Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exonerating Servicemen Convicted of War Crimes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Manning served part of his sentence. As I said, I also draw a distinction between the case of a president pardoning someone after serving some portion of his sentence from the action of a president who completely ignores the military and does not permit even the execution of any part of a sentence that was delivered by a military court

    But if you want my personal opinion about the broader picture, the whole idea of a presidential pardon is a relic of the past that should not have a place in a modern republic. To me, there must be a constitutional amendment to eliminate it.
    That is a valid point. I want a 100% tax on lobbyist donations, a boy can dream

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    And I suppose Manning was a Trump deal too
    Manning served part of his sentence. As I said in the previous post, I also draw a distinction between the case of a president pardoning someone after serving some portion of his sentence from the action of a president who completely ignores the military and does not permit even the execution of any part of a sentence that was delivered by a military court

    But if you want my personal opinion about the broader picture, the whole idea of a presidential pardon is a relic of the past that should not have a place in a modern republic. To me, there must be a constitutional amendment to eliminate it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    If you refuse to lower yourself to their level, American soldiers and American civilians will needlessly die .
    It is a conundrum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Slick talked about previous cases. I am talking about this one and to my knowledge there wee multiple younger seals who testified against their commander but things changed completely when the new witness testified under immunity that it was him who killed the captive. And in the end, the jury made a decision to acquit the defendant of the murder but to convict him about lesser crimes which eventually brought his demotion.


    I understand that hey have been cases of other presidents doing likewise, but notice that here we had a decision that was opposed by the military. I also draw a distinction between the case of a president pardoning someone after serving some portion of his sentence from the action of a president who completely ignores the military and does not permit even the execution of any part of a sentence.

    Also, I did not see information that Obama pardoned Bergdahl. On the contrary,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-lawyer-says/

    "Obama opted not to act on presidential pardon request in Bowe Bergdahl's desertion case


    and during Trump's presidency

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41642168
    • 16 October 2017


    Bowe Bergdahl, the US soldier held as a Taliban captive in Afghanistan for five years, has pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehaviour before the enemy.
    And I suppose Manning was a Trump deal too

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    Or there is more to the story and the younger team member threw someone else under the bus. And Slick_Miester brings up the relevant fact that the JAG with held evidence which would put the entire prosecution under doubt.
    The JAGs lost credibility when they with held evidence.
    As too the idea that it would be easy to break a teenager, I would counter and ask just what do you think a teenager could tell us?
    Not much, I doubt he knew much past his immediate cell.
    But I would like to revisit some other points, All of the terrorist groups we have been fighting with since 2002 are civilians, The Taliban, the groups in Somalia including the pirates. ISIS, the list goes on and on.... When we send our fighting forces into harms way against civilian terror groups that take their family into the battle with them, that train children old enough to walk to kill, who are willing to use children as walking bombs guess what?
    Civilians will die.
    As for the OP which was expressing displeasure with Trump for dismissing charges against this Seal, I would remind you that there has been a long history of presidents doing likewise.
    Just two weeks ago one of the soldiers who searched for Bergdahl and suffered a brain injury during that search passed away after years of suffering disabilities caused by those wounds.
    Bow Bergdahl was pardoned by Obama.
    Slick talked about previous cases. I am talking about this one and to my knowledge there wee multiple younger seals who testified against their commander but things changed completely when the new witness testified under immunity that it was him who killed the captive. And in the end, the jury made a decision to acquit the defendant of the murder but to convict him about lesser crimes which eventually brought his demotion.


    I understand that hey have been cases of other presidents doing likewise, but notice that here we had a decision that was opposed by the military. I also draw a distinction between the case of a president pardoning someone after serving some portion of his sentence from the action of a president who completely ignores the military and does not permit even the execution of any part of a sentence.

    Also, I did not see information that Obama pardoned Bergdahl. On the contrary,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-lawyer-says/

    "Obama opted not to act on presidential pardon request in Bowe Bergdahl's desertion case


    and during Trump's presidency

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41642168
    • 16 October 2017


    Bowe Bergdahl, the US soldier held as a Taliban captive in Afghanistan for five years, has pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehaviour before the enemy.
    Last edited by pamak; 21 Nov 19, 20:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    The first question is exactly all the money:
    The witness obviously knew that he needed to have immunity in order to confess to a war crime and create enough doubt for the culpability of the defendant.
    The JAG did not need to offer any immunity for evidence against the defendant.

