U.S. Navy SEAL acquitted of murder in war crimes trial

By Marty Graham

 

U.S. Navy SEAL Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher leaves for a lunch break with wife Andrea Gallagher from his court-martial trial at Naval Base San Diego, in San Diego, California , U.S., July 2, 2019. REUTERS/John Gastaldo

 

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A U.S. Navy SEAL platoon leader accused of war crimes in Iraq was acquitted by a military jury on Tuesday of murder and all other charges except for unlawfully posing with the corpse of a captive Islamic State fighter.

 

The seven-member jury deliberated for about nine hours before delivering its verdict in the court-martial of Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, a decorated career combat veteran whose case had drawn the interest of U.S. President Donald Trump.

 

The single offences of posing for unofficial pictures with a human casualty, in this case the remains of the Iraqi whom Gallagher was acquitted of killing, carries a maximum sentence of four months imprisonment.

 

Navy authorities said Gallagher has credit for nearly seven months of time already served in pre-trial custody, so he would presumably remain a free man. A sentencing proceeding began after the verdict to determine whether Gallagher faces any other punishment, such as a demotion in rank.

 

The case went to the jury of five U.S. Marines and two Navy personnel - all but one a combat veteran and only one of them an officer - as the trial phase of the court-martial entered its third week at the U.S. Naval Base San Diego.

 

Gallagher could have faced life in prison if found guilty of the most serious charge against him, premeditated murder. Several fellow SEAL team members testified he fatally stabbed the captured Iraqi prisoner in the neck with a custom-made knife after the teenage fighter was brought to Gallagher's outpost for medical treatment.

 

Some of the same witnesses also said they saw Gallagher, who was originally trained as a medic, perform a number of emergency procedures on the detainee before he died.

 

Gallagher also was charged with attempted murder in the wounding of two unarmed civilians - a schoolgirl and an elderly man — shot from a sniper's perch, as well as with firing deliberately on other non-combatants and with obstruction of justice.

 

He was found not guilty of all charges but the one stemming from the photos he and fellow SEAL team members took with the dead Islamic State fighter, who was brought to Gallagher's camp by an Iraqi general after being badly wounded in an air strike.

Gallagher, 39, insisted that disgruntled subordinates with no prior battlefield experience fabricated allegations against him over grievances with his leadership style and tactics.

/

WHITE HOUSE WEIGHED IN

Trump intervened in Gallagher's case months ago, ordering he be moved from pretrial detention in a military brig to confinement at a Navy base. The presiding judge later released Gallagher from custody altogether, in a rebuke to prosecutors for pre-trial conduct the judge said had infringed on the Navy SEAL's right to fair proceedings.

 

The chief petty officer was arrested in 2018, more than a year after returning from his eighth overseas deployment in Mosul, in northern Iraq.

 

In a surprise blow to prosecutors during the first week of the trial, a Navy SEAL medic testified it was he, not Gallagher, who caused the death of the gravely injured prisoner by blocking his breathing tube, calling it a mercy killing.

 

Two defence witnesses - an Iraqi general and a U.S. Marine staff sergeant - later testified they never saw the Iraqi captive mistreated by anyone during the 20 minutes he spent alive in American custody.

 

The senior prosecutor, Navy Commander Jeffrey Pietrzyk, said in his closing arguments on Monday that Gallagher had implicated himself. He cited a photo that Gallagher sent to a friend in May 2017 showing him posed with the Iraqi detainee's corpse, with the text message: "I got a cool story for you when I get back. I got him with my hunting knife."

 

The defence countered that such exhibits fell far short of proving murder, and argued the prosecution lacked any physical evidence to substantiate the most serious charges.

 

(Reporting by Marty Graham in San Diego; Writing and additional reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; editing by Scott Malone, Jonathan Oatis and Chris Reese)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-03

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Fake Yankee military court! It was never going to convict one of their own . Even though witnesses saw the act


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Closed ranks, nothing new.. the Tao of the military world over....

When it comes to disposing of enemy combatant and terrorists especially of those from ISIS and similar crappy splinter groups, it's a fair game, one thing is for sure, if the shoe was on the other foot...

57 minutes ago, wreckingcountry said:

Fake Yankee military court! It was never going to convict one of their own . Even though witnesses saw the act


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Not true.  Your perspective lacks a peripheral understanding and appreciation of so much more it betrays you of a greater understanding of reality - unfortunately for you!

