Top Pentagon Brass Discussing Resignation

[EvilCat Breath]

Even before Navy Secretary Richard Spencer’s forced ouster this weekend, a handful of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials have been debating just when they would feel compelled to resign over what they see as Trump's disregard for the chain of command, two current senior officials told POLITICO in recent days. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

"There's a sense of dejection by senior leaders in the Pentagon, that the president and the secretary of defense are going to side with the loudmouths at Fox News against the reasoned opposition of senior military professionals," said another Pentagon official with direct knowledge of high-level discussions. "That's the sense in a nutshell."

Top Pentagon Brass Discussing Resignation

Chain of command. Really? Trump is the commander in chief. He is at the very head of the chain of command.

Which is why I don't believe this nonsense.

 

[Oddball]

Even before Navy Secretary Richard Spencer’s forced ouster this weekend, a handful of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials have been debating just when they would feel compelled to resign over what they see as Trump's disregard for the chain of command, two current senior officials told POLITICO in recent days. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

"There's a sense of dejection by senior leaders in the Pentagon, that the president and the secretary of defense are going to side with the loudmouths at Fox News against the reasoned opposition of senior military professionals," said another Pentagon official with direct knowledge of high-level discussions. "That's the sense in a nutshell."

Top Pentagon Brass Discussing Resignation

Chain of command. Really? Trump is the commander in chief. He is at the very head of the chain of command.

Which is why I don't believe this nonsense.

It's SPAM from Daily Kooks...He just passes it out like the dutiful little minion that he is, actually understanding it isn't in the job description.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they convened the Geneva Conventions after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

 

[Correll]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they were created after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

It is stupid to call taking a phote with a dead enemy a war crime.


The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored, if that type of shit is in them.


This guy was an actual COMBAT VETERAN who fought the enemy. And we're supposed to fuck him, because he took a photo with a dead enemy?


HELL NO.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they were created after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

It is stupid to call taking a phote with a dead enemy a war crime.


The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored, if that type of shit is in them.


This guy was an actual COMBAT VETERAN who fought the enemy. And we're supposed to fuck him, because he took a photo with a dead enemy?


HELL NO.

It is something that is in them, and as a SEAL, this chief should have known what he was doing was a war crime.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead




Section A. Respect for the dead
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken … to protect [the killed] against … ill-treatment.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities … shall be respected”.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour …
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
…
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment …

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

 

[sparky]

The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored,

I thought so once

no more.....

~S~

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored,

I thought so once

no more.....

~S~

You know, I didn't have any clue what they were until I had gone through boot camp. Then, every year during Navy Rights and Responsiblities training, we discussed them in detail.

We also discussed why they came into being in the first place. And, for all the countries that are signatories to them, they kinda protect their military personnel from being abused as prisoners. If we break them, then every other country we are fighting will be able to break them as well.

And yes, while I understand that terrorists don't follow them, it doesn't mean we should drop them. If we do, we become just as bad as the terrorists.

By the way, if desecration of a corpse is something that a civilian can be prosecuted and charged with a crime for, why should this chief be exempt? Not only is it against the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ, but it is also against civil law.

Why does Trump give pardons to demonstrated criminals?

 

[Desperado]

Listen we have been at war in the middle east for almost 20 years, WW2 did not last this long. These "Generals" are responsible for conducting this fiasco and should be fired.
Fire them before they can retire and avoid paying their pensions

 

[ABikerSailor]

Listen we have been at war in the middle east for almost 20 years, WW2 did not last this long. These "Generals" are responsible for conducting this fiasco and should be fired.
Fire them before they can retire and avoid paying their pensions

Hate to tell you, but almost all of those generals have more than 20 years of service, and are eligible to retire.

 

[Correll]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they were created after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

It is stupid to call taking a phote with a dead enemy a war crime.


The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored, if that type of shit is in them.


This guy was an actual COMBAT VETERAN who fought the enemy. And we're supposed to fuck him, because he took a photo with a dead enemy?


HELL NO.

