Prosecutors won't drop charges against Navy SEAL despite medic's stunning admission

[rooster59]

Prosecutors won't drop charges against Navy SEAL despite medic's stunning admission

By Marty Graham

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Navy SEAL Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher arrives at court with his wife Andrea and brother Sean (C) for the start of his court-martial trial at Naval Base San Diego in San Diego, California, U.S., June 18, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Blake

 

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - Prosecutors said on Friday they will not drop premeditated murder charges against a Navy SEAL charged with stabbing to death a teenaged Islamic State militant in Iraq in 2017 after another SEAL told a court martial he killed the prisoner.

 

Navy SEAL medic Corey Scott told the court on Thursday the fighter was breathing through a tube when Navy SEAL Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher stabbed him in the neck.

 

Scott said the young man's injuries - a leg wound and collapsed lung - were not life threatening, but that he held his thumb over the breathing tube until the prisoner quit breathing. He said he did it to save the fighter from being tortured by Iraqi forces.

 

"The government will not be dropping premeditated murder charges against Chief Petty Officer Gallagher, despite petty officer Scott's testimony," the Navy said in a statement. "The credibility of a witness is for the jury to decide."

 

Scott, like other SEALs in Gallagher's unit, has been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony.

The prosecution accused Scott in court on Thursday of lying to protect Gallagher, and said his testimony contradicted his previous statements to them and the testimony of other SEALs.

 

The Islamic State fighter had been captured by Iraqi forces following house-to-house fighting in Mosul and dumped on the ground at a base outside the Iraqi city, the prosecution said in its opening statement on Monday.

 

Prosecutors say Gallagher, 39, who began his 18-year career as a medic, briefly treated the young Islamic State fighter, then pulled out his knife and stabbed him in the neck.

 

The judge on Thursday denied an immediate defence motion to dismiss the case.

 

MURDER OR MUTINY?

 

The seven-sailor jury at the court martial must decide whether the fighter's death was murder as alleged by the prosecution or a mutiny by sailors under Gallagher's command in Iraq, as the defence contends.

 

Gallagher could face life in prison if convicted.

 

Defense attorney Tim Parlatore said on Thursday the surprising admission from Scott that he had asphyxiated the wounded fighter showed that the prosecution never asked about the cause of death and the Navy Criminal Investigation service had gone into the case with minds made up.

 

Gallagher' wife, Andrea, told reporters after Thursday's court session ended: "We've been patiently waiting for the truth to come out. It's been lies, half-truths and cover-ups till now."

 

Gallagher is also charged with attempted murder in the wounding of two civilians, a schoolgirl and an elderly man, shot from a sniper’s perch in Iraq.

 

The court martial has drawn national attention - including that of President Donald Trump who said last month that he was considering pardons for a number of military service members accused of war crimes; Gallagher’s case was believed to be one of those under review.

 

(Reporting by Marty Graham; Editing by Bill Tarrant and Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[mercman24]

so  much for navy seals , code of honour, yeah dob your mate in, you were at war you idiots, they would have chopped youe bloody head off, we got the same in the UK chasing old soldiers 50/60 years after an event in Northern Ireland. so do we go to war and shake hands with the enemy. ?? of course not,

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, mercman24 said:

so  much for navy seals , code of honour, yeah dob your mate in, you were at war you idiots, they would have chopped youe bloody head off, we got the same in the UK chasing old soldiers 50/60 years after an event in Northern Ireland. so do we go to war and shake hands with the enemy. ?? of course not,

Yes but even in war you should not be murdering the enemy. Even war has it rules. I bet your one of those guys first to complain about how bad the other side is. For years the Nazi's were shown to evil shooting POW's (and they were evil and did so) but later it came out the good side did the same. 

 

War crimes are still war crimes no matter who does them.

[ezzra]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

teenaged Islamic State militant

Murder or not, but when the tabloids and the media referring to a terrorist as ' IS militant and fighter' instead of describing him as to what he really is, a  merciless murderer TERRORIST, comes to show how far left they have become and right is Trump to declare and point out that most is not all media are indeed fakers and distorters of the truth...

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Murder or not, but when the tabloids and the media referring to a terrorist as ' IS militant and fighter' instead of describing him as to what he really is, a  merciless murderer TERRORIST, comes to show how far left they have become and right is Trump to declare and point out that most is not all media are indeed fakers and distorters of the truth...

What do the military refer to this man and those he fought alongside of?

