Trump working on pardoning people accused of war crimes

[Olde Europe]

Most welcome:

Most Americans will see the proposed pardoning of those accused or convicted of violating the law of land warfare, the disobedience of legal orders regarding of treatment of civilians and enemy combatants, the ignoring of ethical standards associated with the profession of arms, or the outright criminal behavior of those on the battlefield, as both appalling and reprehensible.

They are right.

There may be some, however, who might see this as a patriotic act, protecting the "warriors" that are sent into battle and have to fight in very tough conditions.

In my view, these individuals are very, very wrong. That's because those who have been convicted were individuals who either did not understand the requirements of every military member to abide by a professional ethic and a prescribed set of values, or they did not understand the implications such an action has for commanders who have the requirement to constantly maintain good order and discipline in the professional military force.

And pardoning those accused, who have not even stood trial before a military court charged with administering justice, is especially contrary to established norms. [...]

While these pardons reportedly being considered by the President would be "legal," they are also immoral and anathema to military discipline, unit cohesion, and our forces' professionalism. If applied as reported, the pardons would damage the way the US military is perceived by our allies and partners around the world and give credence and reinforcement to our enemies. They would cause even more damage to civil-military relations in our republic and send a very bad message to all those who serve.​

Quite.

Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is, however, mostly wrong about the public perception of Trump's impending pardons, I suspect. The huge majority of perennially frightened, panicky sissies are just fine with their "best and brightest" acting like terrorists. If they think at all, they probably think of it as "getting even", and the usual equation of "Muslim / brown-skinned = terrorist" and their habitual dehumanization facilitates excusing the most ghoulish criminality in foreign lands far away.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just to remind EVERYONE Trump has not ACTUALLY pardoned any of the people you are whining about.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Most welcome:

Most Americans will see the proposed pardoning of those accused or convicted of violating the law of land warfare, the disobedience of legal orders regarding of treatment of civilians and enemy combatants, the ignoring of ethical standards associated with the profession of arms, or the outright criminal behavior of those on the battlefield, as both appalling and reprehensible.

They are right.

There may be some, however, who might see this as a patriotic act, protecting the "warriors" that are sent into battle and have to fight in very tough conditions.

In my view, these individuals are very, very wrong. That's because those who have been convicted were individuals who either did not understand the requirements of every military member to abide by a professional ethic and a prescribed set of values, or they did not understand the implications such an action has for commanders who have the requirement to constantly maintain good order and discipline in the professional military force.

And pardoning those accused, who have not even stood trial before a military court charged with administering justice, is especially contrary to established norms. [...]

While these pardons reportedly being considered by the President would be "legal," they are also immoral and anathema to military discipline, unit cohesion, and our forces' professionalism. If applied as reported, the pardons would damage the way the US military is perceived by our allies and partners around the world and give credence and reinforcement to our enemies. They would cause even more damage to civil-military relations in our republic and send a very bad message to all those who serve.​

Quite.

Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is, however, mostly wrong about the public perception of Trump's impending pardons, I suspect. The huge majority of perennially frightened, panicky sissies are just fine with their "best and brightest" acting like terrorists. If they think at all, they probably think of it as "getting even", and the usual equation of "Muslim / brown-skinned = terrorist" and their habitual dehumanization facilitates excusing the most ghoulish criminality in foreign lands far away.

You're a boor old boy, no more...no less. You saw a few movies, read a few books and you're an expert on war.

 

[JoeB131]

That's dishonest for you to post that as a response to my post. My post was not pointed toward any individual, let alone the guy you posted. It's about the process in general as a whole and the slippery slope it creates.

Oh, please.... we've used presidential review to look at military convictions since the Civil War, when Lincoln pardoned all the deserters after the war. Jimmy Carter pardoned all the Draft Dodgers. Nixon commuted Rusty Calley's sentence and Obama commuted Bradley/Chelsea Manning's sentence. No slippery slope here. If anything, these half-ass rules of engagement probably let the enemy know what they can get away with.

Now if we want to talk about this guy's case, there are really only 4 people that can talk about what happened, and 2 of the 4 said some pretty damning things.

When you take a prisoner under a bridge in the middle of no where, when your orders told you to take them back to their city, when that person's body is found with their head blown up, and a burned naked body, it's pretty hard to holler self-defense.

