US Navy Seal on trial for war crimes.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46754639

A veteran US Navy Seal is accused of killing Iraqi civilians at random, stabbing to death a teenage prisoner and nearly a dozen other crimes.
Navy Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher will plead not guilty when he appears at a hearing at a San Diego naval base, his lawyer said on Friday.
Prosecutors say the highly decorated sniper and medic killed innocent people during his eighth combat deployment.
The 19-year Navy combat veteran faces life in prison if found guilty.
Military investigators allege Chief Gallagher committed several crimes while in Mosul from February to September 2017, including the premeditated murder of a wounded Islamic State (IS) fighter around the age of 15.


He has been held in pre-trial confinement ahead of his criminal hearing, after prosecutors accused him of contacting witnesses.
His wife Andrea Gallagher has called the trial "an atrocity committed against America's service members" and called upon President Donald Trump to intervene.
She, and handful of other supporters wearing "Free Eddie" shirts, cheered the combat veteran as he arrived at the courthouse in handcuffs on Friday.
Chief Gallagher arrived at court in handcuffs on Friday
Aaron Kahn, who said that he is a friend of the accused told CNN that "Eddie's being demonised and not characterised as a good human being".
He added that his service to his country is being "dismissed and not appreciated by the American public and government."
Chief Gallagher denies all the charges against him
What is Chief Gallagher accused of?
According to the charges, Chief Gallagher allegedly stabbed a teenage IS fighter who had been wounded in an airstrike in May 2017.
Prosecutors say the wounded prisoner was being treated by medics from the Seal platoon that Chief Gallagher commanded when he allegedly attacked without any warning using a homemade knife.
He then had others take photos as he posed with the corpse and recited the Navy re-enlistment ceremony oath, prosecutors say.
A lawyer for Chief Gallagher said the fighter died from injuries sustained in the airstrike, and that his client is being falsely accused by Seals who wanted to get rid of their demanding platoon leader.


Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Joe Warpinski told the Associated Press that he had interviewed nine members of Seal Team 7, who said that the chief was known to fire indiscriminately into crowds of Iraqi civilians, and had shot and killed an old man and a girl from his sniper's outpost.
At a hearing in November, prosecutors said the men under Chief Gallagher's command considered him so deranged and bloodthirsty that they tampered with his sniper rifle to make it less accurate, and would fire warning shots to clear civilians from the area to protect them from him.
Chief Gallagher wore his Navy uniform in court on Friday
Navy prosecutor Chris Czaplak said the chief had chosen "to act like the monster the terrorists accuse us of being".
"He handed ISIS propaganda manna from heaven. His actions are everything ISIS says we are," Mr Czaplak said, referring to the Islamic State.
The trial will begin on 19 February.

Jesus Christ. This man is a serial killer.

I'm glad that he's being put on trial, though I wonder how many others' crimes have slipped by with less noticed. And whether these people were all born monsters, or made that way by the horrors of war.

I'm also proud of the fact that his troops weren't on board with their CO being a serial killer, and took some steps (even if only covertly) to resist his actions (and ultimately testified against him). We need men and women like that, not heartless killers, in the service of our country.

Unfortunately, given that he murdered Muslims and that his wife is calling for intervention by Trump, this man may well end up joining such illustrious figures as Joe "concentration camps for Latinos" Arpaio in receiving a Presidential pardon. Hopefully by the time Trump gets around to it, he's been removed from office.

[Broomstick]

Jesus Christ. This man is a serial killer.

Looks like it.

I'm glad that he's being put on trial, though I wonder how many others' crimes have slipped by with less noticed. And whether these people were all born monsters, or made that way by the horrors of war.

I suspect quite a few monsters get away with monstrosity in war time, given that that is about the only time in the modern age you can openly kill someone and not be routinely punished. That said, I suspect such people are "born that way" because out of the millions of people who have been soldiers most don't do such things. "I've been to war" or "I have PTSD" does not excuse that sort of killing, which is plain and simple murder.

I'm also proud of the fact that his troops weren't on board with their CO being a serial killer, and took some steps (even if only covertly) to resist his actions (and ultimately testified against him). We need men and women like that, not heartless killers, in the service of our country.

What I find surprising is that they are willing to testify against him. I'm glad they are, but that is unusual.

