President Pardons Three Accused of War Crimes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mopar Dude, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    Yesterday the President pardoned three soldiers whose young lives have long been embroiled in war crimes accusations. These young men had served honorably lending me to believe the accusations were more political in nature than true war crimes. As a former soldier, I have had interest in these young men’s fortunes.

    Americans by and large are world leaders when it comes to armchair quarterbacking. We consume what we hear from our own selection of news and draw our own conclusions based on our personal biases.

    These young men’s judgements were initially born of the mindset drawn from the waterboarding stories that were so prevalent a decade ago. It is far too easy for us to sit in the comfort of our easy chairs and draw judgment on actions we feel are not appropriate..... Fact is, to the average American that has not placed themselves in harms way, there is no perspective unless you have faced the enemy on his ground. War is unspeakably brutal and you do what you must to keep yourself and your brothers in arms alive.

    Say what you will. These young men served honorably and our President did the right thing restoring honor to their young lives. Spin that.
     
    CoinBlazer and JohnHamilton like this.
  2. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    Two of these young men who you say "served honorably" were in fact convicted of war crimes. The other was credibly accused, and should have faced a court and had a chance to clear his name, if he is innocent.

    The Pentagon opposed the pardons. There is a clear practical reason for this. If the US is seen as willing to condone war crimes, it harms its ability to present itself as upholding a high ethical standard in its military actions. It shows itself willing to come down to the level of rogue states and lawless organizations like al-Qaeda and Daesh.

     
    JoeNation likes this.
  3. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    "War Crime"

    You are watching a motorcycle with guys in foreign garb riding toward you. You ask them to slow down or halt, but they keep coming. They don’t stop; so, you end up shooting them. There is no way to know if they have suicide bombs on them on not, but you are supposed to wait until they are right up on you.

    If they detonate what they have, you are dead or maimed for life. What you are going to do, Mr. Progressive?
    Are you obliged to lay down life and limb because some desk bound general in Washington, who got his job by playing the PC liberal cards, says you have to make nice with terrorists who don’t observe any of the Geneva Convention rules?

    Before you start condemning soldiers as “war criminals,” you need to think about who is laying their lives on the line to keep you safe. You need to look at each of these cases in some detail before you start throwing the “war criminal” label around.

    Are there bad soldiers who deserve to go to jail or even be put to death? Yes, but you need to examine more than the liberal news headlines, which are looking to make Trump look bad any way they can.

    Many years ago, there was book, entitled, Military Justice Is to Justice What Military Music Is to Music.
    Most military trials are not held unless they are figure they are going to get a guilty verdict. It’s “guilty until you can prove yourself innocent,” unlike the civilian courts. Politics is often involved.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  4. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    I think that the people appointed by the military to oversee the actions of members of the military are qualified to understand what constitutes war crimes. You may disagree, and think that a conniving, dishonest, self-serving draft dodger is capable of understanding these matters better. So be it.
     
  5. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    I was eight years military. And in most cases, military justice is swift and stern. I had occasion to be involved with the military justice system. I was called when one of my new guys was in our German hosts city drunk and quite belligerent. I had a car and went to pick him up. I arrived just ahead of the MP's. I loaded the young man up in my car and proceeded to try to speak to the MP's on his behalf when he broke out into another drunken tirade. He was immediately handcuffed and my car was then inspected. The kid had put a small chunk of hashish in my glove box. It was my car so I was then arrested. Everything came true in the military court system and I was completely exonerated, though I never had the opportunity to whoop that kids arse for causing me so much trouble..... My point is simply this... Military judges and juries are as human as you or I. They are fallible. All humans are. But here's the undeniable fact. When you place yourself in harms way, decisions are truly life and death. The average American cannot begin to fathom just exactly what that means. You can train for years, but until that motorcycle is barreling at you in a hot unfriendly zone... Which choice would you make?
     
    JohnHamilton likes this.
  6. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    Soldiers on the ground during that incident tell a different story than Lorance.

     
    JoeNation likes this.
  7. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    The Secretary of the Navy has resigned/been fired. From his letter to Trump:

    He must be a never-Trumper.
     
    JoeNation likes this.
  8. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    Eddie Gallagher, one of those pardoned by President Trump, and who has joined Trump at Mar-a-Lago to help the president gull the public, is anything but a hero according to members of his own platoon.