Okay... One of those two people was an Arab, and the other was a guy who plead down to a lesser charge of no jail as long as he would testify against his LT.

The point was, the medical expert the Army contracted said, 'Um, yeah, looks like the guy was standing and lunging towards the accused", and the Army's response was to take him off the witness list, and NOT tell the defense about it.

 

[JoeB131]

That's the entirety of your analysis? Military justice is an oxymoron (Behenna's appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court), Behenna can't be responsible for the murder of an unarmed civilian because others sent him there, and they went after the occupiers before Behenna's murder - there is no such thing as a recruiting tool in any of that.

Actually, it was rejected by a military appeal court, 3-2. So even among JAG officers trying to please Obama, it was a close call. It never got to an appeal court.

We let cops off for a lot more serious actions just because he was reaching for a gun.

I thought you're smarter than that. You particularly don't win wars by not maintaining discipline, by signaling to rogues they are getting off Scot free, and to the rest of the world you're on a murderous rampage and are no different from, certainly no better than, those you purportedly fight.

Actually, you win wars by killing more of them than they kill of you. and not giving up when it gets hard (we Americans kind of forgot how to do that.) It's why we send Soldiers and not Social Workers over there.

Behenna is a murderer. He left the body lying in the desert, and went back to base informing no one of what he had done in oh-so justified self-defense. Trump pardoned him reaffirming, in the final analysis, White supremacy, and the White supremacists collectively came out to praise their Dear Leader for it. Enjoy the company, Joe.

This POS set off a bomb that killed two of his men. Now, why his higher ups picked HIM to take this guy back is some questionable command judgment.... I really can't blame a leader for wanting to avenge that.

Look, stop making me defend Trump. I really hate doing it, but in this case, he made the right call.

 

[JoeB131]

Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is, however, mostly wrong about the public perception of Trump's impending pardons, I suspect. The huge majority of perennially frightened, panicky sissies are just fine with their "best and brightest" acting like terrorists. If they think at all, they probably think of it as "getting even", and the usual equation of "Muslim / brown-skinned = terrorist" and their habitual dehumanization facilitates excusing the most ghoulish criminality in foreign lands far away.

Oh, please. "We are going to put you in an impossible situation, and then railroad you when you make a mistake!"

Here's the thing. After every war, we've had the good sense to not keep people in jail for mistakes they made in war. If we are good with pardoning Bergdahl and Manning, then we need to give Lt. Behenna a pass as well.

Now, for these other pardons, I'll discuss those on a case-by-case basis. If there was real criminal activity... yeah, I'll criticize.

In this case, we put a guy into combat and he killed one of the bad guys. Maybe he shouldn't have, maybe he shouldn't have been put in that situation to start with.

"Hey, LT, we want you to escort this guy who killed two of your men back to his village so he can do it again!"

 

[Olde Europe]

Look, stop making me defend Trump. I really hate doing it, [...]

You could stop that idiotic nonsense at any second. There is patently no good, not even a justifiable reason to continue doing it. There hasn't been any right from the start.

 

[Olde Europe]

Oh, please. "We are going to put you in an impossible situation, and then railroad you when you make a mistake!"

The message is, "Being caught in wanton murder will result in justice being rendered before a U.S. court." That was the right call. Whatever else you are making up to let a murderer escape is just you defending the indefensible.

Trump, of course, sent the opposite message, mostly to pander to his brain-dead "base", and, I suspect, to stick it to the U.S. juridical system.

 

[Lewdog]

That's dishonest for you to post that as a response to my post. My post was not pointed toward any individual, let alone the guy you posted. It's about the process in general as a whole and the slippery slope it creates.

Oh, please.... we've used presidential review to look at military convictions since the Civil War, when Lincoln pardoned all the deserters after the war. Jimmy Carter pardoned all the Draft Dodgers. Nixon commuted Rusty Calley's sentence and Obama commuted Bradley/Chelsea Manning's sentence. No slippery slope here. If anything, these half-ass rules of engagement probably let the enemy know what they can get away with.

Now if we want to talk about this guy's case, there are really only 4 people that can talk about what happened, and 2 of the 4 said some pretty damning things.

When you take a prisoner under a bridge in the middle of no where, when your orders told you to take them back to their city, when that person's body is found with their head blown up, and a burned naked body, it's pretty hard to holler self-defense.