Unfortunately, given that he murdered Muslims and that his wife is calling for intervention by Trump, this man may well end up joining such illustrious figures as Joe "concentration camps for Latinos" Arpaio in receiving a Presidential pardon. Hopefully by the time Trump gets around to it, he's been removed from office.

That is my fear as well. I don't care if a criminal wears a uniform, if he's a criminal he should be appropriately punished. Which is why the military does have prisons.

[JI_Joe84]

Broomstick, yes the US military does have its own prison's and generally the punishments are far harsher than they would be for civilians.
Murder and they will execute him just for embarasing the rest of us service members for example.

[Tsyroc]

8th fucking combat tour! I hope the serial killer stuff is because he lost his shit over time. If he was always like this ...

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

From what I've heard, this was simply inevitable in the grand scheme of things, as the military is literally forced to do more with less despite the ever growing amount of commitments it has to do. I've heard that these days the Navy wants 400 ships minimum in order to continue their commitments (with some people going as high as 600...).

Too many commitments (many of which is vital in not turning the world into a pre-Great War Fallout quagmire), too little personnel and equipment, shit like this is basically inevitable... or so I've heard.

[Jub]

From what I've heard, this was simply inevitable in the grand scheme of things, as the military is literally forced to do more with less despite the ever growing amount of commitments it has to do. I've heard that these days the Navy wants 400 ships minimum in order to continue their commitments (with some people going as high as 600...).

Too many commitments (many of which is vital in not turning the world into a pre-Great War Fallout quagmire), too little personnel and equipment, shit like this is basically inevitable... or so I've heard.

Perhaps the US should start fewer wars and involve themselves less in geopolitics that require the use of force? The US doesn't need to play world police and their doing so is actively stopping their allies from having to build up their own forces to take up the slack. It's very hard to justify more than minimally obligated defense spending as a NATO member when you know that anything you can reasonably build either won't be enough or will be insignificant next to the forces the US will be forced by treaty to bring to bear.

The US likes to complain a lot that people won't spend enough to defend themselves while also ensuring that this very thing never happens.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Perhaps the US should start fewer wars and involve themselves less in geopolitics that require the use of force? The US doesn't need to play world police and their doing so is actively stopping their allies from having to build up their own forces to take up the slack. It's very hard to justify more than minimally obligated defense spending as a NATO member when you know that anything you can reasonably build either won't be enough or will be insignificant next to the forces the US will be forced by treaty to bring to bear.

The US likes to complain a lot that people won't spend enough to defend themselves while also ensuring that this very thing never happens.

The thing about it is that most of our allies are actually former colonial powers, and the scars from that era are too raw even now to have them involved. That and many of our allies don't want to spend too much on military spending because that would drain other sectors including healthcare, welfare, and other civilian things. That and many of the powerhouses in our allies have immense pacifist/anti-military factions within their own governments which doesn't help matters.

Basically, our allies haven't been doing their obligations because of quality of life stuff would be affected (which would get the politicians removed from office if they slash them, especially if it's for military affairs), the US is paying so much because the LAST time resources wasn't flowing freely indirectly/directly caused two/three world wars (Napoleonic Wars have historians on the line on calling it a 'World War' with both camps having good points) and left the US (and USSR) with the horrid mess during decolonization, and the fact that there are no shortage of people before 9/11 that didn't like the US or the Woods System.

9/11 only brought them to the fore since practically everyone forgot Air France 8969...

What people have forgotten is that this terrorist attack was aimed at Paris, with the exact target likely the Eiffel Tower.

[Jub]

The thing about it is that most of our allies are actually former colonial powers, and the scars from that era are too raw even now to have them involved. That and many of our allies don't want to spend too much on military spending because that would drain other sectors including healthcare, welfare, and other civilian things. That and many of the powerhouses in our allies have immense pacifist/anti-military factions within their own governments which doesn't help matters.

Basically, our allies haven't been doing their obligations because of quality of life stuff would be affected (which would get the politicians removed from office if they slash them, especially if it's for military affairs), the US is paying so much because the LAST time resources wasn't flowing freely indirectly/directly caused two/three world wars (Napoleonic Wars have historians on the line on calling it a 'World War' with both camps having good points) and left the US (and USSR) with the horrid mess during decolonization, and the fact that there are no shortage of people before 9/11 that didn't like the US or the Woods System.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion. I'd also say that the US is an enabler for this 'undesirable' behavior.

