pressed his thumb over the captive’s breathing tube until he died.

“I knew he was going to die anyway, and wanted to save him from waking up to whatever would have happened to him,” Special Operator Scott said, adding that he had seen other captives tortured and killed by Iraqi forces.
 
but you contradict yourself in your own post, arguing against your own point which doesn’t make sense in the first place. That’s why no understands what you are actually saying
Crying does not necessarily invalidate.

But it's a huge indicator. When someone is crying when giving some sort of statement or testimony it's at best an indication of an inability to remain composed and rational.

I'm drunk so I might not be conveying myself with the utmost articulation but I'm convinced my theory is sound
 
Crying does not necessarily invalidate.

But it's a huge indicator. When someone is crying when giving some sort of statement or testimony it's at best an indication of an inability to remain composed and rational.

I'm drunk so I might not be conveying myself with the utmost articulation but I'm convinced my theory is sound

Ha, cheers. But the theory isn’t very sound. If a person is recounting an extremely traumatic experience such as the systematic murder of innocent women and children, a mentally healthy and sound person of character would very likely have very negative emotions attached to that experience. Seeing someone experience those emotions as they recount the experience often affirms to the 3rd party that the witness actually did experience the trauma they are recounting. If a person can speak on such horrors without any reaction or emotion, people see that as strange and question the authenticity.

Take Sandy Hook for example. A father gave an interview where he did not weep while speaking on the lost of his child. Many people were taken back, many even believed he could not have actually lost a child because if he had he would have been more emotional. People project how they think they would be reacting when deliberating on whether someone is telling then truth.

When a Navy SEAL cries, most will assume he is not acting and it must have been an extremely traumatic experience.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top