Okay... One of those two people was an Arab, and the other was a guy who plead down to a lesser charge of no jail as long as he would testify against his LT.

The point was, the medical expert the Army contracted said, 'Um, yeah, looks like the guy was standing and lunging towards the accused", and the Army's response was to take him off the witness list, and NOT tell the defense about it.

There is a HUGE difference from not wanting to fight in a war and kill people, to going to war and killing innocent people. I can't believe you used that as an example. That's just flat out ridiculous.

 

[WillPower]

You could stop that idiotic nonsense at any second. There is patently no good, not even a justifiable reason to continue doing it. There hasn't been any right from the start.

Maybe you teabags should pay your share of our defending your sorry asses against the Ivans and stop bitching about how the US treats those of us who do the defending.

 

[miketx]

Military trial, moron. A bunch of bootlicking officers decided his case.

a court martial is a trial by peers, within the military

"Military ....... bootlicking officers," you say?

well, at least we know what you & your little ass middle finger think of the US military.

But you revere a good murderer.

Yep; you sound just like Trump. Worthless

Not exactly:

Courts-Martial Explained

General Court-Martial

A general court-martial consists of not less than five members and a military judge, or an accused may be tried by military judge alone upon request of the accused.
​

Furthermore, no one on the court may be inferior in rank to the person being tried.

The convicted murderer was tried & convicted, which we know isn't good enuff for you.

The guy had his day in court; guilty.

Guilty of killing a terrorist, convicted by filth such as you.

He was convicted in a fair military court.

Thanks for telling US that you believe the military are, "filth"

At least now we know what you think of the US military

If they convicted a man for killing a terrorist they are filth, just like you.

 

[miketx]

With as many of these pussy terrorist lovers as we have, this country is doomed.

 

[caddo kid]

With as many of these pussy terrorist lovers as we have, this country is doomed.

So, you don't believe in the ROE but you do believe murder is OK.

LOFL ...............

 

[miketx]

With as many of these pussy terrorist lovers as we have, this country is doomed.

So, you don't believe in the ROE but you do believe murder is OK.

LOFL ...............

Killing a terrorist is not murder, Mr. Filth.

 

[pismoe]

With as many of these pussy terrorist lovers as we have, this country is doomed.

So, you don't believe in the ROE but you do believe murder is OK.

LOFL ...............

------------------------------------ should be NO 'roe' when fighting and killing enemy that is not in uniform and i thought that that was the rules of the way it was . Same goes for uniformed enemy in my opinion but thats a different matter . ------------- just a comment .

 

[WillPower]

So, you don't believe in the ROE but you do believe murder is OK.

LOFL ...............

Tell me everything you know about "ROE" without going to wiki...I got 5 seconds to waste.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No low to low for a man who openly admires and seeks to emulate dictators and authoritarians.

Our military has standards and codes. It is professional and strict. Something our enemies typically lack. Trump seems to want them to emulate our enemies. No surprise.

Trump may pardon US soldiers accused or convicted of war crimes – report

Legal experts cited in the report said pardoning several accused and convicted war criminals, including some who have not yet gone to trial, has not been done in recent history. Some worried such pardons could erode the legitimacy of military law.

He is just looking into it on a case by case basis? Why is this wrong? America 1st. Never Forget.

 

[caddo kid]

With as many of these pussy terrorist lovers as we have, this country is doomed.

So, you don't believe in the ROE but you do believe murder is OK.

LOFL ...............

Killing a terrorist is not murder, Mr. Filth.

Well, I guess the US military disagrees with you because the US military convicted him of murder

 

[pismoe]

USA , in 2 Wars fought right beside each other . That'd be WW2 fighting against 'japan' and 'germany' . What was it , 4 years and some change . BUT nowadays here we are in 'the 'afghanistan' with much more power and 'roe' dictated by 'politicians' . And what is it eh ?? USA is still fighting and USA Military being killed after 17 years .

 

[caddo kid]

With as many of these pussy terrorist lovers as we have, this country is doomed.

So, you don't believe in the ROE but you do believe murder is OK.

LOFL ...............

------------------------------------ should be NO 'roe' when fighting and killing enemy that is not in uniform and i thought that that was the rules of the way it was . Same goes for uniformed enemy in my opinion but thats a different matter . ------------- just a comment .

shoulda, coulda, woulda, blah blah blah ............. every employer has rulez you fucking moron ........... even the military ...........