It is something that is in them, and as a SEAL, this chief should have known what he was doing was a war crime.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead




Section A. Respect for the dead
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken … to protect [the killed] against … ill-treatment.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities … shall be respected”.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour …
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
…
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment …

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Yeah, I got that from your previous post. And it still seems like a bullshit reason to fuck over a combat veteran.


People willing to fight for a society, should be honored by that society. Not shit canned over technicalities.

 

[Correll]

The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored,

I thought so once

no more.....

~S~

You know, I didn't have any clue what they were until I had gone through boot camp. Then, every year during Navy Rights and Responsiblities training, we discussed them in detail.

We also discussed why they came into being in the first place. And, for all the countries that are signatories to them, they kinda protect their military personnel from being abused as prisoners. If we break them, then every other country we are fighting will be able to break them as well.

And yes, while I understand that terrorists don't follow them, it doesn't mean we should drop them. If we do, we become just as bad as the terrorists.

By the way, if desecration of a corpse is something that a civilian can be prosecuted and charged with a crime for, why should this chief be exempt? Not only is it against the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ, but it is also against civil law.

Why does Trump give pardons to demonstrated criminals?

If we do not fire a man who takes a photo of himself next to a dead enemy,



we are not as bad as someone who blows up a school bus, to kill children, on purpose.


That was an insane claim on your part.

 

[Desperado]

Listen we have been at war in the middle east for almost 20 years, WW2 did not last this long. These "Generals" are responsible for conducting this fiasco and should be fired.
Fire them before they can retire and avoid paying their pensions

Hate to tell you, but almost all of those generals have more than 20 years of service, and are eligible to retire.

That's a fucking shame... they need to learn how to win a war in a reasonable length of time. They screw up for 20 years and we still have to pay them,

 

[22lcidw]

Listen we have been at war in the middle east for almost 20 years, WW2 did not last this long. These "Generals" are responsible for conducting this fiasco and should be fired.
Fire them before they can retire and avoid paying their pensions

Hate to tell you, but almost all of those generals have more than 20 years of service, and are eligible to retire.

Fighting a war with one tour of duty or maybe a couple of years total in an active accumulated war zone is more then enough for a person in the military who decides to be a lifer. We have to many wars. And it has affected people.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they were created after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

It is stupid to call taking a phote with a dead enemy a war crime.


The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored, if that type of shit is in them.


This guy was an actual COMBAT VETERAN who fought the enemy. And we're supposed to fuck him, because he took a photo with a dead enemy?


HELL NO.

It is something that is in them, and as a SEAL, this chief should have known what he was doing was a war crime.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead




Section A. Respect for the dead
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken … to protect [the killed] against … ill-treatment.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities … shall be respected”.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour …
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
…
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment …

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Yeah, I got that from your previous post. And it still seems like a bullshit reason to fuck over a combat veteran.


People willing to fight for a society, should be honored by that society. Not shit canned over technicalities.

It's not a "bullshit reason" as you call it. Not only is desecration of a corpse against the Geneva Conventions as well as the UCMJ, but it is also a violation of civil law. We have the photo, we know he did it. Letting him go free without any kind of disciplinary action is wrong. It also undermines the chain of command, because if someone has strong personal ties to Trump, they will now think that if they get caught doing something wrong, they can simply ask Trump to pardon them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored,

I thought so once

no more.....

~S~

You know, I didn't have any clue what they were until I had gone through boot camp. Then, every year during Navy Rights and Responsiblities training, we discussed them in detail.

We also discussed why they came into being in the first place. And, for all the countries that are signatories to them, they kinda protect their military personnel from being abused as prisoners. If we break them, then every other country we are fighting will be able to break them as well.

And yes, while I understand that terrorists don't follow them, it doesn't mean we should drop them. If we do, we become just as bad as the terrorists.

By the way, if desecration of a corpse is something that a civilian can be prosecuted and charged with a crime for, why should this chief be exempt? Not only is it against the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ, but it is also against civil law.

Why does Trump give pardons to demonstrated criminals?

If we do not fire a man who takes a photo of himself next to a dead enemy,



we are not as bad as someone who blows up a school bus, to kill children, on purpose.


That was an insane claim on your part.

