(07-04-2019 07:30 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Special Operator Scott, who made eye contact with Chief Gallagher and with Timothy Parlatore, the chief’s defense lawyer, several times during his testimony, seemed unshaken by the accusation. He said he had never told investigators that he killed the captive because no one had bothered to ask.

'made eye contact' ? so what ? ... who else did he look at ? what does this prove? David, this is a real life trial ... not Judge Judy or a Hitchcock film.

(07-04-2019 07:30 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The Navy official said that Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents and Navy prosecutors would be able to testify in a perjury trial that the medic had repeatedly given them a very different account of the captive’s death: that he saw Chief Gallagher stab the captive two or three times, not once; that he saw blood rushing from the stab wounds; that the wounds were fatal; and that Special Operator Scott had watched the captive stop breathing and die from those wounds.

There's no argument about the man being stabbed. Would medic Scott be qualified to say that the stab wounds were 'fatal' ? ... "had watched the captive stop breathing" yes? so what? 'and die from those wounds' ... who says so? not Scott, on oath, in the court room.

(07-04-2019 07:30 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The medic’s testimony in court appeared to conflict with all of those statements, as well as with photos offered in evidence at the trial that show a pool of blood on the ground by the victim.

'a pool of blood' Is that proving something ? we know the victim was stabbed, so blood would be expected.

(07-04-2019 10:35 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 07:30 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  He said he had never told investigators that he killed the captive because no one had bothered to ask.

David, this is a real life trial.

(07-04-2019 07:30 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The Navy official said that Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents and Navy prosecutors would be able to testify in a perjury trial that the medic had repeatedly given them a very different account of the captive’s death: that he saw Chief Gallagher stab the captive two or three times, not once; that he saw blood rushing from the stab wounds; that the wounds were fatal; and that Special Operator Scott had watched the captive stop breathing and die from those wounds.

Would medic Scott be qualified to say that the stab wounds were 'fatal' ? ... "had watched the captive stop breathing" 'and die from those wounds' ... who says so? not Scott, on oath, in the court room.

(07-04-2019 07:30 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The medic’s testimony in court appeared to conflict with all of those statements, as well as with photos offered in evidence at the trial that show a pool of blood on the ground by the victim.

'a pool of blood' Is that proving something ?

Perhaps Chief Gallagher had a cut on his finger or someone had killed a blood-thirsty mosquito.

AussieMick, you seem to be "Hell-bent" on "proving" that Chief Gallagher was not guilty of the murder of the young, unarmed, wounded, and incapacitated victim. Why? Do you have any interest in justice?

You say this was a real trial. Well, explain why there was a verdict AFTER the revelation in court, and the medic under oath, that his entire pre-trial disclosure of relevant evidence to the prosecution team was rescinded.

Why was this "real trial" not suspended by the Court at this point? This real trial was "rank, it smells to heaven."

David, I wasnt in the court . I didnt hear any of the evidence. I do know that this man was found not guilty of murder. If the prosecution thinks there has been mis-trial I assume that there is a course of action that they can take.
( Although, as has been pointed out, double jeopardy prevents someone being re-tried on the basis that someone else didnt like the result)

As far as justice is concerned I dont think that 'making eye contact' in the court room has any relevance. You say that the person killed was young and unarmed. I think its well known that ISIS will use children as combatants. As far as being unarmed, I'll take your word for it. But it would be impossible, I suggest, during a combat situation to be certain as to who is and who is not armed.

Justice is something I leave to the courts. Do they make mistakes? Yes. But I am certain that they heard more evidence than you or I have read about. They saw and heard the witnesses. I do not try to second guess legal verdicts.

I've lost most of my confidence of the press to report the full story.
I've also lost most of my confidence for them to get right what they do report.

(07-04-2019 07:09 AM)DanielC Wrote:  Next up Thomas Jefferson... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/profess...ed-history

So very sad.

We all knew this was coming!

