|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting.
Fixed. Reference for those interested, but contains spoilers on “The Watchmen” movie and comics.
User was warned for this post.
|
My experience is that a lot of "normal" people are deeply suspicious of any form of activism, whether it's antifa presence or neo-nazi demonstrations. You should read the comments in the local newspapers any time there is some sort of incident, maybe involving graffiti or street art of demonstrations. The most vocal voices are always along the lines of "the police should wipe the streets clean and get rid of all subversives and troublemakers". Or alternatively it is: "if you want to influence policy just shut up and vote once per four years".
Of course "normal" people can be very reactionary, they will be apolitical in a deliberately obtuse manner. But you still find them a lot.
That's one of the dilemmas of political activism, if you dilute too much it becomes pointless, but if you stand for something you'll alienate all the idiots that are like: "keep your politics outside of my city!", who will then sic the police on you.
|
On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed.
You guys have a ton of references that I don't have.
|
On July 03 2019 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed. You guys have a ton of references that I don't have.
It’s actually a pretty cool comic, haven’t seen the movie though. You might like it. Edited the post to a link to the reference though if you’re not interested in seeing/watching it.
|
On July 03 2019 22:29 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed. You guys have a ton of references that I don't have. It’s actually a pretty cool comic, haven’t seen the movie though. You might like it. Edited the post to a link to the reference though if you’re not interested in seeing/watching it.
Am I a comic book villain?
|
On July 03 2019 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed. You guys have a ton of references that I don't have. He replaced you with someone who manipulated shit so half the world population got wiped out, but the end result was an "alien"-enforced worldwide peace accord in which all of humanity's weapons were rendered useless and they literally couldn't wage war anymore. In other words. the end justifies the means taken to its extreme.
+ Show Spoiler +I say alien, because Dr. Manhattan was not human anymore
He identified your whole spiel there as a pretty horrific "end justifies the means" thingy. The problem with any such thing is that we have to agree with the end. Your end is, I guess, a world in which there is no overt fascism? Does that really justify the means of systematic violence against them? Especially as there are other means to reach that end, as we have shown in post-WW2 Europe, where fascism is simply illegal. Fascistic organizations are illegal. Fascist propaganda is illegal. And we have no overt fascism.
Now you can say that we fought one of the most violent wars in human history before we got to the point where we passed those laws, but I don't think it is necessary to fight fascism with violence first, rather than skipping straight to the part where we as a society recognize it is a dangerous and horrific ideology and ban it in other places than just western Europe.
Moreover, if you look at the end goal of fascism, it is actually quite attractive. No less so than the communist end goal. Neither can work at all given human nature (communism because people are selfish and greedy, and fascism because society is not homogenous, and never will be). The main problem with fascism isn't the goal, it's the means. It very explicitly glorifies violence as the means to the end. You doing so yourself makes you no better than those fascists you want to fight.
|
On July 03 2019 22:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed. You guys have a ton of references that I don't have. He replaced you with someone who manipulated shit so half the world population got wiped out, but the end result was an "alien"-enforced worldwide peace accord in which all of humanity's weapons were rendered useless and they literally couldn't wage war anymore. In other words. the end justifies the means taken to its extreme. + Show Spoiler +I say alien, because Dr. Manhattan was not human anymore He identified your whole spiel there as a pretty horrific "end justifies the means" thingy. The problem with any such thing is that we have to agree with the end. Your end is, I guess, a world in which there is no overt fascism? Does that really justify the means of systematic violence against them? Especially as there are other means to reach that end, as we have shown in post-WW2 Europe, where fascism is simply illegal. Fascistic organizations are illegal. Fascist propaganda is illegal. And we have no overt fascism. Now you can say that we fought one of the most violent wars in human history before we got to the point where we passed those laws, but I don't think it is necessary to fight fascism with violence first, rather than skipping straight to the part where we as a society recognize it is a dangerous and horrific ideology and ban it in other places than just western Europe. Moreover, if you look at the end goal of fascism, it is actually quite attractive. No less so than the communist end goal. Neither can work at all given human nature (communism because people are selfish and greedy, and fascism because society is not homogenous, and never will be). The main problem with fascism isn't the goal, it's the means. It very explicitly glorifies violence as the means to the end. You doing so yourself makes you no better than those fascists you want to fight.
Once again I'm all in favor of laws banning fascism. That's obviously better than antifa. It's just that it's not going to happen in the US any time soon and in the meantime I won't be morally annoyed by people reacting against fascism, even with violence.
I think that having a law that bans fascism is violent, and I think the blind spot that a lot of liberals (I wouldn't have called you a liberal but that's a liberal instinct) have against state violence is a little weird.
The end goal of fascism is atrocious. It's a society in which social hierarchy is reinforced and there is no way to climb the social hierarchy because it's based on your identity rather than your skill. You're born the wrong kind of person, your rights are restricted, there's nothing you can do, that's it, end of story. On top of that, there's no reason why the fascists have to stop restricting rights once they start winning. They're going to start with immigrants and trans people, but if they aren't stopped they can go to leftists, then to black and brown people, then to gay people, then to irish and italian people, then to people without blue eyes and to Slavs... it doesn't matter, the rules are made up.
This is just an iteration of the meme, isn't it?
We have the guy who comes around and says: "I want to restrict the rights of millions of people because of their race, heritage, sexual orientation or political views." Then the other guy answers: "I want to stop that guy by any means necessary, even by violence." And you're on the side going: "I literally can't tell the difference."
|
On July 03 2019 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:29 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed. You guys have a ton of references that I don't have. It’s actually a pretty cool comic, haven’t seen the movie though. You might like it. Edited the post to a link to the reference though if you’re not interested in seeing/watching it. Am I a comic book villain?
Acrofales masterfully explained what I was getting at, but FWIW, even though Ozy is technically the villain, I had (and still have) a hard time viewing him as “the bad guy”, especially compared to the supposed protagonist. Establishing world peace is a pretty monumental achievement, hard to determine what it’s worth to make a reality. Really amazing writing and characters...ugh I could go on.