    As to why I bring the fact that the captive was a teenager, it is because I tied it to the better likelihood of breaking him easier/faster during interrogations and get valuable information from him.

    So, it is not that I am fixated with the teenager. I am more interested in the idea that soldiers, seals, or whatever disobey commands and do things that actually harm their cause and still get away with such actions without getting any consequences, not even a demotion.

    And from today's news, it appears that the Navy command was contemplating of removing the trident from that seal even after the pardon he got. I am not saying that after pardon they should do such thing. I just point it as evidence of the apparent strong conviction within the military community (which recommended against pardoning this officer). They perhaps think that the prosecutors were somehow outplayed by the witness who secured immunity in order to bail out his buddy?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...rident-2019-11

    In November, Trump moved to grant Gallagher clemency, reinstating his rank and pay and paving the way for his retirement. But the Navy still moved to take Gallagher's Trident and boot him from the SEALs, a decision that had been approved by the chain of command up to the White House by Tuesday, according to The New York Times.

    The Navy reportedly tried to strip Gallagher's Trident in early November, before Trump granted him clemency. It did not follow through on the punitive measure at the time, and Gallagher's attorney Tim Parlatore issued a scathing letter to Naval Special Warfare Command chief Rear Adm. Collin Green.

    Parlatore again hit back against Green on Fox News on Thursday.

    "Monday morning the admiral comes in and says I disagree with the president, I'm going to take his Trident," Parlatore said.
    Or there is more to the story and the younger team member threw someone else under the bus. And Slick_Miester brings up the relevant fact that the JAG with held evidence which would put the entire prosecution under doubt.
    The JAGs lost credibility when they with held evidence.
    As too the idea that it would be easy to break a teenager, I would counter and ask just what do you think a teenager could tell us?
    Not much, I doubt he knew much past his immediate cell.
    But I would like to revisit some other points, All of the terrorist groups we have been fighting with since 2002 are civilians, The Taliban, the groups in Somalia including the pirates. ISIS, the list goes on and on.... When we send our fighting forces into harms way against civilian terror groups that take their family into the battle with them, that train children old enough to walk to kill, who are willing to use children as walking bombs guess what?
    Civilians will die.
    As for the OP which was expressing displeasure with Trump for dismissing charges against this Seal, I would remind you that there has been a long history of presidents doing likewise.
    Just two weeks ago one of the soldiers who searched for Bergdahl and suffered a brain injury during that search passed away after years of suffering disabilities caused by those wounds.
    Bow Bergdahl was pardoned by Obama.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    Why would the witness need immunity?
    The testimony of the medic put the kibosh on the testimony of the immunity seeking witness didn't it?
    I respect your opinion, and am not debating the value of such rules, You keep bringing up the fact that the ISIS terrorist was a teenager. What does that have to do with anything?
    He willingly joined ISIS, a group that is merciless in it's treatment of captured combatants, civilians and have weaponized adolescent children. We have seen journalist beheaded, public stoning's of Christians by these thugs, crucifixion's, mass killings, and the willingness for ISIS members to put bomb vest on their own adolescent children.
    But you seem fixated on this one teenager.
    Our small community has buried more than a dozen "teenagers" who volunteered to fight after the 9/11 attacks. ,
    The first question is exactly all the money:
    The witness obviously knew that he needed to have immunity in order to confess to a war crime and create enough doubt for the culpability of the defendant.
    The JAG did not need to offer any immunity for evidence against the defendant.

    As to why I bring the fact that the captive was a teenager, it is because I tied it to the better likelihood of breaking him easier/faster during interrogations and get valuable information from him.

    So, it is not that I am fixated with the teenager. I am more interested in the idea that soldiers, seals, or whatever disobey commands and do things that actually harm their cause and still get away with such actions without getting any consequences, not even a demotion.

    And from today's news, it appears that the Navy command was contemplating of removing the trident from that seal even after the pardon he got. I am not saying that after pardon they should do such thing. I just point it as evidence of the apparent strong conviction within the military community (which recommended against pardoning this officer). They perhaps think that the prosecutors were somehow outplayed by the witness who secured immunity in order to bail out his buddy?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...rident-2019-11

    In November, Trump moved to grant Gallagher clemency, reinstating his rank and pay and paving the way for his retirement. But the Navy still moved to take Gallagher's Trident and boot him from the SEALs, a decision that had been approved by the chain of command up to the White House by Tuesday, according to The New York Times.

