Potential Memorial Day Pardons

[GMDino]

(07-03-2019, 02:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and there's a very good chance it was because of Witness Immunity.

Perhaps.  But who could imagine someone ignoring one oath (to tell the truth) to support another one?

Guess we'll never know.

Still not a reason to be against witness immunity.

Heck we had someone on these board suggest people should never agree to talk to prosecutors for fear of being guilty.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm glad my ownership of a dictionary aids to your nightly tranquility.

I'm not sure how many more times I can say Gallagher's actions were inexcusable. It seems you keep trying to argue against something not said. I simply said this case may lead to us re-look witness immunity. Because it's quite possible that Gallagher got away with murder because of it.

How did Granny know that?

I'm not arguing against anything that wasn't said. I've stated twice I don't think a single case will change the practice of granting immunity in exchange for testimony across the entire criminal justice system. It might prompt that prosecutor to obtain a sworn statement in writing and offering immunity to testify to the veracity of the sworn statement in court with the provision that if his testimony deviates from his sworn statement while on the witness stand it would invalidate the immunity agreement to avoid this situation in the future.

Granny was from Kentucky. I figured it was common knowledge in Kentucky.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 02:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and there's a very good chance it was because of Witness Immunity.

If the testimony is true then a man wasn't wrongfully convicted of murder. If the testimony isn't true then the witness' lack of integrity got Gallagher off because immunity doesn't compel someone to actively lie under oath.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/politics/trump-rescinds-navy-prosecutors-medals/index.html

Trump has ordered the Navy to rescind medals that have been awarded to the prosecutors who sought to bring Eddie Gallagher to justice.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2019, 07:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/31/politics/trump-rescinds-navy-prosecutors-medals/index.html

Trump has ordered the Navy to rescind medals that have been awarded to the prosecutors who sought to bring Eddie Gallagher to justice.

I'm not sure I disagree with his point about the issuance of immunity. Possibly allowed a murderer to go free. 

[Benton]

(07-31-2019, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure I disagree with his point about the issuance of immunity. Possibly allowed a murderer to go free. 

Yeah I'm not big on him getting involved or tweeting congratulations on the verdict, but it sounds like the medals were given out by an idiot.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-01-2019, 11:51 AM)Benton Wrote: Yeah I'm not big on him getting involved or tweeting congratulations on the verdict, but it sounds like the medals were given out by an idiot.

Pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2019, 09:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Has anyone else seen this situation? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html

I have to say, this is concerning. Specifically, the situation with Gallagher. I get that the pardon power is truly without any real limits, but things like this send a clear, and disturbing message to the public, to our troops, and to other countries that we will tolerate this sort of behavior.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/11/16/trump-grants-clemency-to-troops-in-three-controversial-war-crimes-cases/

Quote:Trump grants clemency to troops in three controversial war crimes cases



President Donald Trump on Friday granted clemency to three controversial military figures embroiled in charges of war crimes, arguing the moves will give troops “the confidence to fight” without worrying about potential legal overreach.


Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, convicted of second degree murder in the death of three Afghans, was given a full pardon from president for the crimes. Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who faced murder charges next year for a similar crime, was also given a full pardon for those alleged offenses.
Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward Gallagher, who earlier this fall was acquitted of a string of alleged war crimes, had his rank restored to Chief Petty Officer by the president.


All three cases had been championed by conservative lawmakers and media personalities as an overreaction to the chaos and confusion of wartime decisions. But critics have warned the moves could send the message that troops need not worry about following rules of engagement when fighting enemies abroad.


“The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the law is enforced and when appropriate, that mercy is granted,” the White House said in a statement. “For more than 200 years, presidents have used their authority to offer second chances to deserving individuals, including those in uniform who have served our country.

“These actions are in keeping with this long history.”


Pentagon leaders privately had expressed reservations about the moves, but Defense Secretary Mark Esper has declined comment on the rumored actions in recent days.
Last week, he said that he had a “robust” conversation with Trump about the proposed pardons and clemency and that “I do have full confidence in the military justice system and we’ll let things play out as they play out.”


What motivated fellow SEALs to dime out Eddie Gallagher?
The fog of war swirls through the reams of internal files provided to Navy Times.
By: Navy Times staff

The Army announced it will implement Trump’s pardons.


“Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant pardons for federal offenders; that authority extends to military court-martial proceedings,” the Army announced in a statement.


"The Army has full confidence in our system of justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice ensures good order and discipline for uniformed service members while holding accountable those who violate its provisions. The foundation of military law is the Constitution, and the Constitution establishes the President’s power to grant pardons.

“The Army will review today’s executive actions in order to implement the presidential orders.”
In the wake of Trump’s decision, the official twitter account of Rear Adm. Charles Brown, the Chief of Naval 
Information, indicated that Navy leaders “acknowledge his order and are implementing it.”


While Gallagher was acquitted of murder and obstruction of justice charges in July, a panel of his peers recommended he be reduced in grade for posing with the body of a detainee, a crime he never denied.
Lorance’s case dates back to a 2012 deployment to Afghanistan, when he ordered his soldiers to fire on three unarmed men riding a motorcycle near their patrol. Members of his platoon testified against him at a court-martial trial, describing Lorance as over-zealous and the Afghans as posing no real threat.


He was sentenced to 19 years in prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In recent years, Lorance and his family had waged a long campaign against his sentence, and found a receptive ear in Trump.

Golsteyn’s case had not yet been decided. He was scheduled for a December trial on charges he murdered an alleged Taliban bomb maker, and burned his remains in a trash pit during a 2010 deployment with 3rd Special Forces Group. Trump’s action effectively puts an end to that legal case before any verdicts were rendered.