Regardless, didn’t intend anything bad by it. That paragraph just struck me as something Ozymandias would say.
|
A look towards end goals is one of the ways in which fascism and communism can be significantly contrasted imo, and it’s a good basis for disputing horseshoe theory accordingly.
|
|
On July 03 2019 22:45 Acrofales wrote: Moreover, if you look at the end goal of fascism, it is actually quite attractive. No less so than the communist end goal. Neither can work at all given human nature (communism because people are selfish and greedy, and fascism because society is not homogenous, and never will be). The main problem with fascism isn't the goal, it's the means. It very explicitly glorifies violence as the means to the end. You doing so yourself makes you no better than those fascists you want to fight. This reads like a LegalLord post, didn't expect it from you. What parts of the end goal of fascism do you find attractive?
|
On July 03 2019 23:43 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:45 Acrofales wrote: Moreover, if you look at the end goal of fascism, it is actually quite attractive. No less so than the communist end goal. Neither can work at all given human nature (communism because people are selfish and greedy, and fascism because society is not homogenous, and never will be). The main problem with fascism isn't the goal, it's the means. It very explicitly glorifies violence as the means to the end. You doing so yourself makes you no better than those fascists you want to fight. This reads like a LegalLord post, didn't expect it from you. What parts of the end goal of fascism do you find attractive? A society that works entirely for the benefit of the society, everybody born into their place and satisfied with that place doesn't sound attractive to you?
The main problem is that it assumes that because you are born into position X you will be happy with position X. A Brave New World does an excellent job of illustrating the "flaws" in humanity that make it so this is never possible. But if humans were more like ants, it would be utopia.
|
It doesn't assume that you will be happy about it at all. It just couldn't care less what you think, because you aren't human enough.
|
In other news, Edward Gallagher was acquitted of every charge but the one they had a photo of; despite a text and picture from him days after the event bsaying he killed the teen with his own knife, two eyewitnesses saying they saw him doing the stabbing, and other earwitness reports of Gallagher saying that he did it and that he thought everyone was cool with it, the case looks like it was mostly decided on a named witness who changed their testimony halfway through the trial to say that they committed the murder instead, with no evidence to support that claim. This is the guy who got turned in by his own squad for being a killer along soldiers, and he's going to be let go.
This seems really messed up. The defense team said it was a conspiracy because a Navy SEAL wasn't coddling his group (??? I thought they never got coddled at all because they're supposed to be super elite soldiers), and this also wasn't an isolated event. This is the same guy who was said to be sniping civilians. I admit that I don't pay attention to battlefield matters that much, but is this normal? I imagine GH would say yes, and I'd like to hear his answer, but I'd like to hear someone else with subject knowledge here too. Is this routine shit?
NYTimes article, I copied the text of it below. + Show Spoiler + SAN DIEGO — In a war-crimes trial that roiled the elite Navy SEALs and drew the attention of President Trump, a decorated eight-tour SEAL platoon leader was found not guilty on Tuesday of first-degree murder of a captive ISIS fighter and attempted murder of civilians in Iraq.
But the platoon leader, Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, was convicted of one charge: posing for photos with the teenage captive’s dead body.
Chief Gallagher, 40, who was serving with SEAL Team 7, became a rallying cause of some Republicans in Congress and members of the conservative media. Mr. Trump said on Twitter in March that he would have the chief released from pretrial confinement “in honor of his past service to our country.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump congratulated Chief Gallagher in a Twitter message and added, “Glad I could help!”
Because the maximum sentence Chief Gallagher could now face is four months, and he has spent more time than that in pretrial confinement, he was expected to go free after sentencing on Wednesday. But he could still face administrative punishment from the Navy, including an other-than-honorable discharge.
The chief was turned in by his own platoon last spring. Several fellow SEALs reported that their leader had shot civilians and killed the captive Islamic State fighter with a custom hunting knife during a deployment in Iraq in 2017. He was also charged with obstruction of justice by threatening to kill SEALs who reported him.
In the SEALs, Chief Gallagher had a reputation as a “pirate” — an operator more interested in fighting terrorists than in adhering to the rules and making rank. When members of his platoon reported his actions to superior officers, fissures were revealed in the polished image of the SEALs and the unwritten code of silence among members of the secretive force, who see themselves as a brotherhood.
Some of the platoon members who spoke out were called traitors in a closed Facebook group and were threatened with violence. In court, some said they had started carrying weapons for self-defense.
From the beginning, the Navy portrayed the murder case in particular as a simple one with eyewitnesses to the crime and a culprit whose text messages appeared to admit guilt. But the military repeatedly stumbled in investigating and prosecuting the chief.
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.
The witness, Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a SEAL medic who was given immunity from prosecution by the Navy, stunned prosecutors by testifying that he, and not Chief Gallagher, had killed the captive, by covering a breathing tube inserted in the captive’s neck. His testimony also deviated in other significant ways from what he had told investigators before trial; the Navy has indicated it is considering charging him with perjury.
In a courtroom at Naval Base San Diego, close to the harbor where hulking destroyers and missile cruisers dock, a jury of five Marines, a member of the SEALs and a Navy officer, nearly all with combat experience, spent two weeks hearing testimony in the trial, including unvarnished accounts of one platoon in the Navy’s celebrated elite commando force. They deliberated for a little more than eight hours before reaching a verdict.
“The jury found him not guilty of the murder, not guilty of the stabbing, not guilty of the stabbings, not guilty of all those things,” one of his lawyers, Timothy Parlatore, told reporters outside the courtroom. “They did find him guilty of taking a photograph with a dead terrorist, which we admitted from the beginning.”
Chief Gallagher sat stoically in the courtroom in a white dress uniform during the trial, with his wife, brother, mother and father, who was a West Point graduate, sitting behind him. He did not testify.
Marc Mukasey, another of his lawyers, said the chief began to cry when the verdict was read. He described the moment as “tears of joy, elation, freedom, absolute euphoria.”
Chief Gallagher emerged from the courthouse beaming, hugging his wife and brother as photographers thronged around his legal team.
Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who put the team together, said it was time to stop second-guessing the men and women fighting overseas.
“Let them do their job. Eddie Gallagher did his job,” Mr. Kerik said. “He’s a hero. He’s a hero in the eyes of every American who followed this case.”
There was little physical evidence in the case, so the trial hinged on the credibility of the platoon members who testified. Prosecutors held them up as courageous whistle-blowers who broke the SEAL code of silence to stop a rogue chief who was on a track to higher leadership positions. The defense painted the accusers as scared and entitled millennials who could not meet their chief’s high expectations, and fabricated war-crimes allegations to take him down.
“He didn’t coddle them,” Mr. Parlatore told the jury, so the platoon “fomented a plan of hate and mutiny.”