    The Navy reportedly tried to strip Gallagher's Trident in early November, before Trump granted him clemency. It did not follow through on the punitive measure at the time, and Gallagher's attorney Tim Parlatore issued a scathing letter to Naval Special Warfare Command chief Rear Adm. Collin Green.

    Parlatore again hit back against Green on Fox News on Thursday.

    "Monday morning the admiral comes in and says I disagree with the president, I'm going to take his Trident," Parlatore said.

    Last edited by pamak; 21 Nov 19, 14:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Why would the JAG threaten to pin the crime on the new witness when they already had started the prosecution of another person (seal commander) and had numerous witnesses (other navy seals) testifying against him?
    Why did JAG withhold evidence of incoming rounds against the Marines of 2/8 at Haditha? Why did JAG withhold evidence that anti-remote IED gear interfered with comms against Sgt Winnick? I can't answer your question, except to say that within the last few years JAG has shown that it will rather easily bend the law in order to further a prosecution. In both of the referenced instances, judges have cited JAG lawyers for contempt, so clearly a pattern has been established: JAG will withhold exculpatory, material evidence, even though such conduct is proscribed in every procedural book in the free world. An explanation of that would be far more revealing, and far more relevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Why would the JAG threaten to pin the crime on the new witness when they already had started the prosecution of another person (seal commander) and had numerous witnesses (other navy seals) testifying against him?

    The ISIS terrorist was killed after his capture, and it is obvious that the circumstances did not justify the killing of a captured terrorist. There was not an issue of self-defense or ambiguity about who the enemy is or necessity to accept collateral damage in order to neutralize an enemy. On the contrary, there was an incentive to deliver this teenager prisoner to the interrogators so that they could extract from him as much information as they could.
    Why would the witness need immunity?
    The testimony of the medic put the kibosh on the testimony of the immunity seeking witness didn't it?
    I respect your opinion, and am not debating the value of such rules, You keep bringing up the fact that the ISIS terrorist was a teenager. What does that have to do with anything?
    He willingly joined ISIS, a group that is merciless in it's treatment of captured combatants, civilians and have weaponized adolescent children. We have seen journalist beheaded, public stoning's of Christians by these thugs, crucifixion's, mass killings, and the willingness for ISIS members to put bomb vest on their own adolescent children.
    But you seem fixated on this one teenager.
    Our small community has buried more than a dozen "teenagers" who volunteered to fight after the 9/11 attacks. ,

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    That is both ludicrous and utter nonsense. The armed forces are non-partisan and if any service member has committed a war crime they deserve to be prosecuted and convicted. Pardoning them is offensive and just plain wrong.

    And since I am an independent and neither a Republican nor a Democrat, your partisan comment is rubbish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    That is the problem. That very simplistic take away leaves the door wide open......

    Who determines that someone deserves to be killed?
    I should't bother with him. It's Trump that pardoned them. If it was a democrat that did it, the Marine would be outside in his back-yard saluting old glory and licking its pole.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    If you refuse to lower yourself to their level, American soldiers and American civilians will needlessly die .
    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    If you refuse to lower yourself to their level, American soldiers and American civilians will needlessly die .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    There is no justification needed for the killing of a captured terrorist .

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    I get suspicious of the witness any time immunity is offered. Did the JAG tell him to take the deal or we will pin it on you?

    As for the "general issue about the rules of law". The Seal in question was ordered to kill and enemy that is in fact a group of civilians.
    Is that not true? If ISIS are civilians and our solders are commanded to engage them, is not the order it self a violation of the "general issue about the rules of law?"

    That is the basis of my question.....How does the soldier on the ground react when the order itself is a violation of the basic rules of warfare?
    When our troops fought the Iraqi army, that was an actual force of a recognized nation. ISIS is not . Many of the fighters are young people recruited from all over the world. That would mean they do not even share a language . And our fighters have to engage them. The stupidity is to expect our soldiers to fight the devil and remain saints.
    Why would the JAG threaten to pin the crime on the new witness when they already had started the prosecution of another person (seal commander) and had numerous witnesses (other navy seals) testifying against him?

    The ISIS terrorist was killed after his capture, and it is obvious that the circumstances did not justify the killing of a captured terrorist. There was not an issue of self-defense or ambiguity about who the enemy is or necessity to accept collateral damage in order to neutralize an enemy. On the contrary, there was an incentive to deliver this teenager prisoner to the interrogators so that they could extract from him as much information as they could.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X