I think the military does a pretty fair job of policing their own. It’s not perfect, but it’s their boots in the trenches. They know the realities of “The Fog of War”.
No pretend do-gooders or draft-dodgers should have any say what-so-ever.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-16-2019).]
The CiC has been fully briefed on the individual cases by the DoD and therefore has more information that we do.
I trust that his decisions are appropriate.
Additionally, since some Leftist named "Hina Shamsi" from the ACLU is loudly complaining about the two pardons and the promotion in withheld rank for Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Edward R. Gallagher, that serves to strengthen my belief that the decisions are all the more appropriate.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-16-2019).]
Do you really believe The President is doing this because he actually believes an “injustice” was done? Do you believe he cares about these guys at all? Was there such a public outcry that he could no longer ignore it?
Do we no longer trust our own military to uphold their own standards?
Anyone with half-a-brain (no offense) knows exactlly why he’s doing this. It’s the same reason he does everything. To benefit HIM.
Remember the respect he showed for Mccain’s service to this country? Yeah, he’s the LAST person to be judging anyone’s Honor.
Have some really become this blind? Or is it simply willful ignorance?
For those that seem to love Donald Trump blindly, I wonder if there is anything he could do or say that would force those same people to be at least vaguely critical of those words or actions.
With the venom some use around here over the silliest of sh!t, I would think there would be plenty left over for the really BIG sh!t in the World.
P.S. If I remember right, most here thought that “Burgdawl” (sic) fellow some time back should have been hung for desertion. He didn’t kill anyone, he simply ran away.
How come no one here is calling for the noose in this instance?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-16-2019).]
Originally posted by maryjane: I'm not much on killing innocent civilians regardless of "perceived'' threats. It all boils down to: "Did they feah fer theah lives?"
I also did not serve. I am not at all for killing innocent civilians. The Mi Lai massacre still turns my stomach. Did we fear for our lives when we joined England in WW II ? That bomb maker was not on his way to church.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: Do you really believe The President is doing this because he actually believes an “injustice” was done? Do you believe he cares about these guys at all? Was there such a public outcry that he could no longer ignore it?
Yes, yes, no.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: Do we no longer trust our own military to uphold their own standards?
Do you ? If you did there would be no political wars / targets. Our military would kick azz in short order.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: Anyone with half-a-brain (no offense) knows exactlly why he’s doing this. It’s the same reason he does everything. To benefit HIM.
How so ?
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: Have some really become this blind? Or is it simply willful ignorance?
What is your reason ?
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: P.S. If I remember right, most here thought that “Burgdawl” (sic) fellow some time back should have been hung for desertion. He didn’t kill anyone, he simply ran away.
How many people got killed looking for that ruckhead that did not run away ? He ran to the Taliban ! The guy ought to be hung for being so stupid.
How come no one here is calling for the noose in this instance?
P.S. If I remember right, most here thought that “Burgdawl” (sic) fellow some time back should have been hung for desertion. He didn’t kill anyone, he simply ran away.
How come no one here is calling for the noose in this instance?
He simply got soldiers killed. Americans did not make it home to their loved ones. Does this not concern you?
I trust in my President. His actions have provided my family with the means to continue to grow. I am very proud to be an American right now.
Eh, you will just tell me how shatty my life is, nobody cares for me, blah, blah, blah. 8th grade basically. Carry on if it fills your soul.
Food for thought. Maybe if there wasn't so much concern for collateral damage and casualties then maybe these wars wouldn't drag on as long as they do.
Go in. Kick the living shut out of them. Go home. It worked for Sherman and it worked again in WW2.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 11-16-2019).]
Originally posted by cliffw: How many people got killed looking for that ruckhead that did not run away ? He ran to the Taliban !
Thinking about it, he had to ask people where he could find them. Then Nobama let his parents speak to his captives in Arabic swahillie from the Rose Garden. Looking like muslims, the beard, the head cover of his Mom.
Just for the record, "Team Bergdahl" has been granted another review of the case. They're arguing that the punishments that were meted out to Berghdahl in 2017 are tainted because of public commentary about it from "one" Donald J. Trump.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Just for the record, "Team Bergdahl" has been granted another review of the case. They're arguing that the punishments that were meted out to Berghdahl in 2017 are tainted because of public commentary about it from "one" Donald J. Trump.