The case centered around the death of the captive fighter, who was brought in to the SEALs’ command post near Mosul, Iraq, by Iraqi forces. SEALs testified that after giving the fighter first aid, Chief Gallagher, a trained medic, stabbed the fighter repeatedly in the neck.
SEALs from the platoon also accused him of firing from a sniper post at unarmed civilians who posed no threat, including an old man and a schoolgirl. Chief Gallagher denied all the charges.
About 20 minutes after the captive died, Chief Gallagher posed for what both sides in the trial described as trophy photos with the corpse. In one hand he held the captive’s hair; in the other he held a small, custom-made hunting knife by the captive’s bandaged neck. Some of the photos show several other SEALs gathered around and smiling.
A few days later, Chief Gallagher texted the photo to comrades in the United States, sending one the message, “Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife.”
During two weeks of testimony, two SEALs testified that they had seen Chief Gallagher stab the captive in the neck for no clear reason. Several others said that they heard the chief admit to the killing that evening when confronted by the platoon, and that he told them, “I thought everyone would be cool with it; next time, I’ll do it where you can’t see.”
The defense described the accusers as disgruntled conspirators who plotted in a group text chat they called the “sewing circle.” The chief’s lawyers said the men were bitter because their chief was stealing snacks from them, needlessly exposing them to fire and then calling them cowards when they questioned his tactics.
The defense argued that the evidence for the charges of shooting civilians was so vague that in one case it amounted to little more than one sniper saying he thought he saw Chief Gallagher shoot someone, but did not actually see Chief Gallagher pull the trigger.
“There is no physical proof this ever happened, no date, no day, no photos, no video,” Mr. Mukasey told the jury. “There is no proof they ever happened, period.”
In rebuttal on Monday, Lt. Scott McDonald, one of the Navy prosecutors, told the jury that the defense’s theory of a platoon conspiracy did not make sense because Chief Gallagher’s text messages of him posing with the corpse were not discovered until months after platoon members reported the stabbing to law enforcement.
“An incredible coincidence,” Lieutenant McDonald said. “Out of all the false allegations they would supposedly make up, it would be the one he admitted to.”
The jury of officers and relatively high-ranking enlisted troops listened as matters the Navy probably did not want to air publicly were discussed in court.
At one point, the classified rules of engagement that guided SEALs on who they could kill in Iraq were delivered in a locked black bag by an armed guard. They were not read aloud in court, but one Marine attached to the SEAL platoon testified about part of what they said. Regarding one section of the crowded city of 660,000 along the Tigris River, the Marine testified that for SEAL snipers, “everything on the other side of the river was good to go, was cleared hot, were good targets.”
Other details brought out at trial cast unfavorable light on the elite SEALs. According to testimony, Chief Gallagher’s platoon built a rooftop bar at their compound and had empty beer cans rolling around in their trucks; a lieutenant made a video montage for the platoon, set to music, of enemy corpses from the deployment; a number of SEALs and Marines besides Chief Gallagher took photos with the dead ISIS fighter; and one SEAL mistook a car loaded with women and children in Mosul for ISIS fighters and flew a hand-launched explosive drone, known as a Switchblade, into the vehicle, killing them all.
|
On July 04 2019 00:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:In other news, Edward Gallagher was acquitted of every charge but the one they had a photo of; despite a text and picture from him days after the event bsaying he killed the teen with his own knife, two eyewitnesses saying they saw him doing the stabbing, and other earwitness reports of Gallagher saying that he did it and that he thought everyone was cool with it, the case looks like it was mostly decided on a named witness who changed their testimony halfway through the trial to say that they committed the murder instead, with no evidence to support that claim. This is the guy who got turned in by his own squad for being a killer along soldiers, and he's going to be let go. This seems really messed up. The defense team said it was a conspiracy because a Navy SEAL wasn't coddling his group (??? I thought they never got coddled at all because they're supposed to be super elite soldiers), and this also wasn't an isolated event. This is the same guy who was said to be sniping civilians. I admit that I don't pay attention to battlefield matters that much, but is this normal? I imagine GH would say yes, and I'd like to hear his answer, but I'd like to hear someone else with subject knowledge here too. Is this routine shit? NYTimes article, I copied the text of it below.+ Show Spoiler + SAN DIEGO — In a war-crimes trial that roiled the elite Navy SEALs and drew the attention of President Trump, a decorated eight-tour SEAL platoon leader was found not guilty on Tuesday of first-degree murder of a captive ISIS fighter and attempted murder of civilians in Iraq.
But the platoon leader, Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, was convicted of one charge: posing for photos with the teenage captive’s dead body.
Chief Gallagher, 40, who was serving with SEAL Team 7, became a rallying cause of some Republicans in Congress and members of the conservative media. Mr. Trump said on Twitter in March that he would have the chief released from pretrial confinement “in honor of his past service to our country.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump congratulated Chief Gallagher in a Twitter message and added, “Glad I could help!”
Because the maximum sentence Chief Gallagher could now face is four months, and he has spent more time than that in pretrial confinement, he was expected to go free after sentencing on Wednesday. But he could still face administrative punishment from the Navy, including an other-than-honorable discharge.
The chief was turned in by his own platoon last spring. Several fellow SEALs reported that their leader had shot civilians and killed the captive Islamic State fighter with a custom hunting knife during a deployment in Iraq in 2017. He was also charged with obstruction of justice by threatening to kill SEALs who reported him.
In the SEALs, Chief Gallagher had a reputation as a “pirate” — an operator more interested in fighting terrorists than in adhering to the rules and making rank. When members of his platoon reported his actions to superior officers, fissures were revealed in the polished image of the SEALs and the unwritten code of silence among members of the secretive force, who see themselves as a brotherhood.
Some of the platoon members who spoke out were called traitors in a closed Facebook group and were threatened with violence. In court, some said they had started carrying weapons for self-defense.
From the beginning, the Navy portrayed the murder case in particular as a simple one with eyewitnesses to the crime and a culprit whose text messages appeared to admit guilt. But the military repeatedly stumbled in investigating and prosecuting the chief.
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.
The witness, Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a SEAL medic who was given immunity from prosecution by the Navy, stunned prosecutors by testifying that he, and not Chief Gallagher, had killed the captive, by covering a breathing tube inserted in the captive’s neck. His testimony also deviated in other significant ways from what he had told investigators before trial; the Navy has indicated it is considering charging him with perjury.
