Navy Seal War Crimes

[Victorian Gray]

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...ne-testifies-navy-seal-did-not-stab-detainee/

SAN DIEGO — A Marine who worked jointly in Iraq with a decorated Navy SEAL accused of murder testified Thursday that the platoon chief did not stab a wounded teenage Islamic State prisoner as alleged by other platoon members.

Marine Staff Sgt. Giorgio Kirylo said he watched as Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward “Eddie” Gallagher tried to save the 17-year-old captive and never saw him use his hunting knife on him.

And

The military jury on Thursday also saw videotaped testimony taken June 3 from the Iraqi general who handed over the war prisoner after he was injured in the airstrike outside Mosul.

Maj. Gen. Abbas al-Jubouri, whose forces were partnered with U.S. troops, testified that he ordered his troops to hand over the militant to Gallagher and his fellow SEALs because he wanted to keep him alive for interrogation later.

The general said during defense questioning that he did not see Gallagher harm the captive in any way — and if he had, he would have spoken up.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...oes-on-the-offensive-during-war-crimes-trial/

No blood was found on the knife.


At a very minimum there is a football stadiums room of doubt.

And yet the guy who confessed (under full immunity) to the killing stated Gallagher had, indeed, stabbed the guy:

"The Seal medic said he had witnessed Gallagher unexpectedly begin stabbing the fighter after the two men had stabilised his injuries following an airstrike, but that the stab wounds had not appeared to be life-threatening.

When the chief walked away, Mr Scott said he had plugged the youth's air tube as an act of mercy. When asked why, Mr Scott replied, "I knew he would die anyway."

Mr Scott was granted immunity from being prosecuted for criminal charges before he testified. Prosecutors accused him of trying to protect Gallagher, alleging he had never mentioned committing the crime in previous interviews."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849162

Huh. Now how weird is that. A witness who claims no stabbing and the guy who (under full immunity) admitted to the killing saying that there was stabbing.

"Room for doubt"? Youbetcha there's "room for doubt".

 

[brycejones]

And about his immunity... In my opinion it should be revoked due to the fact that he commited murder and admitted it in court. But that is only my opinion.

Not sure you understand what immunity means.

 

[TheVrolok]

And about his immunity... In my opinion it should be revoked due to the fact that he commited murder and admitted it in court. But that is only my opinion.

lol wut?

 

[Victorian Gray]

And about his immunity... In my opinion it should be revoked due to the fact that he commited murder and admitted it in court. But that is only my opinion.

You don't appear to understand what immunity is.

 

[pcgeek11]

Of course I know what immunity means. It is just that murder seems to be a very good reason to consider his immunity deal voided. But I guess he just gets off free as a bird. Sucks.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Of course I know what immunity means. It is just that murder seems to be a very good reason to consider his immunity deal voided. But I guess he just gets off free as a bird. Sucks.

<sigh> he confessed *in exchange for* full immunity.

 

[pcgeek11]

<sigh> he confessed *in exchange for* full immunity.

So you think it's just fine he gets away with murder?

Got it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you think it's just fine he gets away with murder?

Got it.

Lord but you are dense. You keep saying the fact that he admitted to murder means they should take away his immunity. What I am trying to explain to you is that the guarantee of full immunity was offered for his testimony. That means that it's intended to cover *anything* he might say/admit to. It's the way that the legal system works. That is why I made this comment: "It's amazing what someone might say when they're given full immunity". I don't believe that he is the killer.

btw, you thought you'd get away with simply ignoring this?

"And yet the guy who confessed (under full immunity) to the killing stated Gallagher had, indeed, stabbed the guy:

"The Seal medic said he had witnessed Gallagher unexpectedly begin stabbing the fighter after the two men had stabilised his injuries following an airstrike, but that the stab wounds had not appeared to be life-threatening.

When the chief walked away, Mr Scott said he had plugged the youth's air tube as an act of mercy. When asked why, Mr Scott replied, "I knew he would die anyway."

Mr Scott was granted immunity from being prosecuted for criminal charges before he testified. Prosecutors accused him of trying to protect Gallagher, alleging he had never mentioned committing the crime in previous interviews."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849162

Huh. Now how weird is that. A witness who claims no stabbing and the guy who (under full immunity) admitted to the killing saying that there was stabbing.

"Room for doubt"? Youbetcha there's "room for doubt"."

 

[pcgeek11]

Thanks for telling me what I already knew little buddy.

I can still have an opinion that differs with the law. I don't think that an immunity bargain should include murder.

If they had proven that Gallagher had indeed killed him then he should also get the full penalty allowed by law. But they did not.

There were too many conflicts between the different testimonies. Nothing was proven and that guy confessed and gave different statements about the alleged stabbing.