(07-05-2019 06:00 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  David, I wasnt in the court . I didnt hear any of the evidence. I do know that this man was found not guilty of murder. If the prosecution thinks there has been mis-trial I assume that there is a course of action that they can take.
( Although, as has been pointed out, double jeopardy prevents someone being re-tried on the basis that someone else didnt like the result)

As far as justice is concerned I dont think that 'making eye contact' in the court room has any relevance. You say that the person killed was young and unarmed. I think its well known that ISIS will use children as combatants. As far as being unarmed, I'll take your word for it. But it would be impossible, I suggest, during a combat situation to be certain as to who is and who is not armed.

Justice is something I leave to the courts. Do they make mistakes? Yes. But I am certain that they heard more evidence than you or I have read about. They saw and heard the witnesses. I do not try to second guess legal verdicts.

But it would be impossible, I suggest, during a combat situation to be certain as to who is and who is not armed.

I agree, especially in modern warfare in the Middle East. "Armed" today does not necessarily mean with a gun, rifle, or knife. Unwrap their garments, and the enemy may very well have an arsenal of explosives strapped to him/her and the willingness to die in order to take an infidel with him/her.

Also, don't we need to take into consideration that this was a military court, not a civilian one? And, those "comrades" who made a secret pact to "get" their strict chief in trouble - can we call that a conspiracy? And, wasn't it reported that the first chief prosecutor was dismissed for something like tapping into the defense's emails? Seems to me that there are lots of folks to point fingers at besides the accused.

(07-05-2019 07:07 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:00 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  David, I wasnt in the court . I didnt hear any of the evidence. I do know that this man was found not guilty of murder. If the prosecution thinks there has been mis-trial I assume that there is a course of action that they can take.
( Although, as has been pointed out, double jeopardy prevents someone being re-tried on the basis that someone else didnt like the result)

As far as justice is concerned I dont think that 'making eye contact' in the court room has any relevance. You say that the person killed was young and unarmed. I think its well known that ISIS will use children as combatants. As far as being unarmed, I'll take your word for it. But it would be impossible, I suggest, during a combat situation to be certain as to who is and who is not armed.

Justice is something I leave to the courts. Do they make mistakes? Yes. But I am certain that they heard more evidence than you or I have read about. They saw and heard the witnesses. I do not try to second guess legal verdicts.

But it would be impossible, I suggest, during a combat situation to be certain as to who is and who is not armed.

I agree, especially in modern warfare in the Middle East. "Armed" today does not necessarily mean with a gun, rifle, or knife. Unwrap their garments, and the enemy may very well have an arsenal of explosives strapped to him/her and the willingness to die in order to take an infidel with him/her.

Also, don't we need to take into consideration that this was a military court, not a civilian one? And, those "comrades" who made a secret pact to "get" their strict chief in trouble - can we call that a conspiracy? And, wasn't it reported that the first chief prosecutor was dismissed for something like tapping into the defense's emails? Seems to me that there are lots of folks to point fingers at besides the accused.

Navy SEAL Chief Accused of War Crimes Is Found Not Guilty of Murder
NYTimes July 2, 2019

The SEAL command initially downplayed the platoon members’ reports about the chief, and did not start an investigation of the alleged crimes for more than a year, allowing the trail of evidence to grow cold. The lead prosecutor was removed from the case in May after he was caught improperly attaching tracking software to email messages sent to defense lawyers, leaving his replacement with just a few weeks to catch up before trial. And a key witness changed his story on the stand to favor Chief Gallagher.

Navy SEAL War Crimes Trial in Turmoil Over Claims Prosecutors Spied on Defense May 17, 2019 NYTimes

The Gallagher case in particular has been the subject of a steady stream of leaks in recent months. Even after the Navy judge in the case, Capt. Aaron Rugh, imposed a gag order, important information has sometimes reached reporters before some of the lawyers involved in the case have seen it.

According to a court motion filed by the defense, the clandestine tracking software was sent in an attempt to catch the leakers and sanction them for contempt of court. Judge Rugh and the lead prosecutor, Cmdr. Christopher W. Czaplak, worked with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the United States attorney’s office in San Diego to deploy the software, and met three times to discuss the action without defense lawyers present, according to the motion.

[N]o formal investigation was begun for nearly a year, and by that time, much of the physical evidence in the case, including victims’ bodies, could not be recovered.