In a courtroom at Naval Base San Diego, close to the harbor where hulking destroyers and missile cruisers dock, a jury of five Marines, a member of the SEALs and a Navy officer, nearly all with combat experience, spent two weeks hearing testimony in the trial, including unvarnished accounts of one platoon in the Navy’s celebrated elite commando force. They deliberated for a little more than eight hours before reaching a verdict.
“The jury found him not guilty of the murder, not guilty of the stabbing, not guilty of the stabbings, not guilty of all those things,” one of his lawyers, Timothy Parlatore, told reporters outside the courtroom. “They did find him guilty of taking a photograph with a dead terrorist, which we admitted from the beginning.”
Chief Gallagher sat stoically in the courtroom in a white dress uniform during the trial, with his wife, brother, mother and father, who was a West Point graduate, sitting behind him. He did not testify.
Marc Mukasey, another of his lawyers, said the chief began to cry when the verdict was read. He described the moment as “tears of joy, elation, freedom, absolute euphoria.”
Chief Gallagher emerged from the courthouse beaming, hugging his wife and brother as photographers thronged around his legal team.
Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who put the team together, said it was time to stop second-guessing the men and women fighting overseas.
“Let them do their job. Eddie Gallagher did his job,” Mr. Kerik said. “He’s a hero. He’s a hero in the eyes of every American who followed this case.”
There was little physical evidence in the case, so the trial hinged on the credibility of the platoon members who testified. Prosecutors held them up as courageous whistle-blowers who broke the SEAL code of silence to stop a rogue chief who was on a track to higher leadership positions. The defense painted the accusers as scared and entitled millennials who could not meet their chief’s high expectations, and fabricated war-crimes allegations to take him down.
“He didn’t coddle them,” Mr. Parlatore told the jury, so the platoon “fomented a plan of hate and mutiny.”
The case centered around the death of the captive fighter, who was brought in to the SEALs’ command post near Mosul, Iraq, by Iraqi forces. SEALs testified that after giving the fighter first aid, Chief Gallagher, a trained medic, stabbed the fighter repeatedly in the neck.
SEALs from the platoon also accused him of firing from a sniper post at unarmed civilians who posed no threat, including an old man and a schoolgirl. Chief Gallagher denied all the charges.
About 20 minutes after the captive died, Chief Gallagher posed for what both sides in the trial described as trophy photos with the corpse. In one hand he held the captive’s hair; in the other he held a small, custom-made hunting knife by the captive’s bandaged neck. Some of the photos show several other SEALs gathered around and smiling.
A few days later, Chief Gallagher texted the photo to comrades in the United States, sending one the message, “Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife.”
During two weeks of testimony, two SEALs testified that they had seen Chief Gallagher stab the captive in the neck for no clear reason. Several others said that they heard the chief admit to the killing that evening when confronted by the platoon, and that he told them, “I thought everyone would be cool with it; next time, I’ll do it where you can’t see.”
The defense described the accusers as disgruntled conspirators who plotted in a group text chat they called the “sewing circle.” The chief’s lawyers said the men were bitter because their chief was stealing snacks from them, needlessly exposing them to fire and then calling them cowards when they questioned his tactics.
The defense argued that the evidence for the charges of shooting civilians was so vague that in one case it amounted to little more than one sniper saying he thought he saw Chief Gallagher shoot someone, but did not actually see Chief Gallagher pull the trigger.
“There is no physical proof this ever happened, no date, no day, no photos, no video,” Mr. Mukasey told the jury. “There is no proof they ever happened, period.”
In rebuttal on Monday, Lt. Scott McDonald, one of the Navy prosecutors, told the jury that the defense’s theory of a platoon conspiracy did not make sense because Chief Gallagher’s text messages of him posing with the corpse were not discovered until months after platoon members reported the stabbing to law enforcement.
“An incredible coincidence,” Lieutenant McDonald said. “Out of all the false allegations they would supposedly make up, it would be the one he admitted to.”
The jury of officers and relatively high-ranking enlisted troops listened as matters the Navy probably did not want to air publicly were discussed in court.
At one point, the classified rules of engagement that guided SEALs on who they could kill in Iraq were delivered in a locked black bag by an armed guard. They were not read aloud in court, but one Marine attached to the SEAL platoon testified about part of what they said. Regarding one section of the crowded city of 660,000 along the Tigris River, the Marine testified that for SEAL snipers, “everything on the other side of the river was good to go, was cleared hot, were good targets.”
Other details brought out at trial cast unfavorable light on the elite SEALs. According to testimony, Chief Gallagher’s platoon built a rooftop bar at their compound and had empty beer cans rolling around in their trucks; a lieutenant made a video montage for the platoon, set to music, of enemy corpses from the deployment; a number of SEALs and Marines besides Chief Gallagher took photos with the dead ISIS fighter; and one SEAL mistook a car loaded with women and children in Mosul for ISIS fighters and flew a hand-launched explosive drone, known as a Switchblade, into the vehicle, killing them all.
This is a pretty extensive look into seal team 6: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/
Roberts’s death, and the subsequent operations in eastern Afghanistan during the winter 2002 deployment, left an indelible impression on SEAL Team 6, especially on Red Team. According to multiple SEAL Team 6 sources, the events of that day set off a cascade of extraordinary violence. As the legend of SEAL Team 6 grew, a rogue culture arose that operated outside of the Navy’s established mechanisms for command and investigation. Parts of SEAL Team 6 began acting with an air of impunity that disturbed observers within the command. Senior members of SEAL Team 6 felt the pattern of brutality was not only illegal but rose to the level of war crimes.
