USN SEAL Eddie Gallagher Not Guilty on 6 of 7 Charges
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,269
- Points
- 1,260
Just remember - if someone supports a political purge of the military (think USSR, North Korea or China as examples of places where this has happened) when one's fave party is in power, can someone then complain if a party they don't like does the same thing? Everybody OK if Obama or Clinton had, say, said a SEAL in a similar situation MUST lose the Trident without due process? It's aaaaaaall great as long as your team does it, but let the other team try it ... #GoodForTheGooseGoodForTheGandertomahawk6 said:
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
MrWhyt said:
As a result of his testimony, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, has to put up with this,
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/politics/vindman-trump-attack-army-safety/index.html
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,071
- Points
- 1,040
tomahawk6 said:
So are you just pretending those officers didn't spend decades in the military well before Obama ever became President? Are you pretending they haven't earned their positions on merit instead claiming its political patronage? Because even if political patronage is a small part of it, they still had to earn the ability to get to the point to even be considered.
You guys really need to make your military impartial, which is what it was until Trump started putting his nose in stuff which as Commander and Chief wasn't his problem. The Navy was doing its job, punishing a criminal, and Trump stepped in and perverted the military justice system. Its disgraceful. The fact that an individual who dodged military service has the audacity to interfere is disgusting and if you support that, you really should look at what you stand for as those are the actions of a tyrant, not a fair and democratic process like the one he subverted.
Staff edit: site politics thread policies
mariomike said:
Put up with what? The LTC made claims he fears for his family, but never elaborated as to how they are at risk and the Army concluded at the moment there appears to be no imminent threat to anyone.
So what exactly is he putting up with? Career fallout maybe? Sure...but that’s to be expected when you challenge your political masters, VAdm Norman comes to mind here.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
This is followed-up with an insightful War on the Rocks article, "Disgraceful Pardons: Dishonoring Our Honorable."Journeyman said:
Two key takeaways (for me anyway):
1. That the president announced action on all three cases at the same time is particularly concerning, even though the cases involved different issues, as it seems designed to send a broader message about war crimes and military professionalism in general.
2. There are no political “sides” here to rally around or to be used to score political points over. Rather, we should rally around justice and the rule of law.
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
exCAFguy said:
US politics aside, good to know the Army takes the security of his family seriously.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNR4T1utfNwm7C2vDogFUxGWH6GQrw%3A1575039638159&ei=ljLhXYWeCa-Mggf0gLrwCA&q=vindman+family+protection&oq=vindman+family+protection&gs_l=psy-ab.12...7037.8305..9783...0.0..0.252.1019.1j6j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j35i304i39.Mx3B2l480YA&ved=0ahUKEwiFwY7x14_mAhUvhuAKHXSADo4Q4dUDCAo#spf=1575039651859
mariomike said:
Again, nowhere has the LCol or Army elaborated on how there is a threat and the Army has determined there is nothing credible at this point. Every article listed there simply states the Army is prepared to post him if he or his family is threatened.
Every article on the matter I’ve read here is sensational nonsense. This LCol has said he fears for his safety, but has never elaborated as to how. The army determined there’s nothing credible but are prepared to post him if need be. The press is writing this up like Trump has dispatched hit squads after the guy......it’s pretty ridiculous.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,213
- Points
- 1,010
I don't think anyone on here has the details of each case along with the legal analysis and recommendations POTUS had prior to making his decision. I won't pretend to know anything about these cases, but I may consider MSM reporting to form my opinion on whether I am accepting of POTUS's decision here... I'm sure the MSM are reporting nothing but the hard, unbiased facts in all these cases like every instance involving POTUS.
After all, it's been proven by Mueller, Schiff et al that POTUS is a Russian asset doing Putin's bidding and destroying democracy, using the Ukraine to enrich his family and target honest hard working American politicians-for-life, while bringing about nuclear Armageddon, destroying the last remnants of a fragile yet angelic military hierarchy, reviving racism as his sole domestic policy in an effort to win votes, ruining woman's and LGQBT rights for a generation, and wrecking the US and world economic structure. And on and on...
So, yes, I suppose if you believe all of that then POTUS most certainly did the wrong thing here as well.
After all, it's been proven by Mueller, Schiff et al that POTUS is a Russian asset doing Putin's bidding and destroying democracy, using the Ukraine to enrich his family and target honest hard working American politicians-for-life, while bringing about nuclear Armageddon, destroying the last remnants of a fragile yet angelic military hierarchy, reviving racism as his sole domestic policy in an effort to win votes, ruining woman's and LGQBT rights for a generation, and wrecking the US and world economic structure. And on and on...