Navy SEALs Were Warned Against Reporting Their Chief for War Crimes
April 23, 2019 NYTimes

Stabbing a defenseless teenage captive to death. Picking off a school-age girl and an old man from a sniper’s roost. Indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine-gun fire.

Navy SEAL commandos from Team 7’s Alpha Platoon said they had seen their highly decorated platoon chief commit shocking acts in Iraq. And they had spoken up, repeatedly. But their frustration grew as months passed and they saw no sign of official action.

Tired of being brushed off, seven members of the platoon called a private meeting with their troop commander in March 2018 at Naval Base Coronado near San Diego. According to a confidential Navy criminal investigation report obtained by The New York Times, they gave him the bloody details and asked for a formal investigation.

But instead of launching an investigation that day, the troop commander and his senior enlisted aide — both longtime comrades of the accused platoon leader, Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher — warned the seven platoon members that speaking out could cost them and others their careers, according to the report.

The clear message, one of the seven told investigators, was “Stop talking about it.”

The platoon members eventually forced the referral of their concerns to authorities outside the SEALs, and Chief Gallagher now faces a court-martial, with his trial set to begin May 28.

But the account of the March 2018 meeting and myriad other details in the 439-page report paint a disturbing picture of a subculture within the SEALs that prized aggression, even when it crossed the line, and that protected wrongdoers.

According to the investigation report, the troop commander, Lt. Cmdr. Robert Breisch, said in the meeting that while the SEALs were free to report the killings, the Navy might not look kindly on rank-and-file team members making allegations against a chief. Their careers could be sidetracked, he said, and their elite status revoked; referring to the eagle-and-trident badges worn by SEALs, he said the Navy “will pull your birds.”

The enlisted aide, Master Chief Petty Officer Brian Alazzawi, warned them that the “frag radius” — the area damaged by an explosion — from a war-crime investigation of Chief Gallagher could be wide enough to take down a lot of other SEALs as well, the report said.

As Chief Gallagher’s men were sounding an alarm about killings in Iraq, his superiors were lavishing praise on him. An evaluation quoted in the investigation report called Chief Gallagher the best chief of the 12 in the team, and said, “This is the man I want leading SEALs in combat.”

A few days after the March 2018 meeting, the chief was awarded a Bronze Star for valor under fire in Iraq.

A month later, the seven platoon members finally succeeded in spurring their commanders to formally report the killings of the three Iraqis to the Navy Criminal Investigation Service, by threatening to go directly to top Navy brass and to the news media.

Chief Gallagher was arrested in September on more than a dozen charges, including premeditated murder and attempted murder. If convicted, he could face life in prison. He has pleaded not guilty and denies all the charges.

Back to the original post. It’s a sad day when Colin Kaepernick determines what is offensive.

(07-06-2019 04:57 AM)DanielC Wrote:  Back to the original post. It’s a sad day when Colin Kaepernick determines what is offensive.

Yes it is. I just read that the band Confederate Railroad has been cancelled for a performance somewhere because of their band name.
I also predict that President Grant will find disfavor because he owned a slave (William Jones).

(07-06-2019 06:28 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 04:57 AM)DanielC Wrote:  Back to the original post. It’s a sad day when Colin Kaepernick determines what is offensive.

Yes it is. I just read that the band Confederate Railroad has been cancelled for a performance somewhere because of their band name.
I also predict that President Grant will find disfavor because he owned a slave (William Jones).

Many black fathers (if not all black fathers) have had "the talk" with their sons (and I am not talking about "the birds and the bees"). And, I remember years ago reading that even black members of the U. S. Congress (while members of Congress) have been pulled over for "driving while black" and the utmost respect and deference that young black men must show to the police officers, for their own good.

Is this statement true or not? And, is this still a problem? I believe that Colin Kaepernick has determined that this police practice is offensive.

And Kaepernick wearing socks depicting police as Pigs is not offensive? Is this the right way to go about creating a positive dialogue.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/...pigs-socks

I'm not black, but I remember having that talk from my father.
Show the utmost respect and deference to police officers, for your own good.

And yes, many fathers (and mothers) have "the talk", but it seems some kids never had it, or they choose to ignore it.