“To understand the violence, you have to begin at Roberts Ridge,” said one former member of SEAL Team 6 who deployed several times to Afghanistan. “When you see your friend killed, recover his body, and find that the enemy mutilated him? It’s a schoolyard mentality. ‘You guys want to play with those rules?’ ‘OK.’” Although this former SEAL acknowledged that war crimes are wrong, he understood how they happen. “You ask me to go living with the pigs, but I can’t go live with pigs and then not get dirty.”
|
On July 03 2019 22:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:45 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed. You guys have a ton of references that I don't have. He replaced you with someone who manipulated shit so half the world population got wiped out, but the end result was an "alien"-enforced worldwide peace accord in which all of humanity's weapons were rendered useless and they literally couldn't wage war anymore. In other words. the end justifies the means taken to its extreme. + Show Spoiler +I say alien, because Dr. Manhattan was not human anymore He identified your whole spiel there as a pretty horrific "end justifies the means" thingy. The problem with any such thing is that we have to agree with the end. Your end is, I guess, a world in which there is no overt fascism? Does that really justify the means of systematic violence against them? Especially as there are other means to reach that end, as we have shown in post-WW2 Europe, where fascism is simply illegal. Fascistic organizations are illegal. Fascist propaganda is illegal. And we have no overt fascism. Now you can say that we fought one of the most violent wars in human history before we got to the point where we passed those laws, but I don't think it is necessary to fight fascism with violence first, rather than skipping straight to the part where we as a society recognize it is a dangerous and horrific ideology and ban it in other places than just western Europe. Moreover, if you look at the end goal of fascism, it is actually quite attractive. No less so than the communist end goal. Neither can work at all given human nature (communism because people are selfish and greedy, and fascism because society is not homogenous, and never will be). The main problem with fascism isn't the goal, it's the means. It very explicitly glorifies violence as the means to the end. You doing so yourself makes you no better than those fascists you want to fight. We have the guy who comes around and says: "I want to restrict the rights of millions of people because of their race, heritage, sexual orientation or political views." Then the other guy answers: "I want to stop that guy by any means necessary, even by violence." And you're on the side going: "I literally can't tell the difference."
That pretty much sums up what I've seen. "All violence is bad" is so reductive it leaves people unable to distinguish someone who wants to commit genocide from someone who is willing to use violence to prevent it.
I also want to know what the hell the people that think fascists should be talked out of their positions are waiting for? Who are they expecting to do that for them?
On July 04 2019 00:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2019 00:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:In other news, Edward Gallagher was acquitted of every charge but the one they had a photo of; despite a text and picture from him days after the event bsaying he killed the teen with his own knife, two eyewitnesses saying they saw him doing the stabbing, and other earwitness reports of Gallagher saying that he did it and that he thought everyone was cool with it, the case looks like it was mostly decided on a named witness who changed their testimony halfway through the trial to say that they committed the murder instead, with no evidence to support that claim. This is the guy who got turned in by his own squad for being a killer along soldiers, and he's going to be let go. This seems really messed up. The defense team said it was a conspiracy because a Navy SEAL wasn't coddling his group (??? I thought they never got coddled at all because they're supposed to be super elite soldiers), and this also wasn't an isolated event. This is the same guy who was said to be sniping civilians. I admit that I don't pay attention to battlefield matters that much, but is this normal? I imagine GH would say yes, and I'd like to hear his answer, but I'd like to hear someone else with subject knowledge here too. Is this routine shit? NYTimes article, I copied the text of it below.+ Show Spoiler + SAN DIEGO — In a war-crimes trial that roiled the elite Navy SEALs and drew the attention of President Trump, a decorated eight-tour SEAL platoon leader was found not guilty on Tuesday of first-degree murder of a captive ISIS fighter and attempted murder of civilians in Iraq.
But the platoon leader, Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, was convicted of one charge: posing for photos with the teenage captive’s dead body.
Chief Gallagher, 40, who was serving with SEAL Team 7, became a rallying cause of some Republicans in Congress and members of the conservative media. Mr. Trump said on Twitter in March that he would have the chief released from pretrial confinement “in honor of his past service to our country.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump congratulated Chief Gallagher in a Twitter message and added, “Glad I could help!”
Because the maximum sentence Chief Gallagher could now face is four months, and he has spent more time than that in pretrial confinement, he was expected to go free after sentencing on Wednesday. But he could still face administrative punishment from the Navy, including an other-than-honorable discharge.
The chief was turned in by his own platoon last spring. Several fellow SEALs reported that their leader had shot civilians and killed the captive Islamic State fighter with a custom hunting knife during a deployment in Iraq in 2017. He was also charged with obstruction of justice by threatening to kill SEALs who reported him.
In the SEALs, Chief Gallagher had a reputation as a “pirate” — an operator more interested in fighting terrorists than in adhering to the rules and making rank. When members of his platoon reported his actions to superior officers, fissures were revealed in the polished image of the SEALs and the unwritten code of silence among members of the secretive force, who see themselves as a brotherhood.
Some of the platoon members who spoke out were called traitors in a closed Facebook group and were threatened with violence. In court, some said they had started carrying weapons for self-defense.
From the beginning, the Navy portrayed the murder case in particular as a simple one with eyewitnesses to the crime and a culprit whose text messages appeared to admit guilt. But the military repeatedly stumbled in investigating and prosecuting the chief.
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.
The witness, Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a SEAL medic who was given immunity from prosecution by the Navy, stunned prosecutors by testifying that he, and not Chief Gallagher, had killed the captive, by covering a breathing tube inserted in the captive’s neck. His testimony also deviated in other significant ways from what he had told investigators before trial; the Navy has indicated it is considering charging him with perjury.
In a courtroom at Naval Base San Diego, close to the harbor where hulking destroyers and missile cruisers dock, a jury of five Marines, a member of the SEALs and a Navy officer, nearly all with combat experience, spent two weeks hearing testimony in the trial, including unvarnished accounts of one platoon in the Navy’s celebrated elite commando force. They deliberated for a little more than eight hours before reaching a verdict.
“The jury found him not guilty of the murder, not guilty of the stabbing, not guilty of the stabbings, not guilty of all those things,” one of his lawyers, Timothy Parlatore, told reporters outside the courtroom. “They did find him guilty of taking a photograph with a dead terrorist, which we admitted from the beginning.”
Chief Gallagher sat stoically in the courtroom in a white dress uniform during the trial, with his wife, brother, mother and father, who was a West Point graduate, sitting behind him. He did not testify.
Marc Mukasey, another of his lawyers, said the chief began to cry when the verdict was read. He described the moment as “tears of joy, elation, freedom, absolute euphoria.”
Chief Gallagher emerged from the courthouse beaming, hugging his wife and brother as photographers thronged around his legal team.
Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who put the team together, said it was time to stop second-guessing the men and women fighting overseas.
“Let them do their job. Eddie Gallagher did his job,” Mr. Kerik said. “He’s a hero. He’s a hero in the eyes of every American who followed this case.”
There was little physical evidence in the case, so the trial hinged on the credibility of the platoon members who testified. Prosecutors held them up as courageous whistle-blowers who broke the SEAL code of silence to stop a rogue chief who was on a track to higher leadership positions. The defense painted the accusers as scared and entitled millennials who could not meet their chief’s high expectations, and fabricated war-crimes allegations to take him down.