 

 

[hansnl]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Yes but even in war you should not be murdering the enemy. Even war has it rules. I bet your one of those guys first to complain about how bad the other side is. For years the Nazi's were shown to evil shooting POW's (and they were evil and did so) but later it came out the good side did the same. 

 

War crimes are still war crimes no matter who does them.

Quite obvious you live in la-la-land.

By the way, it were German military who did the thing, I have never heard about Naziland military fighting against Republiciland and Conservativeland

[Rimmer]

Troll post removed

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, mercman24 said:

so  much for navy seals , code of honour, yeah dob your mate in, you were at war you idiots, they would have chopped youe bloody head off, we got the same in the UK chasing old soldiers 50/60 years after an event in Northern Ireland. so do we go to war and shake hands with the enemy. ?? of course not,

The combatant was a POW under U.S. medical care.

As such his death was murder under U.S. and international standards.

There is no honor in Western civilizations for such an act.

[John1012]

Scott, like other SEALs in Gallagher's unit, has been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony      I wonder what these EX SEALs will be doing next...I don't suppose any current serving SEALS would be prepared to serve with them again...they cannot be trusted to protect their own comrades from the PC brigade..... Some <deleted> said he was a POW....was he a member of a legitimate army from a country that the USA was at war with? Or was he just another murdering Islamic terrorist who would have had no compunction to torture and kill any US soldier he caught? 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, John1012 said:

Scott, like other SEALs in Gallagher's unit, has been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony      I wonder what these EX SEALs will be doing next...I don't suppose any current serving SEALS would be prepared to serve with them again...they cannot be trusted to protect their own comrades from the PC brigade..... Some <deleted> said he was a POW....was he a member of a legitimate army from a country that the USA was at war with? Or was he just another murdering Islamic terrorist who would have had no compunction to torture and kill any US soldier he caught? 

What does US Military Law say he was and what does US Military Law say about the acceptable behaviour of US Military Personnel towards a captured and injured enemy fighter?

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Scott, like other SEALs in Gallagher's unit, has been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony.

So, he gets immunity in return for testifying and then says he did it?

 

It’s like a scene from a low budget cop show or literally one from “Only Fools and Horses”

 

 

[Mac98]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What does US Military Law say he was and what does US Military Law say about the acceptable behaviour of US Military Personnel towards a captured and injured enemy fighter?

 

 

They are still trying to figure that out; so Gitmo continues to hold select captured fighters, neither as POWs to be released when the war ends, nor as terrorists to be tried in civil courts.

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

War crimes provide valuable propaganda to the enemy, while increasing the likelihood that personnel on both sides of the conflict will suffer abusive treatment if captured. In addition they feed hatred and resentment that makes peace more difficult to achieve.

 

The murders committed by British soldiers in Northern Ireland are an example of precisely how allowing troops to commit murder with impunity feeds the conflict and poisons the peace.

 

But you apparently don't see anything wrong in the Irish republican groups cowardly murdering innocent civilians including women, children and old people and then being granted an immunity pardon.

 

You also assume, and its a very big assumption, that British Soldiers, were "allowed". Can we see your evidence?

 

You might care to reflect how the same British Army sacrificed many British lives in two world wars to protect you country whose populations were being treated much worse by Imperial and Nazi German occupiers. You may also like to reflect on your country's appalling treatment of Africans in its colonies - undoubtedly the worse of any colonial power including Imperial Germany. And no ones yet been brought to account for it.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Baerboxer

[scorecard]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes but even in war you should not be murdering the enemy. Even war has it rules. I bet your one of those guys first to complain about how bad the other side is. For years the Nazi's were shown to evil shooting POW's (and they were evil and did so) but later it came out the good side did the same. 

 

War crimes are still war crimes no matter who does them.

 And there's plenty more similar examples from every war, including the Vietnam war, many incidents, the one that got the most media attention being the meelai massacre. 

[rott]

On 6/22/2019 at 8:45 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

War crimes provide valuable propaganda to the enemy, while increasing the likelihood that personnel on both sides of the conflict will suffer abusive treatment if captured. In addition they feed hatred and resentment that makes peace more difficult to achieve.

 

The murders committed by British soldiers in Northern Ireland are an example of precisely how allowing troops to commit murder with impunity feeds the conflict and poisons the peace.

The Irish Catholics committed murder with impunity on a grand scale for thirty years, that was what fed the conflict.