(07-06-2019 04:03 PM)DanielC Wrote:  And Kaepernick wearing socks depicting police as Pigs is not offensive? Is this the right way to go about creating a positive dialogue.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/...pigs-socks

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

---

(07-06-2019 04:18 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I'm not black, but I remember having that talk from my father.
Show the utmost respect and deference to police officers, for your own good.

And yes, many fathers (and mothers) have "the talk", but it seems some kids never had it, or they choose to ignore it.

And, which do you think more important, being white or being black?

Mike Rowe’s post on Facebook

Off the Wall
Why would anyone in their right mind support Nike after this latest round of nonsense? Why would any public company with an image to protect take advice from an athlete? How can our attention be sucked up by people with nothing better to do than complain about fireworks and tanks on the fourth of July? Our country seems be losing its mind, or at the very least, its sense of history and perspective. As a man who has always seemed comfortable with our country’s flag, I was hoping you might have some insight to share on this, especially today.
Karen Murphy
Hi Karen
I think Nike has the right to decorate their shoes with whatever flag they desire. I think Kaepernick has the right to offer marketing advice to any company that'll take it. And I think you and I have the right to purchase whatever brand of tennis shoes we choose. The reason these rights exist, is because we live in the United States, and the reason the states are united, is because we decided, two and a half centuries ago, to be free of our British masters. So, we fought a war. Happily, the results of that war made us a free country. Then, four score and seven years later, we decided we could not call ourselves a free country, as long as slavery existed. So, we fought another war. Happily, the results of that war made us freer still. Had either conflict gone the other way, our county would not exist – not as we know it, anyway. And the flag we fly today would look nothing like the one I’m proud to stand for.
In other words, I’m tempted on this day to remind you that there’s nothing inherently dangerous about a sneaker company currying favor with a woke athlete, or fellow citizens complaining about displays of patriotism and military might. On the other hand, I think Ronald Reagan was right when he said we’re always one generation away from losing the freedoms we currently enjoy. Along with the siren song of socialism, the persistent promise of “free” stuff, and the breathtaking level of censorship on our college campuses, I worry about the growing belief among many that we can somehow improve our present by erasing our past; by toppling statues, outlawing “problematic” symbols, or rewriting specific pieces of our history in ways that leave us feeling less offended. George Orwell said it best…
“The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their understanding of history.”
Of course, Orwell also said this...
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
In other words, we can’t deny Kapernick’s right to speak his mind, but we shouldn't ignore the flaws in his thinking. He has argued that the Betsy Ross flag is “racist,” because it flew at a time when slavery was legal in America. By that definition, aren’t crosses are also racist? Weren’t they on churches attended by slave-owning congregants? Why not demand their removal? What about the Bald Eagle? Wasn't our national bird flying around when slaves were held? Why not protest it as well? What about the Great Seal? E Pluribus Unum? The Liberty Bell? It rang countless times while slavery was still the law of the land. Why not demand its removal? Kaepernick's argument is unpersuasive, not because it's unpopular, or unpatriotic. It's unpersuasive because it's completely void of logic.
As for the presence of tanks in parades, I’ll triple down with Orwell, even though its somewhat suspicious to quote an English writer on the occasion of our independence. But it’s tough to argue with this one.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
Sleep well, Karen.
And Happy Independence Day
Mike

(07-06-2019 04:22 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  And, which do you think more important, being white or being black?

Personally, I don't think it's about color.
It's about behaving in a manner that draws attention from law enforcement. That includes being at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people.

Which reminds me of the time I was in the waiting area of the airport. I had just finished eating a chicken biscuit, thrown away my trash when along comes a police officer with a drug sniffing dog. The dog made a direct bee line towards me and starts sniffing me and my carry on luggage. Everyone in the airport is looking at me. I hold out my hands so the dog can get a good sniff of them. I think he could have swallowed my hand whole. I asked the officer if I could pet the dog, and he stated he preferred I didn't. I explained I had just eaten, had two dogs myself and understood this ones attention to me. The officer and the dog seemed satisfied with my response. Wasn't even asked to open my bag. I didn't try to make a scene, or cause a problem. I was polite, showed respect. No problem, and my wife and I decided to look at the incident in a humorous way and not get mad at the police, and the dog, for picking me out of the crowd.