14 minutes ago, Rhys said:

Closed ranks, nothing new.. the Tao of the military world over....

Come on be fair. The jury consisted of independent and neutral citizens. Seven good men and true.

So if he had been captured by Isis,they would have chopped his bloody head off,this 'victim' was a fighter for a manic death cult ,not an innocent civilian,anyway in combat you do what you have too and often have a split second to make a call,the fighter was injured,so he may well have put him out of his misery,all the pc crap being heaped on servicemen/women makes me sick.Watch some of Isis video's sick,crazed ,maniacs,i hope the Iraq courts who have sentenced these scum to death go through with it.

 Gallagher was found NOT GUILTY , end of.

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

Come on be fair. The jury consisted of independent and neutral citizens. Seven good men and true.

 

If your comment above is sarcasm, then you can disregard my comment below.

 

It was a military jury, not a civilian one... So not exactly either independent or neutral.

 

22 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

If your comment above is sarcasm, then you can disregard my comment below.

 

It was a military jury, not a civilian one... So not exactly either independent or neutral.

 

Of course Yogi's comment was extremely sarcastic ????.

 

Or at least I hope so, as if not I will look very silly!

4 hours ago, ezzra said:

When it comes to disposing of enemy combatant and terrorists especially of those from ISIS and similar crappy splinter groups, it's a fair game, one thing is for sure, if the shoe was on the other foot...

Thats ok then. If they murder and behead then we should do it too.

 

So we become them, and I thought we were there because we want it to be better and them more like us.

 

With your view it seems it is them that are winning. We are coming down to their level.

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Thats ok then. If they murder and behead then we should do it too.

 

So we become them, and I thought we were there because we want it to be better and them more like us.

 

With your view it seems it is them that are winning. We are coming down to their level.

Whilst I agree with most of your post, I have to disagree with your second para.

 

"I thought we were there because we want it to be better and them more like us."....

 

I'm sure you don't genuinely believe this?

 

 

Excellent verdict...the only heinous crime this warrior is guilty of is

thinking WhatsApp conversations are private.

4 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Unless you have served in the military, especially in a combat zone, you are not qualified to give an opinion. 

Everybody can give an opinion, whether you like it or not.

On the contrary, I should think that opinions by people who served in the military are probably biased, just like the jury was.

 

42 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

Everybody can give an opinion, whether you like it or not.

On the contrary, I should think that opinions by people who served in the military are probably biased, just like the jury was.

They have a far greater understanding of the situation which rarely transfers to a cosy courtroom thousands of miles away months, years or decades later.

5 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Unless you have served in the military, especially in a combat zone, you are not qualified to give an opinion. 

While I withhold my opinion, it is on the basis of lack of knowledge not from my not serving in combat. I stand opposed of excluding my opinion on the basis of not having served. The Commander in Chief (never mind my opinion of the current one) is a civilian not a military person for a reason. If sent in my name as a citizen, I have a vested interest in the conduct of those troops (and, by all that is just, a responsibility to them for any service related damages).

6 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Unless you have served in the military, especially in a combat zone, you are not qualified to give an opinion. 

While I don't agree with his opinion, anyone is qualified to give one.

6 hours ago, wreckingcountry said:

Fake Yankee military court! It was never going to convict one of their own . Even though witnesses saw the act


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Did you hear all the evidence?

 

6 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Unless you have served in the military, especially in a combat zone, you are not qualified to give an opinion. 

....let alone have any clue what the UCMJ is.  Always easy to point to perceived injustice with little or no actual knowledge concerning the issue.

8 hours ago, wreckingcountry said:

Fake Yankee military court! It was never going to convict one of their own . Even though witnesses saw the act

This man had done 8 combat tours.  Unless you have ever been in the military and in a combat zone, you will never understand the stress one is put under.

 

The Us  military operates under the Code of Military Justice.  Only a military jury could ever be qualified to judge him.

 

He was acquitted and I respect the decision.  

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

This man had done 8 combat tours.  Unless you have ever been in the military and in a combat zone, you will never understand the stress one is put under.

 

The Us  military operates under the Code of Military Justice.  Only a military jury could ever be qualified to judge him.

