Posted on 11/27/2019 1:40:55 PM PST by jazusamo
In an op-ed published by the Military Times, Sean Gallagher, brother of Navy SEAL Edward "Eddie" Gallagher, blasted politicians and military leaders who say President Trump's interventions in preventing more punitive action against his brother were wrong.
Gallagher criticized "military attorneys, indignant Pentagon officials and your typical Washington establishment types" for being hypocritical when it came to good order and discipline.
"Their views were mainly the same. The president’s actions were a moral hazard ! What message will it send our troops? What of good order and discipline? I have one question for these people: Where in the hell were you the past year and a half?" Gallagher asked.
Gallagher was referring to the conduct of the military prosecutors, who his brother's defense team accused of "misconduct by NCIS personnel in the investigation and presentation of charges."
The Navy's first lead prosecutor was removed from the case after admitting to emailing a tracking beacon to defense attorneys, paralegals, and reporters in order to find the source of leaks to the media. The Navy's team was also accused of manipulating witness statements to NCIS agents and trying to cover it up.
"Preach to me again the dangers of moral hazards?" Gallagher wrote.
Gallagher then offered some perspective for members of the military and said his family will continue to vote for politicians who "actually support our warfighters":
That flag on your uniform, and the Constitution you swear to protect, also protects you. No one, not even members of your own military, can deny you your rights, especially the right to due process and a jury of your peers.
It is the only thing that saved my brother form a lifetime of unjust imprisonment.
It also guarantees civilian control of the military. So while the brass rails about moral hazards and pontificates about good order, the Gallagher family will continue to cast our ballots for those who actually support our warfighters and not some other agenda.
"President Trump was right to intervene on Eddie’s case, and that should terrify every person wearing a uniform," he concluded.
Trump pushed back against Navy leaders to allow Gallagher to retire with his rank and Navy SEAL Trident. Gallagher was initially demoted by the Navy before Trump reversed its decision. Defense Secretary Mark Esper asked for former Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer's resignation "after losing trust and confidence in him regarding his lack of candor over conversations with the White House."
No doubt the photo thing is a deep innate, basic thing. Deer hunters just have to have their pictures taken with the big buck they shot. Fishermen just have to have their picture taken with that big catfish. Caveman instinct. Isis and Mexican cartels show off heads of victims.
Eddie has stated publicly that his papers are filed and he will be separated this weekend.
“Eddie has stated publicly that his papers are filed and he will be separated this weekend.”
He’s smart for doing that. An MEB is in the position of separating him early before he declares and can cut the percentage of retirement when it gets treated as a PEB but at a lower price. And at the same time, it can’t be reflected to his brain health or disability capacity. He will have to go through the normal VA investigation and deal with the numbers they set. Most start at either almost nothing to 30% if they are even moderately healthy.
rwood
There are claims (yours?) that Gallagher violated the GC. Was this dead isis terrorist entitled to GC protection?
I will go out on a limb and say - I don’t think so.
Thank goodness, Trump is smarter and more compassionate than you are.
Gallagher’s only crime was irritating a pompous Admiral who was mistakenly thinking he was God.
Please reference Article 3 of the Geneva convention and it’s follow on under the rules of conflict:
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
This applies further under Article 16:
ARTICLE 16. -WOUNDED AND SICK: GENERAL PROTECTION
The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm,and exfiectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.
As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and others exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.
I would say being photographed holding a dead fighter by the hair and brandishing a knife toward him qualifies as ill-treatment.
Being a combat troop is more than just killing. We in the US deal with laws whether others do or do not. And we are well trained in them. Gallagher should have known better. He most likely put people in worse danger by doing what he did. They have a good memory.
rwood
“...Trump is smarter and more compassionate than you are.”
Trump, probably, is not smarter than I am in this field. I was successful in it for almost half my life. His experience has a little over a year in it. He may have people directing him like the secretary of defense, but I believe Trump went out on his own with this one.
The compassion part of war is in the Geneva Convention and the follow on rules of conflict or engagement. One of the things in it is the proper treatment of killed. Gallagher didn’t and there’s no way of knowing how many people are going to be ill-treated by terrorists because of it.
We know they will respond if they are mistreated in their minds like the Charlie Hebdo attack for his cartoons about Allah where 12 people were murdered that had nothing to do with it. A military member that gets publicly recognized for mistreatment of an ISIS fighter like this, may create more attacks like the above.
This is why we don’t act like they do with public be-headings and raping of women to get them pregnant so they will lose their credibility with their own people like was done in Kuwait. Sound humane? Doesn’t to me.
rwood
As if Terrorists really care.
I get that, but my question is about terrorists, out of uniform, killing/spying, are these people protected by the GC. Maybe I should have worded more clearly...
” killing/spying”
They are not protected by the Geneva Convention. Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy … such … [person] shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.”
Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibits at any time and in any place whatsoever “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” and “the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” with respect to “persons taking no active part in hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.”
So the killing I think you mean for spies is illegal and is punishable by civil law if they are not military. If military, court-martial.
And to take it a little further,if a person in combat with a soldier lays down arms, he has to be treated honorably until after trial at which time he may be imprisoned, released, or executed.
But this is a gray area you are in. We are not at war with anyone at the present time. This is an action with the joining and discretion of the US, all our allies, the UN, and every governing unit in the world. What keeps us here is our ability to return fire as retaliation. And the people we are shooting at have no common uniforms, no based country, and no common theology. They are the Elks club on steroids. And they can turn into civilian appearance, which they really are, at the turn of a corner. They are not soldiers, they are a sect of people.
This is why we entered Iraq in joint resolution with other countries and the blessing of the UN. We went into Iraq to stop him from supporting terrorists and to stop him from attacking his neighbors along with the threat to Israel. He did attack Israel during the conflict, btw. So our war was with Iraq, not terrorists/spies.
rwood
Thx!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.