“He didn’t coddle them,” Mr. Parlatore told the jury, so the platoon “fomented a plan of hate and mutiny.”
The case centered around the death of the captive fighter, who was brought in to the SEALs’ command post near Mosul, Iraq, by Iraqi forces. SEALs testified that after giving the fighter first aid, Chief Gallagher, a trained medic, stabbed the fighter repeatedly in the neck.
SEALs from the platoon also accused him of firing from a sniper post at unarmed civilians who posed no threat, including an old man and a schoolgirl. Chief Gallagher denied all the charges.
About 20 minutes after the captive died, Chief Gallagher posed for what both sides in the trial described as trophy photos with the corpse. In one hand he held the captive’s hair; in the other he held a small, custom-made hunting knife by the captive’s bandaged neck. Some of the photos show several other SEALs gathered around and smiling.
A few days later, Chief Gallagher texted the photo to comrades in the United States, sending one the message, “Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife.”
During two weeks of testimony, two SEALs testified that they had seen Chief Gallagher stab the captive in the neck for no clear reason. Several others said that they heard the chief admit to the killing that evening when confronted by the platoon, and that he told them, “I thought everyone would be cool with it; next time, I’ll do it where you can’t see.”
The defense described the accusers as disgruntled conspirators who plotted in a group text chat they called the “sewing circle.” The chief’s lawyers said the men were bitter because their chief was stealing snacks from them, needlessly exposing them to fire and then calling them cowards when they questioned his tactics.
The defense argued that the evidence for the charges of shooting civilians was so vague that in one case it amounted to little more than one sniper saying he thought he saw Chief Gallagher shoot someone, but did not actually see Chief Gallagher pull the trigger.
“There is no physical proof this ever happened, no date, no day, no photos, no video,” Mr. Mukasey told the jury. “There is no proof they ever happened, period.”
In rebuttal on Monday, Lt. Scott McDonald, one of the Navy prosecutors, told the jury that the defense’s theory of a platoon conspiracy did not make sense because Chief Gallagher’s text messages of him posing with the corpse were not discovered until months after platoon members reported the stabbing to law enforcement.
“An incredible coincidence,” Lieutenant McDonald said. “Out of all the false allegations they would supposedly make up, it would be the one he admitted to.”
The jury of officers and relatively high-ranking enlisted troops listened as matters the Navy probably did not want to air publicly were discussed in court.
At one point, the classified rules of engagement that guided SEALs on who they could kill in Iraq were delivered in a locked black bag by an armed guard. They were not read aloud in court, but one Marine attached to the SEAL platoon testified about part of what they said. Regarding one section of the crowded city of 660,000 along the Tigris River, the Marine testified that for SEAL snipers, “everything on the other side of the river was good to go, was cleared hot, were good targets.”
Other details brought out at trial cast unfavorable light on the elite SEALs. According to testimony, Chief Gallagher’s platoon built a rooftop bar at their compound and had empty beer cans rolling around in their trucks; a lieutenant made a video montage for the platoon, set to music, of enemy corpses from the deployment; a number of SEALs and Marines besides Chief Gallagher took photos with the dead ISIS fighter; and one SEAL mistook a car loaded with women and children in Mosul for ISIS fighters and flew a hand-launched explosive drone, known as a Switchblade, into the vehicle, killing them all. This is a pretty extensive look into seal team 6: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/Show nested quote +Roberts’s death, and the subsequent operations in eastern Afghanistan during the winter 2002 deployment, left an indelible impression on SEAL Team 6, especially on Red Team. According to multiple SEAL Team 6 sources, the events of that day set off a cascade of extraordinary violence. As the legend of SEAL Team 6 grew, a rogue culture arose that operated outside of the Navy’s established mechanisms for command and investigation. Parts of SEAL Team 6 began acting with an air of impunity that disturbed observers within the command. Senior members of SEAL Team 6 felt the pattern of brutality was not only illegal but rose to the level of war crimes.
“To understand the violence, you have to begin at Roberts Ridge,” said one former member of SEAL Team 6 who deployed several times to Afghanistan. “When you see your friend killed, recover his body, and find that the enemy mutilated him? It’s a schoolyard mentality. ‘You guys want to play with those rules?’ ‘OK.’” Although this former SEAL acknowledged that war crimes are wrong, he understood how they happen. “You ask me to go living with the pigs, but I can’t go live with pigs and then not get dirty.”
I'd say it's a pretty huge issue. I work with veterans and I've heard countless stories like that, particularly out of Afghanistan (but Iraq too). It messes most of them up pretty bad and only some of them can even identify it.
Basically you'll hear soldiers in the US talk about how they aren't prepared to return to society stateside because the military only trains the killing part, not the how to deal with inevitably killing civilians and innocent children part. Someone mentioned recently how this effect is especially pronounced for drone pilots since it's basically a 9-5 (not literally those hours) they drive home from horrific battlefields around the world daily.
So besides the moral and ethical concerns as a nation, the geopolitical, and so on, there's the human cost to the soldiers themselves. I won't get too much into it but they come up with some terrifying moral codes to prevent being overwhelmed with guilt.
|
On July 04 2019 00:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:In other news, Edward Gallagher was acquitted of every charge but the one they had a photo of; despite a text and picture from him days after the event bsaying he killed the teen with his own knife, two eyewitnesses saying they saw him doing the stabbing, and other earwitness reports of Gallagher saying that he did it and that he thought everyone was cool with it, the case looks like it was mostly decided on a named witness who changed their testimony halfway through the trial to say that they committed the murder instead, with no evidence to support that claim. This is the guy who got turned in by his own squad for being a killer along soldiers, and he's going to be let go. This seems really messed up. The defense team said it was a conspiracy because a Navy SEAL wasn't coddling his group (??? I thought they never got coddled at all because they're supposed to be super elite soldiers), and this also wasn't an isolated event. This is the same guy who was said to be sniping civilians. I admit that I don't pay attention to battlefield matters that much, but is this normal? I imagine GH would say yes, and I'd like to hear his answer, but I'd like to hear someone else with subject knowledge here too. Is this routine shit? NYTimes article, I copied the text of it below.+ Show Spoiler + SAN DIEGO — In a war-crimes trial that roiled the elite Navy SEALs and drew the attention of President Trump, a decorated eight-tour SEAL platoon leader was found not guilty on Tuesday of first-degree murder of a captive ISIS fighter and attempted murder of civilians in Iraq.