Taking a photo next to a dead combatant is considered mistreatment and desecration of a corpse. It is against the Geneva Conventions, as well as against the UCMJ (military's version of law), and against civil law. Why are you supporting someone who has obviously broken the law?

 

[Correll]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they were created after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

It is stupid to call taking a phote with a dead enemy a war crime.


The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored, if that type of shit is in them.


This guy was an actual COMBAT VETERAN who fought the enemy. And we're supposed to fuck him, because he took a photo with a dead enemy?


HELL NO.

It is something that is in them, and as a SEAL, this chief should have known what he was doing was a war crime.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead




Section A. Respect for the dead
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken … to protect [the killed] against … ill-treatment.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities … shall be respected”.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour …
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
…
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment …

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Yeah, I got that from your previous post. And it still seems like a bullshit reason to fuck over a combat veteran.


People willing to fight for a society, should be honored by that society. Not shit canned over technicalities.

It's not a "bullshit reason" as you call it. Not only is desecration of a corpse against the Geneva Conventions as well as the UCMJ, but it is also a violation of civil law. We have the photo, we know he did it. Letting him go free without any kind of disciplinary action is wrong. It also undermines the chain of command, because if someone has strong personal ties to Trump, they will now think that if they get caught doing something wrong, they can simply ask Trump to pardon them.

Taking a photo, is not desecration of a corpse. These are rules written by lawyers, who want an excuse to fuck the soldiers of nations they don't like.


If that rule is part of the Geneva Conventions, then we should shit can them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they were created after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

It is stupid to call taking a phote with a dead enemy a war crime.


The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored, if that type of shit is in them.


This guy was an actual COMBAT VETERAN who fought the enemy. And we're supposed to fuck him, because he took a photo with a dead enemy?


HELL NO.

It is something that is in them, and as a SEAL, this chief should have known what he was doing was a war crime.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead




Section A. Respect for the dead
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken … to protect [the killed] against … ill-treatment.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities … shall be respected”.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour …
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
…
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment …

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Yeah, I got that from your previous post. And it still seems like a bullshit reason to fuck over a combat veteran.


People willing to fight for a society, should be honored by that society. Not shit canned over technicalities.

It's not a "bullshit reason" as you call it. Not only is desecration of a corpse against the Geneva Conventions as well as the UCMJ, but it is also a violation of civil law. We have the photo, we know he did it. Letting him go free without any kind of disciplinary action is wrong. It also undermines the chain of command, because if someone has strong personal ties to Trump, they will now think that if they get caught doing something wrong, they can simply ask Trump to pardon them.

Taking a photo, is not desecration of a corpse. These are rules written by lawyers, who want an excuse to fuck the soldiers of nations they don't like.


If that rule is part of the Geneva Conventions, then we should shit can them.

You might want to look up the Geneva Conventions and how they came to be. And, even if you don't think they should be followed, taking a picture of a dead combatant is also against the UCMJ (military's version of law). He violated the UCMJ and is being let off scott free.

 

[Correll]

The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored,

I thought so once

no more.....

~S~

You know, I didn't have any clue what they were until I had gone through boot camp. Then, every year during Navy Rights and Responsiblities training, we discussed them in detail.

We also discussed why they came into being in the first place. And, for all the countries that are signatories to them, they kinda protect their military personnel from being abused as prisoners. If we break them, then every other country we are fighting will be able to break them as well.

And yes, while I understand that terrorists don't follow them, it doesn't mean we should drop them. If we do, we become just as bad as the terrorists.

By the way, if desecration of a corpse is something that a civilian can be prosecuted and charged with a crime for, why should this chief be exempt? Not only is it against the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ, but it is also against civil law.

Why does Trump give pardons to demonstrated criminals?

If we do not fire a man who takes a photo of himself next to a dead enemy,



we are not as bad as someone who blows up a school bus, to kill children, on purpose.


That was an insane claim on your part.

Taking a photo next to a dead combatant is considered mistreatment and desecration of a corpse. It is against the Geneva Conventions, as well as against the UCMJ (military's version of law), and against civil law. Why are you supporting someone who has obviously broken the law?

Because it seems like bullshit regulations written by lawyers who dont' really like soldiers, versus a man with an actual record of fighting for his country.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored,

I thought so once

no more.....