    "Anguish and Anger From the Navy SEALS Who Turned In Edward Gallagher" | MSN



    They must all be never-Trumpers, lying to investigators to promote the evil Democrat agenda.
     
  9. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    The same sorts of things were said about General Patton and his enemy was terrified of the man. If I were being led into the field of battle, and I had a choice to follow and warrior or a special operator that sheepishly looks at walls while weeping.... Well, I know which one I would follow.
     
  10. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    These men have just as much right to a politcal opinion as you do, @Recusant. They have put their lives on the line to protect you
     
  11. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    I should be amazed that you're going to equate Patton with this person who stands credibly accused by his own crewmates of shooting a young girl on a whim, among other despicable acts. I'm not though. I've become used to people spouting shameless bunkum.

    Previously I believe you expressed respect for people who'd achieved in their lives the level SEAL operator. Now apparently that can be tossed to the side, and why? It seems to me it's because you need to belittle these men so that you can dismiss their testimony. They're a group of honorable men, the best of the best, until they happen to come forward to accuse one of their own of 'conduct unbecoming' i.e. acts so heinous they were compelled to report them. Then they deserve to be discredited and referred to with contempt.

    I don't think it works. Those men served with Gallagher. They did follow him through some very tough situations, because that's what that sort of unit does. They are not cowards. Cowards don't get to become SEALs, and survive tours of duty in combat. They have no reason to lie. A narrative where they're somehow weaklings who've all got together to tell lies to attack the one true tough guy in their unit is absurd.
     
  12. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    I agree, and have not claimed otherwise. Thank you for pointing that out, I guess.
     
  13. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    I have to wonder why the seals that have credibility accused one of their own and have been supported by a military trial don't get the respect that is being reserved for this one individual just because dear leader waved his hand and overruled a just military procedure. That's a head scratcher. Aren't you really disrespectful of many soldiers for the defense of one disgusting soldier?
     
  14. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Why?

    Because they are mouthing off to The New York Times, which has zero credibility.

    The former “paper of record,” when I was in undergraduate school, is now on a par with “Mother Jones,” “Rolling Stone” and “Vanity Fair.” It’s just propaganda machine for the far left Democrat Party.

    “The New Republic” might even be more reliable. I used to subscribe to that, and it had a much more even-handed view, especially about Israel versus the radical Muslims who want to destroy it.

    When the stories are collaborated by creditable sources, more will listen.

    There is price to be paid for “cooking the books” with the news, and the Times is paying it. Its reputation is gone.
     
  15. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Uhhhhh... The military trial is the source for multiple news outlets including the NY Times. Dismissing these soldiers as just "mouthing off" because you don't happen to like one specific media outlet isn't really much of a justification by any standard. Other sources that corroborate the NY Times include, The Military Times, Reuters, Washington Post, Fox News , CNN, Forbes, USAToday, etc, etc, etc... But feel free to cherry pick the ones you hate to justify your supreme leader's idiotic decisions. That's what cult members always do.
     
  16. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    What The New York Times published were excerpts from the SEALs videotaped testimony, evidence used in the court martial of Gallagher. I don't know where you get the idea that they "mouthed off" to the paper, but you're mistaken. Your reason for discounting their testimony is laughably flimsy, even if it were accurate. It's not accurate--the SEALs didn't give interviews to The New York Times (and the paper did try), but I expect you'll come up with yet another reason to support Gallagher while dismissing the evidence which very strongly indicates that he's an unrepentant war criminal.
     
  17. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Let me explain his argument in pictures so @JohnHamilton can also understand. He starts at the bottom and never makes it past the second level.

    argue.JPG
     
  18. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Ahh ... our favorite fascist is back with another canned response from the people who give him his answers. You are inventive as a copy machine, and you are evil to you core. When you say you want to take my wife’s pension and my net worth you are not kidding. You are a radical revolutionary who only wants to tear this country to pieces and reform into your sick, perverted image. You hate people who work hard and have obeyed the rules. As such you deserve no quarter.

    If I am wrong, you need to set the record straight with something better than, “I have explained my position before.” You have written too many hurtful things here to call it a joke.

    If you are angry, go away angry. Life is too short too short to waste it on people like you who thrive on hate.
     
  19. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Second level of the pyramid.
     
  20. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    "Trump the short fingered vulgarian Fascist."

    That's at the bottom of the pyramid for you. It’s so hackneyed, it’s become a running joke around here from imperceptive political hater.
     

Share This Page