Just for the record, Team Commander in Chief oversees the Military, including the Army which almost unanimously denied the appeal. Perhaps he will grant the traitor his appeal and this time he will get the death penalty.
quote
The Army ultimately rejected the appeal, but as Military Times points out, the decision wasn't unanimous — Judge James Ewing wrote in his dissent that "Army prosecutors did not prove without a doubt that unlawful command influence did not taint the proceedings."
Here's the one sentence (well, a "clause") from that media report that jumps out at me:
quote
... in April, he [President Trump] criticized President Barack Obama for swapping "five terrorist hostages...for traitor Sgt. Bergdahl."
April of 2019. Couldn't that result in a penalty flag against Trump for a "Late Hit" on his predecessor in the Oval Office? I mean, if it were being re-officiated.
I wonder what elicited that particular comment, at that particular time, from President Trump. If there was a context for it. Pareidolia? A pattern that he perceived in the light that was reflecting from the liquid inside of his morning mug of covfefe, after he stirred creamer into it? Or does he have it "black"..?
Whobody knows?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-17-2019).]
Just for the record, "Team Bergdahl" has been granted another review of the case. They're arguing that the punishments that were meted out to Berghdahl in 2017 are tainted because of public commentary about it from "one" Donald J. Trump.
...
TDS. It is a real issue with society today. We scare over vaping, yet let TDS run freely?
I offer cry closets at discounted Pennocks pricing to individuals, families, and organizations that can show suffrage due to TDS. I offer a 50% off coupon to those that have this issue. Call it a just service if you will.
Food for thought. Maybe if there wasn't so much concern for collateral damage and casualties then maybe these wars wouldn't drag on as long as they do.
Go in. Kick the living shut out of them. Go home. It worked for Sherman and it worked again in WW2.
This exactly. This is why so many soldiers die, we're so preoccupied with not killing 'innocent' people in warzones. There's a reason war should be a last resort after all other possibilities have been exhausted. You CANNOT 'win hearts and minds' in a country you are occupying and policing. 'War is hell'. These people in particular have been killing each other for thousands of years, they're not going to change, leave them alone and let them fight to the last tribe, animals killing animals.
Except that the OP specifically 'requested' (was looking for) opinions from military veterans, I'm not much on restricting the discussion to veterans for the following reason. Our military serves at the bequest and will of "the People". Altho the President is by constitution, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, this nation from the outset has had and hopefully always will have civilian control of our military. The People should always have a say in what we do or don't engage in militarily. It would of course, be nice if the People always stood 100% behind those endeavors and fully supported them, but from day 1, that has never been the case...there were dissenters even in the American Revolution. I'll gladly settle for 'support the troops if not the mission'. The troops after all, are only doing what 'we' ask them to do. They, don't get a vote, other than the fact that today's military is all volunteer. There is/has always been (especially in the Marines) a comparison made between "Old Corps vs New Breed"..almost always a friendly comparison. I'm quite proud of this modern US military..better trained, better equipped and every bit as professional and fully committed to mission as any we have ever fielded while doing a job that is extremely difficult for a lot of different reasons...not the least of which is more open public vision of what happens day to day.
As far as 'the reason' the prez commuted/pardoned the military members, that's subjective and I suspect, from the other discussions I've read as well as the PFF version, that it generally goes straight down party lines. No surprise there.
DoD made some changes to courts martial and military tribunals over a decade ago, after doing a study on sentencing and guilt/innocence phases, and because of public input that their justice system needed to be brought closer to what the civilian counterparts were. One of the big changes, was that during the initial trial, the accused's attorneys could not parade a bunch of witnesses to his/her past performance, read from their service record (good or bad) or display commendations/medals etc. IOW, the guilt or innocence should be found solely on the merits of the evidence presented in regards to the alleged violations. Another change, was that the sentencing should be more in line with what civilian cases would be in regards to the years sentenced to and or fines.
IF, found guilty, then during the sentencing phase, the guilty party's attorneys ARE allowed to present past performance as prescribed by new military protocol for the judges to consider when handing down sentence.