~S~

You know, I didn't have any clue what they were until I had gone through boot camp. Then, every year during Navy Rights and Responsiblities training, we discussed them in detail.

We also discussed why they came into being in the first place. And, for all the countries that are signatories to them, they kinda protect their military personnel from being abused as prisoners. If we break them, then every other country we are fighting will be able to break them as well.

And yes, while I understand that terrorists don't follow them, it doesn't mean we should drop them. If we do, we become just as bad as the terrorists.

By the way, if desecration of a corpse is something that a civilian can be prosecuted and charged with a crime for, why should this chief be exempt? Not only is it against the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ, but it is also against civil law.

Why does Trump give pardons to demonstrated criminals?

If we do not fire a man who takes a photo of himself next to a dead enemy,



we are not as bad as someone who blows up a school bus, to kill children, on purpose.


That was an insane claim on your part.

Taking a photo next to a dead combatant is considered mistreatment and desecration of a corpse. It is against the Geneva Conventions, as well as against the UCMJ (military's version of law), and against civil law. Why are you supporting someone who has obviously broken the law?

Because it seems like bullshit regulations written by lawyers who dont' really like soldiers, versus a man with an actual record of fighting for his country.

So what if he has an actual record of fighting for this country? Lots of veterans have that. Matter of fact, I have been in 4 different war zones over the course of my career, but that doesn't excuse me if I violate the UCMJ by taking pictures with a dead body. He broke the law, went against the UCMJ, and you are saying he should pay no consequences.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You know, my last tour of duty in the Navy, I was working at a job that required qualifications, and I had to work hard to maintain them. That job was Classifier at a MEPS. Basically, it was a job where I took the applicant's test scores and qualifications, and gave them a job in the Navy, based on their quals and what they wanted.

There were also a lot of ways that I could lose my qualification. If my office missed goal more than 3 months in a row, I could be fired and sent back to the fleet, losing my Classifier qualification. I could also be fired for dating the applicants, taking bribes from parents (yes, I have been offered one or two), or any number of reasons that could be seen as me abusing my position. I was also Leading Petty Officer, which meant that I was in charge, my boss was all the way down in San Antonio.

I worked my ass off to make sure I kept my quals and didn't do any kind of behavior that could be seen as abusing my position because I liked that job and wanted to keep it. Matter of fact, it's on my DD214.

This SEAL chief abused his position as a SEAL in taking a picture with a dead ISIL member. Why? Because it's against the Geneva Conventions, and is considered to be a war crime. And, for all you people that will say that in WWII there were lots of photos like that, you're right. And, it was because of atrocities like that as well as others that they were created after the close of WWII. And, they have been updated after just about every major conflict because of atrocities done during that conflict.

The chief committed a war crime, and as a SEAL and Navy warfighter, the conventions are something that is drilled into them. He committed a crime, and because of it, I think that he should no longer be allowed the Budweiser (SEAL insignia).

And, I'm kinda on the fence about allowing him to retire. He's barely got 20 years in, so he is eligible for retirement, but I don't think he should retire as a chief because of what he did.

And Trump pardoning this person means that later, some politically connected military member if they do something wrong could possibly be looking to Trump to bail them out. This case has shown that Trump has no understanding of the UCMJ, nor is he interested in knowing about it.

If I could have lost my quals for something much less than a war crime, this chief needs to have his SEAL quals pulled.

It is stupid to call taking a phote with a dead enemy a war crime.


The Geneva Conventions are stupid and should be ignored, if that type of shit is in them.


This guy was an actual COMBAT VETERAN who fought the enemy. And we're supposed to fuck him, because he took a photo with a dead enemy?


HELL NO.

It is something that is in them, and as a SEAL, this chief should have known what he was doing was a war crime.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Practice Relating to Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead




Section A. Respect for the dead
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken … to protect [the killed] against … ill-treatment.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 34(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities … shall be respected”.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person [and] honour …
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
…
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment …

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[c]ommitting outrages upon personal dignity” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

And yet NOT ONE OTHER Seal in that picture was punished NOT ONE. Remind me again what you are bleating about?