 

He was acquitted and I respect the decision.  

 

From some of the testimony details recited in the OP, it certainly sounds like there was some level of doubt presented to the jury. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have a personal opinion...

 

Except to add, being in the military, and being a veteran of combat, doesn't give this guy or anyone else, at least in the U.S. military, a free hand to deliberately kill or injure innocent civilians / non-combatants...

 

There was explanation in the article of why he might have be acquitted of the main murder charge.... but nothing much to explain the not guilty findings as relates to the other charges and victims.

 

Quote

Gallagher also was charged with attempted murder in the wounding of two unarmed civilians - a schoolgirl and an elderly man — shot from a sniper's perch, as well as with firing deliberately on other non-combatants and with obstruction of justice.

 

10 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Unless you have served in the military, especially in a combat zone, you are not qualified to give an opinion. 

What about Lieutenant Calley. Did you have to have served in the military or a combat zone to have had an opinion about him and his actions?

Not entirely related but I have just seen this & suspect this board might appreciate it:

 

The world needs more men like Gallagher, NOT pussyfied liberal males still searching for their mothers milk.

50 minutes ago, mike787 said:

The world needs more men like Gallagher, NOT pussyfied liberal males still searching for their mothers milk.

 

So in your book, objecting to a soldier allegedly shooting unarmed civilians -- an elderly man and a schoolgirl -- is evidence of being "pussyfied"?

 

 

Americans, and the GOP make the great mistake of thinking they are more patriotic and moral,  and troll or  use hate-speech  to any valid feedback on their gross indecency or atrocities

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/

 

Sounds like Gallagher basically confessed  "Gallagher also texted a photo of himself with the dead youth to a fellow SEAL with the message, “Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife.” In another text message, Gallagher boasted, “I’ve got a cool story for you when I get back. I’ve got my knife skills on.”

 

oh well.

 

I do agree that what the  Military requires of it's  soldiers and what it does to them exacerbates the worse tendencies in many, esp in combat,  a normal person has some regrets on murdering another human-being ,  that and the anti-psychotics  that are often  given  as  the answer to the  brutal  blight  on our world :  https://www.stripes.com/news/study-antipsychotic-drug-prescribed-for-ptsd-is-ineffective-1.150989

 

 

 

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

So in your book, objecting to a soldier allegedly shooting unarmed civilians -- an elderly man and a schoolgirl -- is evidence of being "pussyfied"?

 

 

In reference to him...Where's the evidence/facts?  Are you the plaintiffs attorney?  Were you there?  Are you god? How much do you know about what happened? I'm just asking....

 

My response is based on factual determination of innocence by a court of law of the alleged accusations with exception of one crime...his photograph with the deceased ISIS member.

 

To answer the other part of your question.  NO, "ALLEGEDLY" innocent people should not be harmed.  The court has rendered its verdict based on all presented information.   

16 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Unless you have served in the military, especially in a combat zone, you are not qualified to give an opinion. 

I've never served in an military action. But as far as I'm concerned the rules of war that the enemies use are the rules they apply. Sick of this pansy western bulllshit. You want to hide behind apparently women and children in the same clothes and try and kill me? Sorry you all die.

 

But that's just me.

14 hours ago, marko kok prong said:

So if he had been captured by Isis,they would have chopped his bloody head off,this 'victim' was a fighter for a manic death cult ,not an innocent civilian,anyway in combat you do what you have too and often have a split second to make a call,the fighter was injured,so he may well have put him out of his misery,all the pc crap being heaped on servicemen/women makes me sick.Watch some of Isis video's sick,crazed ,maniacs,i hope the Iraq courts who have sentenced these scum to death go through with it.

 Gallagher was found NOT GUILTY , end of.

Why was he even charged?

12 hours ago, Sujo said:

So we become them, and I thought we were there because we want it to be better and them more like us.

And thus the 'we are as bad as them' straw man argument predictably rears its head.

12 hours ago, Sujo said:

Thats ok then. If they murder and behead then we should do it too.

 

So we become them, and I thought we were there because we want it to be better and them more like us.

 

With your view it seems it is them that are winning. We are coming down to their level.

The only way we will in is coming down to their level. Destroy them and then re-educate.

if you think assimilation works - you are a fool.