We recently saw a Ft Worth police woman found guilty of murdering a man in his own apartment, in which she was sentenced to 10 years in prison. According to state law, regardless of how long the sentence was, she will be eligible for parole when 1/2 the term is served, and she will probably receive parole at that time. In this case, 5 years. Lt Clint Lorance, has already served more prison time that that...6 years, so the pardon, imo, is right in line with what a parole would have allowed had the crime been committed in civilian life would be. And, both DoD and the press releases from the white house clearly stated the president pardoned the Lt based in part on his service to the country, his past performance, which is right in line with DoD policy and protocol. He stopped short of vacating the guilty verdict, merely shortened the punishment to 6 years (time served) versus 19 years.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-17-2019).]
If you cant keep politics out of it then its nice to see a politician set things right.
Now can we correct this
quote
In 2017, former president Barack Obama shortened a 35-year prison sentence for Chelsea Manning, the soldier who leaked a trove of classified information to WikiLeaks, to seven years.
If you have never been put in harms way (or sent those you care for and support to those lines) then you have no idea. IF we allow the sway of politician when most of them have spent a life time avoiding this line then I am glad that it was set right.
While I wish Trump was better at how he addresses the public he has demonstrated that he loves this country. We have had to live through years of those in power stating they are not proud to be American and hate this country. The media and "Mob" picked it up and ran with it, now its the common song of those that want attention and power.
War is hell, its is not the games that are played and most do not understand. Go and spend some time at museums before they are removed. Read about the sacrifice of the men and women that took up the call. Dont get caught in the politics, read and listen to the stories of the men and women that sacrificed. Read about those that didn't come back.
I carried those brave service men and women with me for days after my visit. The ships were deserted except for the echos of those that ran those halls and jumped down the ladders on the way to duty stations. The smell of the ships brought back so many memories. I swelled with pride and carried the weight of those that gave it all. They are falling into disrepair and one day some **** head will mark them as an eye sore and they will be removed.
Push politics aside, this isn't about some dispute at the corner. These men and women have swarm an oath and if they are filling that oath then they shouldn't be jailed because someone that has never been couldn't stomach it.
Do not stand on your corner and condemn them, for if it wasn't for them you would be holding signs in another language, if you were even able to hold a sign.
Except that the OP specifically 'requested' (was looking for) opinions from military veterans, I'm not much on restricting the discussion to veterans for the following reason. Our military serves at the bequest and will of "the People". Altho the President is by constitution, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, this nation from the outset has had and hopefully always will have civilian control of our military. The People should always have a say in what we do or don't engage in militarily. It would of course, be nice if the People always stood 100% behind those endeavors and fully supported them, but from day 1, that has never been the case...there were dissenters even in the American Revolution. I'll gladly settle for 'support the troops if not the mission'. The troops after all, are only doing what 'we' ask them to do. They, don't get a vote, other than the fact that today's military is all volunteer. There is/has always been (especially in the Marines) a comparison made between "Old Corps vs New Breed"..almost always a friendly comparison. I'm quite proud of this modern US military..better trained, better equipped and every bit as professional and fully committed to mission as any we have ever fielded while doing a job that is extremely difficult for a lot of different reasons...not the least of which is more open public vision of what happens day to day.
As far as 'the reason' the prez commuted/pardoned the military members, that's subjective and I suspect, from the other discussions I've read as well as the PFF version, that it generally goes straight down party lines. No surprise there.
DoD made some changes to courts martial and military tribunals over a decade ago, after doing a study on sentencing and guilt/innocence phases, and because of public input that their justice system needed to be brought closer to what the civilian counterparts were. One of the big changes, was that during the initial trial, the accused's attorneys could not parade a bunch of witnesses to his/her past performance, read from their service record (good or bad) or display commendations/medals etc. IOW, the guilt or innocence should be found solely on the merits of the evidence presented in regards to the alleged violations. Another change, was that the sentencing should be more in line with what civilian cases would be in regards to the years sentenced to and or fines.
IF, found guilty, then during the sentencing phase, the guilty party's attorneys ARE allowed to present past performance as prescribed by new military protocol for the judges to consider when handing down sentence.
We recently saw a Ft Worth police woman found guilty of murdering a man in his own apartment, in which she was sentenced to 10 years in prison. According to state law, regardless of how long the sentence was, she will be eligible for parole when 1/2 the term is served, and she will probably receive parole at that time. In this case, 5 years. Lt Clint Lorance, has already served more prison time that that...6 years, so the pardon, imo, is right in line with what a parole would have allowed had the crime been committed in civilian life would be. And, both DoD and the press releases from the white house clearly stated the president pardoned the Lt based in part on his service to the country, his past performance, which is right in line with DoD policy and protocol. He stopped short of vacating the guilty verdict, merely shortened the punishment to 6 years (time served) versus 19 years.
