USN SEAL Eddie Gallagher Not Guilty on 6 of 7 Charges

[Baz]

Watch it your bias is showing. I don't see you bashing your PM.

Actually, I stated my concern with most if Trump's actions is with deliberately stretching the powers of his office and the long term concerns with that, and then went on to say I have the same concerns with our current PMO (which I think is run by the old guard of the liberal party mixed with the young good idea club).

So, yes, I did bash my PM.  And by the way, I can bash the president and not be biased.  Most centrists, who don't in fact troll the internet, are doing just that.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The SNC scandal is probably criminal and can't be a fair comparison.

Well, if this is the case ...

... 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 ...

... and when the official record* says this:

... On 3 July 2019, the panel of (General Court-Martial) members returned a verdict of guilty for disorderly conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces ...

... that sounds probably criminal to me - YMMV 

* - As detailed by the original charge sheet excerpt attached (source).

 

[QV]

And the difference being Trudeau may have committed a crime or his staff may have, whereas POTUS used his legal powers.

 

[tomahawk6]

As for Trump no evidence has been presented that anything untoward was done. In fact most of the testimony presented so far is hearsay which is not allowed in Federal Rules of evidence.Maybe such evidence is allowed under Crown Rules.

 

[FJAG]

As for Trump no evidence has been presented that anything untoward was done. In fact most of the testimony presented so far is hearsay which is not allowed in Federal Rules of evidence.Maybe such evidence is allowed under Crown Rules.

What someone sees or hears, is not hearsay. Someone reporting the contents of a conversation that he hears is giving direct evidence of what was said. It only becomes hearsay when it is put forward for the purpose of proving for the truth of the statement made by the other party. e.g. John reports that Don said "I killed someone" is admissible as direct evidence of the fact that Don said that, but is not conclusive evidence of the fact that Don actually killed someone. There's a big difference as to what hearsay actually is and what the opinion reporters at Fox would have you believe.

I know that it's hard for people who voted for Trump to find any fault in the man and I fully expect that the Republican majority in the Senate will protect his butt just as much as the Democrats protected Clinton (although 10 Republicans voted "Not Guilty" on count 1 and 5 Republicans voted "Not Guilty" on count 2 as well) Considering that a two thirds majority is needed to convict, I see no way on God's Green Earth that Trump will ever be found guilty of any charge regardless of how heavy the evidence is.

Personally, I think the evidence given, and the obvious and legally viable deductions that can be made from it, is that Trump engaged Guiliani and others to put pressure on the Ukrainians (by withholding Congress authorized funds and promising incentives such as a Presidential meeting) to make public statements meant to harm Biden's campaign to become the Democratic candidate (and subsequently harm his presidential campaign). I would suggest that the totality of Trump and his cronies' actions support a legitimate charge of bribery whereby incentives are offered in order to further Trump's political agenda (and not the nation's interest)

Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty.[1] With regard to governmental operations, essentially, bribery is "Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action."[2]

:cheers:

 

[brihard]

And the difference being Trudeau may have committed a crime or his staff may have, whereas POTUS used his legal powers.

What you’re doing is called “whataboutism”, to wit, a shrill “what about Trudeau!?” Since it’s not a thread about Trudeau, said distraction is not relevant.

Not had a single person claimed that Trump’s actions WRT Gallagher or the others are illegal. On the contrary, a number of us have ceded that it’s within his lawful authority. We find ourselves in that ugly patch of ground where ‘Legal’ can still be ‘immoral’, ‘unethical’, ‘wrong’, and ‘damaging to the ability of the profession of arms to safeguard good order and discipline’.

It’s not illegal for Trump to exert his executive authority as commander in chief for crass political motives. It’s not illegal for him to pardon a war criminal literally convicted of murder. It’s not illegal for him to use his authority to stop an additional murder trial from proceeding to court martial. But it’s a bunch of the other things I said above. He is interfering in things that are not his place to interfere with, and it is hurting the military in much more fundamental ways than any use of a war criminal as human bunting at a campaign stop ever could.

That fact that anyone actually defends him in preventing a murder trial from taking place is one of the few things about him that can still astonish me. All the moreso for anyone on our side of the border.

Just make sure you understand that’s the side being taken here. People are defending the pardon of a convicted murderer. People are defending the political interference with criminal proceedings for another murder. Anyone who is OK with that has put partisan politics on far too high a pedestal.

 

[QV]

What you’re doing is called “whataboutism”, to wit, a shrill “what about Trudeau!?” Since it’s not a thread about Trudeau, said distraction is not relevant.