I'd also argue that the US could demilitarize significantly, if not swiftly, without putting themselves our their allies at undue risk. If the allies of the United State were to be told that the US was going to draw down defense spending and pull out of all active overseas warzones within the next decade other nations would act. They would likely spend and increase their own forces as they deem sufficient to make up for the loss of American power projection. It would never match the forces the US would give up, but the US military is a bloated mess designed for power projection and active elimination of threats versus self-defense, so it's unlikely that such capabilities would be needed to maintain the current level of, relative, peace.

[The Romulan Republic]

To secure its own territory, maintaining the National Guard at current strength, increasing slightly or maintaining the Navy and Coast Guard fleets at current strength, increasing funds for missile defense and cybersecurity, and gutting everything else would probably leave the US more than adequately defended. Anything beyond that is a question of how much we want to invest in intervening abroad. Personally, I would say that we should meet our minimum treaty obligations, but withdraw from all defensive treaties/agreements except NATO and maybe South Korea as swiftly as practicable. Weapons sales to all foreign governments should be halted. Once we sell those weapons to another party, we can no longer control their use, but we are still accountable for it.

Edit: if the weapons manufacturers are worried about their bottom line, give them nice fat contracts to provide equipment to rebuild America's infrastructure, and expand its space program. If military families are worried about loss of employment, keep them in a reserve force in case we ever have a crisis requiring a rapid expansion of our military, and in the meantime give them well-paid jobs rebuilding afforementioned infrastructure.

[Wicked Pilot]

Too many commitments (many of which is vital in not turning the world into a pre-Great War Fallout quagmire), too little personnel and equipment, shit like this is basically inevitable... or so I've heard.

Who told you this? I use to be in a high demand low density combat unit and it never occurred to me to just start gunning down civilians for no goddamn reason.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Who told you this? I use to be in a high demand low density combat unit and it never occurred to me to just start gunning down civilians for no goddamn reason.

You might not, but from what I've heard the shear number of commitments has strained the US military to the breaking point and people starting to act like this is inevitable.

To secure its own territory, maintaining the National Guard at current strength, increasing slightly or maintaining the Navy and Coast Guard fleets at current strength, increasing funds for missile defense and cybersecurity, and gutting everything else would probably leave the US more than adequately defended. Anything beyond that is a question of how much we want to invest in intervening abroad. Personally, I would say that we should meet our minimum treaty obligations, but withdraw from all defensive treaties/agreements except NATO and maybe South Korea as swiftly as practicable. Weapons sales to all foreign governments should be halted. Once we sell those weapons to another party, we can no longer control their use, but we are still accountable for it.

Edit: if the weapons manufacturers are worried about their bottom line, give them nice fat contracts to provide equipment to rebuild America's infrastructure, and expand its space program. If military families are worried about loss of employment, keep them in a reserve force in case we ever have a crisis requiring a rapid expansion of our military, and in the meantime give them well-paid jobs rebuilding afforementioned infrastructure.

No, if you don't want the world to end up like pre-Great War Fallout Earth, the Woods system has to be ensured at all practical costs.

[madd0ct0r]

the Woods system? Btretton Woods gold standard? whut?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

the Woods system? Btretton Woods gold standard? whut?

Bretton-Woods isn't a gold standard, it is a commercial system designed to basically allow free flow of resources to the US's allies. The US political and military brass of the time of it's inception (rightly) assumed that colonialism is a major contributing factor to two/three world wars (historians are still arguing about the Napoleonic Wars being a world war to this day). In essence, the system is designed to bribe as many countries as possible with commerce to prevent another worldwide conflict and starve the Soviets of much needed resources.

It actually worked pretty well.

The problem with the world is that without something like Bretton-Woods, the world would be killing each other over resources which likes to cause world wars...

[madd0ct0r]

Looks at iraq. Looks at you. Looks back at Iraq. Looks very confused.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Looks at iraq. Looks at you. Looks back at Iraq. Looks very confused.

Iraq was an anomaly in the grand scheme of things, but then again it got itself into the position where Saddam was forced to play a very dangerous game in geopolitics which amounts to both affirming and denying that it has chemical weapons. It also didn't help that it's military is extremely restricted in terms of ability (the Kurdish 'No Fly Zone' and the southern 'no fly zone', remember by the time the US toppled Iraq, the Kurdish north was all but a separate state in name) and the hefty restrictions on what the oil can exported for (mostly food and medication with refinery parts if I remember right).