An excellent response!
I was seeking veteran responses but fully expected opinions, responses and discussion from those who have not served their country. The reason I was interested in Veteran responses is, they are the ones most likely or who had greater opportunity to have similar situations. Most civilians have never put their lives on the line for a cause, a flag or a brother in arms. I was curious to how my brothers who have served looked at these pardons. Thanks for a great response.
I was seeking veteran responses but fully expected opinions, responses and discussion from those who have not served their country. The reason I was interested in Veteran responses is, they are the ones most likely or who had greater opportunity to have similar situations. Most civilians have never put their lives on the line for a cause, a flag or a brother in arms. I was curious to how my brothers who have served looked at these pardons. Thanks for a great response.
Rams
I take a little bit of issue with the underlined part Ron, tho I will wait to explain until this thread has come closer to running it's coarse. I will say now tho, that my issue is related to what I truly think really makes this a great country. I may be way out in the outfield with it, but it is what I believe.
... in April, he [President Trump] criticized President Barack Obama for swapping "five terrorist hostages...for traitor Sgt. Bergdahl."
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Here's the one sentence (well, a "clause") from that media report that jumps out at me:April of 2019. Couldn't that result in a penalty flag against Trump for a "Late Hit" on his predecessor in the Oval Office? I mean, if it were being re-officiated.
Late hit ? No. In fact, he should have piled on to Nobama for Bradley Manning.
These men and women have swarm an oath and if they are filling that oath then they shouldn't be jailed because someone that has never been couldn't stomach it.
Were they tried by a court martial full of civilians or tried by the military?
This is the chief judge in his court martial. I believe Gen Berger made a serious mistake when he publicly spoke out in the case, calling Lorance a 'bad apple" and compared him to Lt Calley further stating that lt lorance had 'gone off the rails and wanted to fight the war his own way". This influenced the military appeals court and even Sec of the Army in denying Lorance a new trial.
quote
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE ARMY COURT PUBLICLY MISSTATES THE FINDINGS On March 15, 2018, the Chief Judge of the Army Court, who is also the Commander of the U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, Brigadier General Joseph B. Berger III, appeared in uniform at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a respected Washington, D.C.
The sitting Chief Judge made public comments about Lorance as a “bad apple” who wanted to fight the war his own way, and likened Lorance to First Lieutenant William Calley of the My Lai Massacre, (Calley, unlike Lorance, actually fired his rifle and he and his unit killed over 200 women, children, and elderly villagers). Id. The Chief Judge echoed the Army Court’s suggestion that Lorance changed the ROE to fire on motorcycles on site, even though the jury found Lorance not guilty of that offense. Id. Specifically, the Chief Judge wrongly informed the audience the following: Clint Lorance was a very aggressive Lieutenant, who had his own ideas about how the war in Afghanistan should be being fought. Those ideas were not in align with the rules of engagement. And that’s the fundamental fact that starts us off the trail here. And off the rails. Lorance gives his Soldiers guidance that is not in accordance with the ROE. Motorcycles are allowed to be engaged on sight - that’s the guidance given. Not a lawful order, but his Soldiers don’t necessarily know that, because a change to the ROE would logically come through the chain of command.
A long read in it's entirety, but pay attention to pgs 40-50 and you can see why President Trump took an interest in granting the pardon. That court martial itself went off the rails, basing it's guilty verdict and the sentence on an initial charge that Lt lorance was found not guilty of...changing the rules of engagement.
I take a little bit of issue with the underlined part Ron, tho I will wait to explain until this thread has come closer to running it's coarse. I will say now tho, that my issue is related to what I truly think really makes this a great country. I may be way out in the outfield with it, but it is what I believe.
Respectfully, I have a deep interest in your opinion regarding this. Lately I've been wondering if anyone even knows anymore.
Some of the explanations of "What Makes America Great" I've heard as of late are complete and utter bullshit. Most are either incredibly hypocritical, or complete fantasy.
I mostly respect your opinion, and am genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. I'll stay tuned.