Not had a single person claimed that Trump’s actions WRT Gallagher or the others are illegal. On the contrary, a number of us have ceded that it’s within his lawful authority. We find ourselves in that ugly patch of ground where ‘Legal’ can still be ‘immoral’, ‘unethical’, ‘wrong’, and ‘damaging to the ability of the profession of arms to safeguard good order and discipline’.

It’s not illegal for Trump to exert his executive authority as commander in chief for crass political motives. It’s not illegal for him to pardon a war criminal literally convicted of murder. It’s not illegal for him to use his authority to stop an additional murder trial from proceeding to court martial. But it’s a bunch of the other things I said above. He is interfering in things that are not his place to interfere with, and it is hurting the military in much more fundamental ways than any use of a war criminal as human bunting at a campaign stop ever could.

That fact that anyone actually defends him in preventing a murder trial from taking place is one of the few things about him that can still astonish me. All the moreso for anyone on our side of the border.

Just make sure you understand that’s the side being taken here. People are defending the pardon of a convicted murderer. People are defending the political interference with criminal proceedings for another murder. Anyone who is OK with that has put partisan politics on far too high a pedestal.

The only person being shrill is you with your conjecture.  You just can’t stand there are differing opinions.  This is just a discussion forum, not an echo chamber, and can you stop insinuating ugly allegations for a change?  Your inferences are ignorant and absurd. 

 

[brihard]

The only person being shrill is you with your conjecture.  You just can’t stand there are differing opinions.  This is just a discussion forum, not an echo chamber, and can you stop insinuating ugly allegations for a change?  Your inferences are ignorant and absurd.

I have no problem with the existence of dissenting opinions, but if they’re out to lunch I’ll call you or others on it. You’re right, it’s a discussion forum, which is why we’re free to discuss such things. So it’s clear, I’m not insinuating or inferring anything. I’m directly condemning the ethics of interfering in military judicial  and career review processes for political purposes. I’m directly questioning the principles of anyone who would support that out of some partisan political views. The proper functioning of military law and discipline should rise above partisan politics for anyone who places any stock in the ‘profession’ part of ‘profession of arms’. I don’t like war criminals, and I don’t like when politicians enable them or contribute to a culture of impunity. To me (and clearly to many others here) this is a no brainer.

 

[Good2Golf]

So in review, QV, to help you see what many of us have been pointing out about the President’s actions:
1) we appear to universally accept that the President’s executive authority to halt the Navy’s administrative action to demote Gallagher was a lawful course of action open to the President. Show us one person who said this was not the case;
2) what many of us then juxtapose as a concern is that legal notwithstanding, the President’s actions to support a soldier who was himself during trial by court martial convicted of contravening the US Code of Service Discipline and concurrently the contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (including numerous sections of the Geneva and Hague Conventions) communicates to America’s allies that dishonorable conduct by American armed forces personnel is not only acceptable to the US Commander in Chief, but individuals doing so will be support by the President.

If this is something that you feel should not concern those who expect any nation’s military personnel to conduct themselves not only legally but morally and ethically, there is probably not anything any of us could say or do to change your mind.

The separation between the President’s entirely legal actions versus what many, but clearly not all, believe to be an ethical/moral action to support a convicted dishonorable soldier, is the fundamental issue at play.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[The Bread Guy]

Put simply, just because something's legal doesn't always make it right.

On a more satirical note, this from Duffle Blog ...

President Donald Trump has intervened on behalf of three Fort Bragg soldiers who found themselves in trouble recently. Spc. Willis Kerstetter, Michael Mills, and Hector Tapia—each assigned to Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Infantry—arrived late for first formation Monday morning. First Sgt. Jimmie Owens assigned the soldiers a week of extra duty to help them “get themselves correct.”

Kerstetter went to Twitter and requested the assistance of the Commander-in-Chief.

“I saw on the internet [President Trump] pardoned some officers who were in trouble,” said Kerstetter, “so I figured he might help us. I mean, it’s not like we murdered anyone or anything.”

To their surprise, word came from brigade headquarters a few hours later informing the soldiers they no longer had to report for extra duty after hours.

“I couldn’t believe it worked,” said Mills. “I mean, I just figured Kerstetter was being a goof, as usual. But, it fucking worked! Oh, sorry, am I allowed to swear?”

Trump tweeted Monday night*, “We train these boys in Specialist Forces [sic] to be killing machines, but then we lock them up for being a few minutes late? A lot of people have been saying these boys—they’re amazing soldiers; probably the best we have— were given a raw deal. NO WAY!!!” ...