But the platoon leader, Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, was convicted of one charge: posing for photos with the teenage captive’s dead body.
Chief Gallagher, 40, who was serving with SEAL Team 7, became a rallying cause of some Republicans in Congress and members of the conservative media. Mr. Trump said on Twitter in March that he would have the chief released from pretrial confinement “in honor of his past service to our country.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump congratulated Chief Gallagher in a Twitter message and added, “Glad I could help!”
Because the maximum sentence Chief Gallagher could now face is four months, and he has spent more time than that in pretrial confinement, he was expected to go free after sentencing on Wednesday. But he could still face administrative punishment from the Navy, including an other-than-honorable discharge.
The chief was turned in by his own platoon last spring. Several fellow SEALs reported that their leader had shot civilians and killed the captive Islamic State fighter with a custom hunting knife during a deployment in Iraq in 2017. He was also charged with obstruction of justice by threatening to kill SEALs who reported him.
In the SEALs, Chief Gallagher had a reputation as a “pirate” — an operator more interested in fighting terrorists than in adhering to the rules and making rank. When members of his platoon reported his actions to superior officers, fissures were revealed in the polished image of the SEALs and the unwritten code of silence among members of the secretive force, who see themselves as a brotherhood.
Some of the platoon members who spoke out were called traitors in a closed Facebook group and were threatened with violence. In court, some said they had started carrying weapons for self-defense.
From the beginning, the Navy portrayed the murder case in particular as a simple one with eyewitnesses to the crime and a culprit whose text messages appeared to admit guilt. But the military repeatedly stumbled in investigating and prosecuting the chief.
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.
The witness, Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a SEAL medic who was given immunity from prosecution by the Navy, stunned prosecutors by testifying that he, and not Chief Gallagher, had killed the captive, by covering a breathing tube inserted in the captive’s neck. His testimony also deviated in other significant ways from what he had told investigators before trial; the Navy has indicated it is considering charging him with perjury.
In a courtroom at Naval Base San Diego, close to the harbor where hulking destroyers and missile cruisers dock, a jury of five Marines, a member of the SEALs and a Navy officer, nearly all with combat experience, spent two weeks hearing testimony in the trial, including unvarnished accounts of one platoon in the Navy’s celebrated elite commando force. They deliberated for a little more than eight hours before reaching a verdict.
“The jury found him not guilty of the murder, not guilty of the stabbing, not guilty of the stabbings, not guilty of all those things,” one of his lawyers, Timothy Parlatore, told reporters outside the courtroom. “They did find him guilty of taking a photograph with a dead terrorist, which we admitted from the beginning.”
Chief Gallagher sat stoically in the courtroom in a white dress uniform during the trial, with his wife, brother, mother and father, who was a West Point graduate, sitting behind him. He did not testify.
Marc Mukasey, another of his lawyers, said the chief began to cry when the verdict was read. He described the moment as “tears of joy, elation, freedom, absolute euphoria.”
Chief Gallagher emerged from the courthouse beaming, hugging his wife and brother as photographers thronged around his legal team.
Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who put the team together, said it was time to stop second-guessing the men and women fighting overseas.
“Let them do their job. Eddie Gallagher did his job,” Mr. Kerik said. “He’s a hero. He’s a hero in the eyes of every American who followed this case.”
There was little physical evidence in the case, so the trial hinged on the credibility of the platoon members who testified. Prosecutors held them up as courageous whistle-blowers who broke the SEAL code of silence to stop a rogue chief who was on a track to higher leadership positions. The defense painted the accusers as scared and entitled millennials who could not meet their chief’s high expectations, and fabricated war-crimes allegations to take him down.
“He didn’t coddle them,” Mr. Parlatore told the jury, so the platoon “fomented a plan of hate and mutiny.”
The case centered around the death of the captive fighter, who was brought in to the SEALs’ command post near Mosul, Iraq, by Iraqi forces. SEALs testified that after giving the fighter first aid, Chief Gallagher, a trained medic, stabbed the fighter repeatedly in the neck.
SEALs from the platoon also accused him of firing from a sniper post at unarmed civilians who posed no threat, including an old man and a schoolgirl. Chief Gallagher denied all the charges.
About 20 minutes after the captive died, Chief Gallagher posed for what both sides in the trial described as trophy photos with the corpse. In one hand he held the captive’s hair; in the other he held a small, custom-made hunting knife by the captive’s bandaged neck. Some of the photos show several other SEALs gathered around and smiling.
A few days later, Chief Gallagher texted the photo to comrades in the United States, sending one the message, “Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife.”
During two weeks of testimony, two SEALs testified that they had seen Chief Gallagher stab the captive in the neck for no clear reason. Several others said that they heard the chief admit to the killing that evening when confronted by the platoon, and that he told them, “I thought everyone would be cool with it; next time, I’ll do it where you can’t see.”
The defense described the accusers as disgruntled conspirators who plotted in a group text chat they called the “sewing circle.” The chief’s lawyers said the men were bitter because their chief was stealing snacks from them, needlessly exposing them to fire and then calling them cowards when they questioned his tactics.
The defense argued that the evidence for the charges of shooting civilians was so vague that in one case it amounted to little more than one sniper saying he thought he saw Chief Gallagher shoot someone, but did not actually see Chief Gallagher pull the trigger.
“There is no physical proof this ever happened, no date, no day, no photos, no video,” Mr. Mukasey told the jury. “There is no proof they ever happened, period.”
In rebuttal on Monday, Lt. Scott McDonald, one of the Navy prosecutors, told the jury that the defense’s theory of a platoon conspiracy did not make sense because Chief Gallagher’s text messages of him posing with the corpse were not discovered until months after platoon members reported the stabbing to law enforcement.
“An incredible coincidence,” Lieutenant McDonald said. “Out of all the false allegations they would supposedly make up, it would be the one he admitted to.”
The jury of officers and relatively high-ranking enlisted troops listened as matters the Navy probably did not want to air publicly were discussed in court.
At one point, the classified rules of engagement that guided SEALs on who they could kill in Iraq were delivered in a locked black bag by an armed guard. They were not read aloud in court, but one Marine attached to the SEAL platoon testified about part of what they said. Regarding one section of the crowded city of 660,000 along the Tigris River, the Marine testified that for SEAL snipers, “everything on the other side of the river was good to go, was cleared hot, were good targets.”