So, yes, I suppose if you believe all of that then POTUS most certainly did the wrong thing here as well.
QV said:
This is one of the most ridiculous rants I’ve seen posted here. While I often disagree with you, I seldom find your posts disappointing.
POTUS pardoned one man convicted in a court of law of posing for photos with a corpse. There’s no credible question as to the factual veracity of that. He then interfered with internal mechanisms that are designed to review a soldier’s career status after a conviction. He pardoned a soldier literally convicted of murder. There is again no credible question as the to factual veracity of that conviction. Finally he has used executive authority to stop another murder trial going forward. A soldier charged with murder will NOT see court and will quite literally get away with anything he may have been culpable of. The facts of that alleged murder will NOT get to be tried in court, where they ought to be. And given POTUS’ notorious disinclination to spend much time reading or digesting facts before making political decisions, I find your ‘well we don’t know what he knew...’ particularly convincing. There is no shortage of public record in all of these cases, two of which had already resulted in convictions in court.
Tell me, when else recently has the subject come up of a head of government using his authority to stop a prosecution going forward, allegedly for political purposes? What was your opinion then?
Trump is legally empowered to do these things, and unfortunately has chosen to wield that power in these cases. There’s a rare degree of consensus from legal and military experts that this is a wrong thing to do, due to the ethical and legal ramifications, and the way it compromises good order and discipline in the military institution.
All of the other stuff you bring up is frankly no more than partisan whining. It certainly does not bear relevance on the merits of Trump’s actions in the case of the two criminal convictions and the pending court martial. The rest of the circus, legal and political, that surrounds him is not automatically pertinent to each decision made and action taken. Nor does it render us unable to examine said actions and point out the obvious and significant ethical and legal problems that they present senior military leadership.
- Reaction score
- 22,059
- Points
- 1,360
Not media, but the publicly available results of Gallagher’s court martial which found him guilty of desecrating and posing with the corpse of an enemy combatant, which is counter both to the US Code of Service Discipline and the Law of Armed Conflict. POTUS’s exoneration of Gallagher’s conduct indicates that such unlawful conduct is actually okay. No media analysis used, just One of the transmission mediums used to distribute the court martial findings. POTUS hasn’t even disputed the facts from the court martial, rather only used his executive authority to counter the administrative action of demotion taken against Gallagher by the Navy.
Regards
G2G
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Good2Golf said:
The President is getting concerned about his poll numbers.
Hence, exoneration of Gallagher, quick trip to Afghanistan !
Gotta keep that base happy. :not-again:
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,213
- Points
- 1,010
Brihard said:
I'm glad we agree that Trump is legally empowered to do the things he has done. The only whining I hear are those complaining that he did that which he is legally allowed to do. I'm personally agnostic to these decisions POTUS made. I assume the Commander in Chief made these decisions for reasons that which I am not privy too, not unlike many decisions made by my chain of command that I disagree with, some I find morally questionable. I am not influenced by the reams of negative media that I believe is disingenuous at best.
The SNC scandal is probably criminal and can't be a fair comparison. Not too mention the findings by the Ethics Commissioner.
It all boils down to whether or not one believes that his motives are political or if they are truly altruistic.
I don't believe for one second that this isn't political on his part and is all for his base.
Sad state of affairs.
I don't believe for one second that this isn't political on his part and is all for his base.
Sad state of affairs.
- Reaction score
- 6,284
- Points
- 1,040
This is the same guy that makes political announcements via twitter prior to consulting any of his people, and bases foreign policy on whatever happened to be on Fox & Friends in the morning. Doubt he makes much use of piddly things like facts, and also doubt he has any concept or cares about things like discipline in the chain of command or the law.
He essentially stopped prosecution for some war crimes because he felt like it overuling the military chain of command. If I was a soldier I would definitely think two or three times before reporting any of these things. It's already pretty tough to do, without it getting blocked by a fat arsed orange draft dodger in chief. If murdering civilians has top cover, I would be worried about being a victim of friendly fire after reporting something like this and having it get tossed.
He essentially stopped prosecution for some war crimes because he felt like it overuling the military chain of command. If I was a soldier I would definitely think two or three times before reporting any of these things. It's already pretty tough to do, without it getting blocked by a fat arsed orange draft dodger in chief. If murdering civilians has top cover, I would be worried about being a victim of friendly fire after reporting something like this and having it get tossed.
Similar threads