* - What it COULD have looked like is attached  ;D

 

[brihard]

So in review, QV, to help you see what many of us have been pointing out about the President’s actions:

Nicely laid out. Further, to establish the ‘so what?’or why we as Canadians care about this: many of us on this board have deployed alongside our American partners. We shared a battle space with them. Some members here will in future, others among us may see soldiers we trained, friends, colleagues go again. Canada engages in coalition operations. Our own credibility and legitimacy is impacted by that of our allies. Misdeeds by allies have the potential to disrupt our own ops and to have things go sideways for our own people. If other nations cease to believe that the US will refrain from criminal actions, that hurts coalition efforts. It hurts our own support domestically and internationally.

As an NCO I learned that you don’t get the behaviour you demand; you get the behaviour you tolerate. POTUS has shown that if it scores him political points, he will tolerate war crimes under America’s own military law- not even an externally imposed jus cogens legal norm.

Remember, this is the same president who needed it forcibly explained to him why it would be illegal for American soldiers at the border to simply shoot migrants who threw rocks. He has already demonstrated that he has a far from adequate grasp of how the law works when it comes to use of military force- or more frighteningly, that perhaps he does but merely doesn’t care if there are politics points to be scored.

As long as Canada deploys troops in coalition operations with our wagon hitched to America’s horse, this matters.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

As bad as this is, it's the tip of the iceberg as far as the US and War Crimes post 9/11 are concerned. 

Every Presidency has tolerated them for partisan political reasons, even the beloved Obama Administration. 

Watch the movie "The Report" out on Amazon Prime or read about the CIA EITP.  Despicable is the only word that comes to mind.

 

[mariomike]

Every Presidency has tolerated them for partisan political reasons, even the beloved Obama Administration. 

For reference to the discussion,

President Obama's war crime pardons after eight years,
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRhF-J5XMZvw8XLP3YXVPgh8i6yDg%3A1575135808133&ei=QKriXeTtB8G6ggfsmpy4BA&q=obama+pardon+%22war+crimes%22&oq=obama+pardon+%22war+crimes%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10914.14097..14566...0.0..0.155.493.1j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39.OCKYkSDX6pY&ved=0ahUKEwjkjcSSvpLmAhVBneAKHWwNB0cQ4dUDCAo&uact=5#spf=1575135827037

President Trump's war crime pardons after less than three years,
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSYpocuESV6Uv35g46-cdLWdAwVrQ%3A1575135824361&ei=UKriXd3WFcTs_QbC9YBw&q=trump+pardon+%22war+crimes%22&oq=trump+pardon+%22war+crimes%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...89358.92528..93036...0.0..0.192.1381.4j8......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i302i39.qEBtig9PAys&ved=0ahUKEwjdvqKavpLmAhVEdt8KHcI6AA4Q4dUDCAo&uact=5#spf=1575135921957

I used the same search parameters for both.

 

[FJAG]

Nicely laid out. Further, to establish the ‘so what?’or why we as Canadians care about this: many of us on this board have deployed alongside our American partners. We shared a battle space with them. Some members here will in future, others among us may see soldiers we trained, friends, colleagues go again. Canada engages in coalition operations. Our own credibility and legitimacy is impacted by that of our allies. Misdeeds by allies have the potential to disrupt our own ops and to have things go sideways for our own people. If other nations cease to believe that the US will refrain from criminal actions, that hurts coalition efforts. It hurts our own support domestically and internationally.

As an NCO I learned that you don’t get the behaviour you demand; you get the behaviour you tolerate. POTUS has shown that if it scores him political points, he will tolerate war crimes under America’s own military law- not even an externally imposed jus cogens legal norm.

Remember, this is the same president who needed it forcibly explained to him why it would be illegal for American soldiers at the border to simply shoot migrants who threw rocks. He has already demonstrated that he has a far from adequate grasp of how the law works when it comes to use of military force- or more frighteningly, that perhaps he does but merely doesn’t care if there are politics points to be scored.

As long as Canada deploys troops in coalition operations with our wagon hitched to America’s horse, this matters.

Very true.

I'll add one more factor and just for the sake of disclosure, I believe that the US military justice system needs to be more separated from the chain of command as command influence (while statutorily prohibited) is simply not systemically prevented and occurs entirely too often (and not just this recent presidential interference but numerous other cases from within the military before that.) Canada's prosecutors and judges, while part of the military, have a much greater autonomy than those of the US by, among other things, removing the convening authority from the offender's CoC.