Other details brought out at trial cast unfavorable light on the elite SEALs. According to testimony, Chief Gallagher’s platoon built a rooftop bar at their compound and had empty beer cans rolling around in their trucks; a lieutenant made a video montage for the platoon, set to music, of enemy corpses from the deployment; a number of SEALs and Marines besides Chief Gallagher took photos with the dead ISIS fighter; and one SEAL mistook a car loaded with women and children in Mosul for ISIS fighters and flew a hand-launched explosive drone, known as a Switchblade, into the vehicle, killing them all. The witness who recanted on the stand is in serious trouble, so keep an eye on what happens there.
|
On July 04 2019 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 22:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 22:45 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 22:14 Ryzel wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Ozymandias from “The Watchmen” wrote: There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over the power-hungry people in this world is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. Fixed. You guys have a ton of references that I don't have. He replaced you with someone who manipulated shit so half the world population got wiped out, but the end result was an "alien"-enforced worldwide peace accord in which all of humanity's weapons were rendered useless and they literally couldn't wage war anymore. In other words. the end justifies the means taken to its extreme. + Show Spoiler +I say alien, because Dr. Manhattan was not human anymore He identified your whole spiel there as a pretty horrific "end justifies the means" thingy. The problem with any such thing is that we have to agree with the end. Your end is, I guess, a world in which there is no overt fascism? Does that really justify the means of systematic violence against them? Especially as there are other means to reach that end, as we have shown in post-WW2 Europe, where fascism is simply illegal. Fascistic organizations are illegal. Fascist propaganda is illegal. And we have no overt fascism. Now you can say that we fought one of the most violent wars in human history before we got to the point where we passed those laws, but I don't think it is necessary to fight fascism with violence first, rather than skipping straight to the part where we as a society recognize it is a dangerous and horrific ideology and ban it in other places than just western Europe. Moreover, if you look at the end goal of fascism, it is actually quite attractive. No less so than the communist end goal. Neither can work at all given human nature (communism because people are selfish and greedy, and fascism because society is not homogenous, and never will be). The main problem with fascism isn't the goal, it's the means. It very explicitly glorifies violence as the means to the end. You doing so yourself makes you no better than those fascists you want to fight. We have the guy who comes around and says: "I want to restrict the rights of millions of people because of their race, heritage, sexual orientation or political views." Then the other guy answers: "I want to stop that guy by any means necessary, even by violence." And you're on the side going: "I literally can't tell the difference." That pretty much sums up what I've seen. "All violence is bad" is so reductive it leaves people unable to distinguish someone who wants to commit genocide from someone who is willing to use violence to prevent it. I also want to know what the hell the people that think fascists should be talked out of their positions are waiting for? Who are they expecting to do that for them? If you're talking about me, I don't think talking fascists out of their ideas is going to go anywhere. That said, having random groups of thugs (aka antifa) decide who is a fascist and who isn't and go around beating them up is not the "violence" I'd use to prevent fascism.
Rather if, as a society, we decide fascism is such a dangerous idea that violence against it is justified, then we pass a law that says so, and we have "institutionalized violence" deal with fascists (e.g. the police can arrest members of fascist organizations and throw them in jail). The correct response to fascists isn't to punch them in the face, it is to phone your congressman and let him know fascism is a real problem that you want him to do something about.
|
Ladies and gentlemen, the US justice system, at its finest:
If this is the way the law is supposed to work, what chance do poor people have?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/03/new-jersey-teen-judge-court-good-family
A judge suggested that a teenage boy accused of raping a drunk girl at a party should be treated leniently because he came from “a good family”, and cast doubt on whether such an attack amounted to rape at all.
Judge James Troiano in New Jersey made the remarks while ruling that the boy, who was identified only as “GMC”, should not face trial as an adult for allegedly raping a 16-year-old girl while recording the incident on his mobile phone.
“This young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well,” Troiano said. “He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high.” Troiano, 69, also noted that the boy was an Eagle Scout.
Investigators said GMC sent a clip of the alleged rape to seven of his friends, and later sent a text adding: “When your first time having sex is rape.” Yet Troiano suggested that, in his view, the alleged incident was a sexual assault rather than a rape.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 03 2019 23:02 farvacola wrote: A look towards end goals is one of the ways in which fascism and communism can be significantly contrasted imo, and it’s a good basis for disputing horseshoe theory accordingly.
You'll run into a stumbling block when distinguishing between theory and practice. For the most part communism had elucidated comprehensive theories prior to the Russian Revolution, while the tenets of fascism had to be academically derived ex post facto since they were cobbled together from various incongruent sources.
I'd said horseshoe theory is correct in the sense in the sense they share similar methodologies and rationales for action. This is no surprise as fascism initially drew from the neo-Marxist well of literature (Henri Bergson and Georges Sorel immediately come to mind) while the European variants of Marxism were leaning towards anarchism and anti-rationalism during the same period.
On July 04 2019 00:30 Acrofales wrote: A society that works entirely for the benefit of the society, everybody born into their place and satisfied with that place doesn't sound attractive to you?
The main problem is that it assumes that because you are born into position X you will be happy with position X. A Brave New World does an excellent job of illustrating the "flaws" in humanity that make it so this is never possible. But if humans were more like ants, it would be utopia.
Fascism doesn't support hereditary class distinctions. Nazism only stridently emphasized racial purity and gender roles.
On July 03 2019 22:57 Nebuchad wrote: Once again I'm all in favor of laws banning fascism. That's obviously better than antifa. It's just that it's not going to happen in the US any time soon and in the meantime I won't be morally annoyed by people reacting against fascism, even with violence.
I think that having a law that bans fascism is violent, and I think the blind spot that a lot of liberals (I wouldn't have called you a liberal but that's a liberal instinct) have against state violence is a little weird.
The end goal of fascism is atrocious. It's a society in which social hierarchy is reinforced and there is no way to climb the social hierarchy because it's based on your identity rather than your skill. You're born the wrong kind of person, your rights are restricted, there's nothing you can do, that's it, end of story. On top of that, there's no reason why the fascists have to stop restricting rights once they start winning. They're going to start with immigrants and trans people, but if they aren't stopped they can go to leftists, then to black and brown people, then to gay people, then to irish and italian people, then to people without blue eyes and to Slavs... it doesn't matter, the rules are made up.
You can't ban fascism because it's not a coherent ideology. You would have to outlaw all its discrete components, which would be a onerous and convoluted process to say the least.
You literally articulated the liberal argument against state violence.
|
|
|
|