Thanks for sharing this. I just heard the radio interview with Sean Hannity driving home from work last night. This case definitely sounds like political Monday morning quarterbacking by his superiors and the battlefield lawyers when life and death decisions had to be made within seconds. Screw the rules of engagement. He chose the life of his men. Plus the government withheld DNA evidence on the motorcycle bombers during his trial.
This guy's attitude is amazing for what has been done to him, in my opinion, and shows no bitterness towards what has happened to him.
I'll get back to my thoughts on this I promise... I damaged my endoskeleton 2 days ago and can't get into a chair or back out of it. (a 3 decade old injury I've again aggravated)
I'll get back to my thoughts on this I promise... I damaged my endoskeleton 2 days ago and can't get into a chair or back out of it. (a 3 decade old injury I've again aggravated)
Do you really believe The President is doing this because he actually believes an “injustice” was done? Do you believe he cares about these guys at all? Was there such a public outcry that he could no longer ignore it?
Do we no longer trust our own military to uphold their own standards?
Anyone with half-a-brain (no offense) knows exactlly why he’s doing this. It’s the same reason he does everything. To benefit HIM.
Remember the respect he showed for Mccain’s service to this country? Yeah, he’s the LAST person to be judging anyone’s Honor.
Have some really become this blind? Or is it simply willful ignorance?
For those that seem to love Donald Trump blindly, I wonder if there is anything he could do or say that would force those same people to be at least vaguely critical of those words or actions.
With the venom some use around here over the silliest of sh!t, I would think there would be plenty left over for the really BIG sh!t in the World.
P.S. If I remember right, most here thought that “Burgdawl” (sic) fellow some time back should have been hung for desertion. He didn’t kill anyone, he simply ran away.
How come no one here is calling for the noose in this instance?
To your point, this is the same president who slams other military members with ease. McCain, Kahns, Vindman, etc. Literally anyone else if he disagrees with them, he will use their service against them. But when it suits him (EG, the guys in the pardon), then it goes to "Trump supports the military!"
Out of all the people he pardoned, if you look at Gallagher, the dude seems to be at BEST, an out of control meat head.
It's always entertaining to see who the Left holds in esteem from our military.
As far as your Kahn reference goes, the DNC trotted out the grieving mother and father of a dead soldier to specifically attack the President, (then candidate).
THAT'S SICK AND DISGRACEFUL, but then the Left has never been shy about standing on the graves of the dead and USING people in pain to further their own political agenda.
AT NO TIME did the President attack their son, in fact he said: " In a statement late Saturday, Mr. Trump called Captain Khan a “hero,”
THEN the lunatic Left tries to hold up Vindman as their new "hero" when the fact is that he's a perfect example of the worst kind of arrogant, partisan political hack ever to disgrace a uniform by acts that he been REPRIMANDED multiple times for. The clown even has a long history of FAILING to follow his legal chain of command because he thinks that HE knows better.
He is even so arrogant that he decided to "rank check" a CONGRESSMAN during a hearing and then let not being addressed as "Lt. Colonel" slide by as it suited him.
In the military we properly referred to self-important assholes like him as worthless "Perfumed Princes"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-20-2019).]
Saw an article today where the Navy SEAL top brass want to kick the one SEAL off their team and President Trump is tweeting a different opinion. Personally, this is an area I think the President should stay away from. While he has the authority to order such things, just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Teams like the SEALs are formed into Teams like families and I don’t believe President Trump should get into family matters. Just my opinion.
Saw an article today where the Navy SEAL top brass want to kick the one SEAL off their team and President Trump is tweeting a different opinion. Personally, this is an area I think the President should stay away from. While he has the authority to order such things, just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Teams like the SEALs are formed into Teams like families and I don’t believe President Trump should get into family matters. Just my opinion.
Rams
Mine also.
I know none of this yet. (Heard it here.) I trust in what you write. He should put the phone down.
We’re not hearing the whole story. Just my opinion.
Rams
More of "the whole story":
Gallagher is set to retire Nov. 30, 2019
5 days from today.
The claim is that some Navy officers in the Pentagon...Perfumed Princes in the Puzzle Palace, including the SecNav, were apparently upset at the CiC's pardon of Gallagher and restoring his rank so they scheduled the SEAL tribunal as a vindictive measure to remove his Trident prior to his retirement.
SecNav tried to play some silly games over what constitutes a direct order to him from the CiC and the SecDef then removed him, presumably at the order of the CiC.
Play stupid political games against chain of command. LOSE