I think they did the right thing with the exception of the confessed murderer. Gallagher will be busted to E6 for his picture taking which I found Disgusting.

 

[Sunburn74]

I don't believe the medic killed the guy. I think he made it all up to get Gallagher off.

You can never offer people full immunity. This is the kind of stuff that happens.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't believe the medic killed the guy. I think he made it all up to get Gallagher off.

You can never offer people full immunity. This is the kind of stuff that happens.

Yep. I think the prosecuters were right on when they claimed he confessed to protect Gallagher. The trial and the verdict smell bad (as does the investigation).

 

[brycejones]

Of course I know what immunity means. It is just that murder seems to be a very good reason to consider his immunity deal voided. But I guess he just gets off free as a bird. Sucks.

Or he is lying and the guy on trial actually did kill the prisoner. Which IMO is by far the most likely scenario.

 

[TheVrolok]

Yep. I think the prosecuters were right on when they claimed he confessed to protect Gallagher. The trial and the verdict smell bad (as does the investigation).

Absolutely this.

 

[blankslate]

A war criminal basically got off scott-free. While RWNJs sing his praises.

This is indicative of how far the U.S. has fallen since we hung war criminals back in the 40s


___________

 

[Indus]

A war criminal basically got off scott-free. While RWNJs sing his praises.

This is indicative of how far the U.S. has fallen since we hung war criminals back in the 40s


___________

And that is why there is a stark difference of opinion about:

 

[UglyCasanova]

All of this expressed by me with one simple sentence, never once implying that Trump bares any responsibility for any of this guy's actions

If that’s the case why like realibrad said randomly bring Trump into this? The response of "well he probably likes him now" seems like a weird diversion from the topic to somehow connect the guy to Trump in some form or fashion. It seems like another shallow drive by attack on Trump as a way to steer every thread from its original topic to yet another Trump Is Bad thread. And it did a good job of it, thread seems successfully derailed. And that’s fine, but just say that.

Once god-emperor Trump and his divine archangels are done with IS, liberals are next on the menu.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Somehow you got it into your head that if someone mentions Trump in a thread that means Trump is responsible for everything in that thread.

Below is your comment . You gave no other context or anything else to go by so that seems like the only conclusion that could be had from it.

Once god-emperor Trump and his divine archangels are done with IS, liberals are next on the menu.

 

[dank69]

Below is your comment . You gave no other context or anything else to go by so that seems like the only conclusion that could be had from it.

That's because you are stupid. Oh dear, I mentioned you. Only conclusion must be you are responsible for it too.

 

[Fenixgoon]

And that is why there is a stark difference of opinion about:

View attachment 8027

bruh, she's a targaeryan

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course I know what immunity means. It is just that murder seems to be a very good reason to consider his immunity deal voided. But I guess he just gets off free as a bird. Sucks.

Yeah, if that was how the immunity agreement was worded. It probably says immunity from any and all crimes disclosed during the agreed upon testimony. An agreement can make exceptions by specifying certain excluded crimes. The parties can agree to anything. It's a contract. If it's wrong that he suffers no repercussions for confessing to a homicide, then the prosecution made a bad deal.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yeah, if that was how the immunity agreement was worded. It probably says immunity from any and all crimes disclosed during the agreed upon testimony. An agreement can make exceptions by specifying certain excluded crimes. The parties can agree to anything. It's a contract. If it's wrong that he suffers no repercussions for confessing to a homicide, then the prosecution made a bad deal.

It was a stupid deal all the way around. That is why I said it sucked.

 

[zinfamous]

Of course I know what immunity means. It is just that murder seems to be a very good reason to consider his immunity deal voided. But I guess he just gets off free as a bird. Sucks.

See, but a curious person might then ask themselves why a "confessed" murderer would be offered immunity to confess to a murder that another compatriot was charged for.

....you know, a curious person would ask this. Not you, though.

 

[zinfamous]

It was a stupid deal all the way around. That is why I said it sucked.

Of course it wasn't a stupid deal. It was exactly what they wanted.

 

[TheVrolok]

Of course it wasn't a stupid deal. It was exactly what they wanted.

lol, I don't know how these folks get through life with absolutely no ability to think critically.

 

[pcgeek11]

See, but a curious person might then ask themselves why a "confessed" murderer would be offered immunity to confess to a murder that another compatriot was charged for.

....you know, a curious person would ask this. Not you, though.

Of course it wasn't a stupid deal. It was exactly what they wanted.

lol, I don't know how these folks get through life with absolutely no ability to think critically.

There was plenty of doubt to cast even before his admission of placing his finger over the breathing tube.

But then again I know how you guys love to play asshole.