Obama's military contempt: The outrageous treatment of Clint Lorance

[lakeview]

I had not heard of this.

This conviction must be overturned.

Obama's military contempt: The outrageous treatment of Clint Lorance | Washington Times Communities

Obama's military contempt: The outrageous treatment of Clint Lorance

WASHINGTON, October 14, 2013 – If the fact that the Obama Administration has blocked aging veterans from visiting the World War II memorial and denied death gratuity benefits for fallen warriors doesn’t seem to indicate contempt for our military, how about this most recent story?

Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, a 28-year-old combat leader in the 82d Airborne Division from Celeste, Texas was recently found guilty of two counts of murder in Afghanistan and sentenced to 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth.


The story of First Lieutenant Lorance has not been covered by a single major media source.

In July 2012, Lorance was ordered to take command of a platoon in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar, a region where I also spent two and a half years training and advising the Afghan National Army. The platoon Lorance now commanded had lost its previous leader to enemy attack.

During a patrol in enemy territory, Lorance ordered a marksman to engage two unarmed Taliban fighters on a motorcycle operating as scout spotters.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, a common enemy tactic is for unarmed fighters on motorcycles with cell phones to track unit movements. In fact, enemy combatants had previously used the tactics against this same platoon.


Lorance, who was operating in a combat zone, saw the scout spotters and assessed them as a threat to his platoon. Aerial surveillance later backed up Lorance’s on-the-ground assessment.

It seems obvious that enemy scouts reporting a unit position and movements in order to facilitate an ambush would define “hostile intent.” But not according to the watered-down Rules of Engagement with which our warriors must contend.

How was the treatment Lorance received "outrageous"?

How does this story show contempt for the military on the part of President Obama?

How does Mr. West define "covered" and "major media source"?

 

[daveman]

If it happens, it's BECAUSE OBAMA!

You heard it here first. He is responsible for all things bad, and no things good. Pay attention.

He's the President. The buck stops on his desk.

Or it's supposed to. His bootlickers and sycophants make sure the buck doesn't get anywhere near his desk.

I am sure that the LT's actions could be appealled.

I just don't see why anyone would take it seriously. He ordered his men to shoot at unarmed people.

The RoE said shooting at unarmed Taliban scouts is acceptable.

 

[JoeB131]

He's the President. The buck stops on his desk.

Or it's supposed to. His bootlickers and sycophants make sure the buck doesn't get anywhere near his desk.

I am sure that the LT's actions could be appealled.

I just don't see why anyone would take it seriously. He ordered his men to shoot at unarmed people.

The RoE said shooting at unarmed Taliban scouts is acceptable.

Except these guys weren't unarmed scouts, they had proper ID, and Lorrance ordered his men to hide the ID's.

Sounds like his own men broke bad on him. Makes you miss the good old days of fraggings.

 

[editec]

Obama's military contempt: The outrageous treatment of Clint Lorance

Are you retarded, Lad?

You must be if you imagine that the PRESIDENT is responsible for the outcome of that courts martial.

 

[JoeB131]

Which is the point. He was tried by a tribunal of other officers, who found him guilty.

Anyone who has ever served in the military knows the one thing officers are good at, it's looking out for their own.

So this guy had to have pretty seriously messed up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ucer-serving-55-years-on-pot-gun-charges.html

If I look in this thread, will I find similar shock and dismay from you?

Smart money says "no".

"Asked" is nowhere near the same as what YOU want...a President to INTERFERE with a duly convened courts martial.

But hey....it's ok to not follow the proper LEGAL procedures if it's something YOU want, right?

He could, entirely legally, pardon Lorence.

Yup, and we will have to wait and see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Someone, admitting he does not know military law, "criticized Obama."

Then whines because he gets called out.

 

[Katzndogz]

So Obama isn't CiC?

As CiC he changed the Rules with the intention that things like this be the result. He made the policies.

 

[Moonglow]

So Obama isn't CiC?

Do the Supreme Court judges go to local courts to declare their judgement?

 

[Moonglow]

So Obama isn't CiC?

As CiC he changed the Rules with the intention that things like this be the result. He made the policies.

Proof?
Or is it the DOD? You should try to understand what the chain of command is.

 

[bodecea]

So Obama isn't CiC?

As CiC he changed the Rules with the intention that things like this be the result. He made the policies.

What rules did he change? Be specific. I have access to the UCMJ Manual.

 

[lakeview]

As CiC he changed the Rules with the intention that things like this be the result. He made the policies.

What rule was changed exactly? 1LT Lorance issued an unlawful order. Contrary to what many people would like to believe about our soldiers they are not savages, our servicemen have never been able to shoot anyone just because. No American rules of engagement that I'm aware of have ever allowed for that. Obama didn't change anything and Lorance deserves what he got. Notice that none of the men in his platoon went down with him, you know what that means? It means they're the ones who had a problem with him and reported him to their superiors for his misconduct.

 

[bodecea]

As CiC he changed the Rules with the intention that things like this be the result. He made the policies.

What rule was changed exactly? 1LT Lorance issued an unlawful order. Contrary to what many people would like to believe about our soldiers they are not savages, our servicemen have never been able to shoot anyone just because. No American rules of engagement that I'm aware of have ever allowed for that. Obama didn't change anything and Lorance deserves what he got. Notice that none of the men in his platoon went down with him, you know what that means? It means they're the ones who had a problem with him and reported him to their superiors for his misconduct.

This is what ex-Rep West has a problem with....and Davey right along with him.

 

[Moonglow]

As CiC he changed the Rules with the intention that things like this be the result. He made the policies.

What rule was changed exactly? 1LT Lorance issued an unlawful order. Contrary to what many people would like to believe about our soldiers they are not savages, our servicemen have never been able to shoot anyone just because. No American rules of engagement that I'm aware of have ever allowed for that. Obama didn't change anything and Lorance deserves what he got. Notice that none of the men in his platoon went down with him, you know what that means? It means they're the ones who had a problem with him and reported him to their superiors for his misconduct.

This is what ex-Rep West has a problem with....and Davey right along with him.

it just another case of daving.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So Obama isn't CiC?

As CiC he changed the Rules with the intention that things like this be the result. He made the policies.

Link?

 

[JakeStarkey]

davy davying along daily.