Even then, there is serious doubts that Iraq would be stable during the Arab Spring revolutions, given that Syria -which had internal security at least half as good as Iraq- had a short civil war...

[madd0ct0r]

Im not sure i should add to the dogpile here,

But so far youve claimed.

1) alleged serial killers murdering people is inevitable consequence of the poor troops being put in countries full of people who hate them being there and vastly outnumber them.
2) that this could be solved by allied troops also being there, but those allies are ex colonial powers and therefore cant / wont interfere
3) that without the us, the world would divide into camps and build up huge stockpiles of nucelar missiles ala fallout
4) that all the world wars were triggered by wars for resources in europe and therefore the us's main role is to police the world to ensure its allies get resources (but not itself?)
5) that the last war that the usa got into (iraq, unless there was a more recent one?) was "an anomaly" unlike the other last, say, dozen angry troop deployments, which were all about ensuring nobly resources flow to us allies to safegaurd world peace?

Are we agreed this is your argument?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Im not sure i should add to the dogpile here,

But so far youve claimed.

1) alleged serial killers murdering people is inevitable consequence of the poor troops being put in countries full of people who hate them being there and vastly outnumber them.

Yes, with the fact that going to a psychologist is considered taboo.

2) that this could be solved by allied troops also being there, but those allies are ex colonial powers and therefore cant / wont interfere

Can't interfere due to history and/or politics, but yes.

3) that without the us, the world would divide into camps and build up huge stockpiles of nucelar missiles ala fallout

While fighting numerous wars for resources, yes.

4) that all the world wars were triggered by wars for resources in europe and therefore the us's main role is to police the world to ensure its allies get resources (but not itself?)

The US gets resources as a byproduct of setting up the system, but yes.

5) that the last war that the usa got into (iraq, unless there was a more recent one?) was "an anomaly" unlike the other last, say, dozen angry troop deployments, which were all about ensuring nobly resources flow to us allies to safegaurd world peace?

Are we agreed this is your argument?

More or less, and it's less noble and more realpolitik.

[Wicked Pilot]

You might not, but from what I've heard the shear number of commitments has strained the US military to the breaking point and people starting to act like this is inevitable.

Once again, who exactly is telling you this?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

You might not, but from what I've heard the shear number of commitments has strained the US military to the breaking point and people starting to act like this is inevitable.

Once again, who exactly is telling you this?

It was an off handed comment... somewhere as it was a while ago. I first saw it during an incident with an Burke and a cargo ship that the US military's commitments outpaced it's material and personnel numbers and incidents like it and others are a natural consequence of pushing a military that hard... but I can't remember exactly WHERE.

[K. A. Pital]

Even if all of the above were true (it is not in the humblest of opinions which I can express), how does it invalidate the fact that the solution to the problem is still... for the US to fight fewer wars?

“Allies” are just former colonial masters, much like the US itself. They must stop attacking others for the sake of their nebulous “interests”.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Even if all of the above were true (it is not in the humblest of opinions which I can express), how does it invalidate the fact that the solution to the problem is still... for the US to fight fewer wars?

“Allies” are just former colonial masters, much like the US itself. They must stop attacking others for the sake of their nebulous “interests”.

Problem is that, sadly, the world would become problematic at best if you simply abandon the Woods system. Return to imperialism and all that. So you are left with either continue and increase commitments or allow the world to slide into the Resource Wars of Fallout which will indefinitely end with nukes flying.

[K. A. Pital]

You are the imperialists, bro. You can’t fool me.

Also “resource wars”? How many wars for resources has China fought? Lit. zero. And it needs a lot of resources.

How come?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

You are the imperialists, bro. You can’t fool me.

Also “resource wars”? How many wars for resources has China fought? Lit. zero. And it needs a lot of resources.

How come?

Because the Woods system. It can freely purchase the resources it needs without having problems. If the Woods system collapses? You'll see China growing larger.

[K. A. Pital]

The Bretton Woods system (in its original form, at least) is gone for decades now. China is not an ally of the US and often purchases resources from nations under US sanctions. Are you saying if the US does not invade Iraq in 2003, China would be unable to buy oil from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Venezuela, Qatar etc.?

Or that the US dollar would lose its reserve currency status if the US did not invade, say, Iraq? Why, if so, and how are the two things connected?

Just want to understand the logic, no offense.