The fact of the matter is that if CoC interference is allowed to continue, there will be an eventual backlash which removes war crime (or any serious crime) jurisdiction of the military and gives it to some know-nothing civilian agency. Simply take a look at the extent to which the UK has gone with IHAT (Iraq Historic Allegations Team) and even the perpetual investigations (and now prosecution) of military personnel respecting the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

I'm a firm believer that there needs to be a military justice system to efficiently try serious offences committed by military personnel. But it needs to not only be fair and independent but also be seen as such by the public. Trump's actions by not only freeing offenders but by denigrating the system publicly undermine the entire structure. He is the President and, if he sees the system as being unfair, he could, and should, direct the Secretary of Defence to undertake a review of the system and implement systemic solutions. Instead he's grandstanding to his followers with scattershot actions that do not fix anything but simply make matters worse. It's another example of a man who has no actual knowledge about the subject he's spouting off on and is taking knee jerk reactions rather than rational steps. Throwing rocks into the swamp doesn't drain it.

He's drunk on the power of the pardon. It's going to be interesting to see who all gets presidential pardons when he's finally kicked out of office next year.  ;D

:2c:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Watch it your bias is showing. I don't see you bashing your PM.

Whataboutisim and deflection.



Sorry but Trump is fucked. This Navy SEAL committed war crimes and by the sounds of it he's pretty screwed up in the head, unless you think taking that re-enlistment oath or whatever it was next to a dead body is normal.

The problem is there's a chuck of the population to idolize 'special forces'. They're willing to not only accept illegal or messed up behavior but defend it "because you don't know what it's like to be them". People will go so far as to justify murder because SOF are doing hard jobs under stressful conditions without much rest etc.. etc..

Trump is looking for support from these people.

 

[tomahawk6]

There are those in the military that like Trump pardoned the men that he did because it showed that he had their back. Some of our policies are stupid . Like an AD might see a man get far more serious punishment than it should. Mistakes are common in the military. Look at ww2 photos and you might see soldiers posing with dead enemy. In todays pc world there is shock and horror. I looked at your profile to see if had even served or your opinions come from civvy street. I have concluded the latter.

 

[mariomike]

Look at ww2 photos and you might see soldiers posing with dead enemy.

Frank Sheeran served with the 45th Infantry Division during the Italian Campaign; including the invasion of Sicily, the Salerno landings, the Anzio Campaign. He then served in the landings in southern France, and the invasion of Germany.

He put it this way,

1.Revenge killings in the heat of battle. Sheeran told Brandt that, when a German soldier had just killed his close friends and then tried to surrender, he would often "send him to hell, too". He described often witnessing similar behavior by fellow GIs.

2.Orders from unit commanders during a mission. When describing his first murder for organized crime, Sheeran recalled: "It was just like when an officer would tell you to take a couple of German prisoners back behind the line and for you to 'hurry back'. You did what you had to do."

3.The Dachau massacre and other reprisal killings of concentration camp guards and trustee inmates.

4.Calculated attempts to dehumanize and degrade German POWs. While Sheeran's unit was climbing the Harz Mountains, they came upon a Wehrmacht mule train carrying food and drink up the mountainside. The female cooks were first allowed to leave unmolested, then Sheeran and his fellow GI's "ate what we wanted and soiled the rest with our waste". Then the Wehrmacht mule drivers were given shovels and ordered to "dig their own shallow graves". Sheeran later joked that they did so without complaint, likely hoping that he and his buddies would change their minds. But the mule drivers were shot and buried in the holes they had dug. Sheeran explained that by then, he "had no hesitation in doing what I had to do."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sheeran#War_crimes

Then the was the war in the Pacific,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#Pacific_theater

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=tomahawk6]I looked at your profile to see if had even served or your opinions come from civvy street. I have concluded the latter.[/quote]

Irrelevant in this discussion.

Civvy street decides the ROEs and the military are ultimately accountable to civvys.

 

[tomahawk6]

Irrelevant in this discussion.

Civvy street decides the ROEs and the military are ultimately accountable to civvys.

;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

... There are those in the military that like Trump pardoned the men that he did because it showed that he had their back ...

Having the back of people who've been found guilty of breaking the rules may not be seen as seizing/taking the moral high ground.  Is the current C-in-C also going to intervene in the cases where all sorts of other U.S. military forces have been disciplined for similar photos or disrespecting of dead bodies?  If he really has everyone's back, I can't wait for the first troop who's done the same to pipe up for a break ...