Trump pardons former US soldier who killed Iraqi prisoner
President Donald Trump has pardoned a former U.S. soldier convicted in 2009 of killing an Iraqi prisoner, the White House announced Monday.
By: Kevin Freking, The Associated Press

The president called Gallagher at around 4 p.m to personally deliver the news, according to the SEAL’s attorney Timothy Parlatore.


“We’re extremely grateful to the president for his decision to right the wrongs committed by the Navy’s criminal justice system against Chief Gallagher,” Parlatore told Navy Times Friday evening. “But this also was a case that should’ve been dismissed by the Navy at an earlier date. The misconduct by NCIS and military JAG prosecutors should’ve been handled a long time ago by the Navy. The commander in chief was right to assert his leadership to right this wrong.”


Trump overturned a decision by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday announced on Oct. 29 that preserved Gallagher’s demotion to petty officer first class. Gallagher’s legal team had urged the four-star to show mercy for a highly decorated SEAL whose case was plagued by allegations of corruption inside the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.


Gallagher’s court-martial trial for murder and other alleged war crimes collapsed and a panel of his peers convicted him on the sole charge of positing for a photo next to a dead Islamic State detainee, a charge he never denied.


Before the trial kicked off, a military judge booted Cmdr. Christopher Czaplak, the lead prosecutor, for his role in a warrantless surveillance program cooked up with NCIS to track emails sent by defense attorneys and Navy Times.

Prosecutors and agents also were accused of manipulating witness statements; using immunity grants and a bogus “target letter” in a crude attempt to keep pro-Gallagher witnesses from testifying; illegally leaking documents to the media to taint the military jury pool; and then trying to cover it all up when they got caught.

“The fight for Eddie Gallagher has been long and intense, but it never should’ve gotten to this point,” said Parlatore. “What the president’s action indicates is that there are service members who have been unjustly targeted by the military criminal justice system, and Eddie and I look forward to working to reform these problems on their behalf.”


Trump nixes NAMs for 4 prosecutors tied to SEAL case
It's not the first time a tweeting Trump has interjected himself into the case.
By: Carl Prine

Fox News and Navy Times both reported on Nov. 4 that the president had decided to restore Gallagher to chief.


Later Friday night, the social media sites helmed by Gallagher’s wife, Andrea, carried a statement attributed to her husband that thanked both the president for his intervention and the “American people for their unwavering support" over the past year.


He said that the United States is blessed to have a commander in chief who “stands up for our warfighters and cares about how they and their families are treated.”

Report: Trump makes SEAL Gallagher a chief again
Two Army soldiers also are poised to benefit from the president's apparent intervention in their court-martial cases.
By: Navy Times staff

In a prepared statement sent to Military Times by attorney Phil Stackhouse, Golsteyn’s family said they were “profoundly grateful” that the president ended the soldier’s prosecution.


Stackhouse said Golsteyhn spoke with the president by telephone “for several minutes” on Friday.
“We have lived in constant fear of this runaway prosecution," Golsteyn said in the statement. "Thanks to President Trump, we now have a chance to rebuild our family and lives. With time, I hope to regain my immense pride in having served in our military. In the meantime, we are so thankful for the support of family members, friends and supporters from around the nation, and our legal team.”


Stackhouse pointed to an Army Board of Inquiry that cleared the major for his alleged misconduct tied to the ambush of the Taliban bomb maker. He said Golsteyn’s legal team remained confident “we would have prevailed in trial, but this action by the president expedited justice in this case.”

"Maj. Golsteyn should have been medically retired years ago because of service-related injuries and allowed to move on with his life and family. Instead, the Army secretly pursued him for seven years. The origination and true motivation of this prosecution remains a mystery. We urge the Army to learn from this flawed, compromised prosecution and prevent similar abuses in the future.”

Esper: ‘Robust’ conversation with Trump about proposed pardons for SEAL, two soldiers
The president is expected to make his decision by Veterans Day.
By: Meghann Myers

Attorneys for Lorance did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
Trump has exercised his pardoning powers often during his administration, including in the case of another soldier earlier this year.


Former 1st Lt. Michael Behenna had been paroled from Leavenworth in 2014, after receiving a 15-year sentence for murdering an alleged al-Qaida operative in Iraq in 2009.


And in 2018, he pardoned former Machinist’s Mate 1st Class Kristian Saucier, who spent a year in jail after pleading guilty in 2016 to taking cell phone photos of his work space on board the attack submarine Alexandria ― prohibited, as the entirety of a submarine is considered a classified area.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement blasted the moves by the president.
“With this utterly shameful use of presidential powers, Trump has sent a clear message of disrespect for law, morality, the military justice system, and those in the military who abide by the laws of war,” she said.

What a little "war crime" when you're the POTUS and you need some good press on the right?

Do whatever you want for at least the next year ladies and gents!  Ol' DJT has your back...for the small price of your pride and a vote.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2019, 10:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/11/16/trump-grants-clemency-to-troops-in-three-controversial-war-crimes-cases/



What a little "war crime" when you're the POTUS and you need some good press on the right?

Do whatever you want for at least the next year ladies and gents!  Ol' DJT has your back...for the small price of your pride and a vote.

Reading your source it looks like the Golsteyn pardon, at the least, looks like a good move.  Is your issue with all of these pardons or just some of them?

[*bfine32*]

Mayor Pete is not a fan:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/16/pete-buttigieg-hits-trump-soldier-pardons-071266

Quote:“There’s nothing pro-military about overruling our military justice system to prevent it from delivering accountability for war crimes,” Buttigieg tweeted. “The president has again dishonored our armed services.”

I'm not sure I can take as of a black and white stance as Mayor Pete does on the subject, due to my experiences; however, I applaud him for not mincing words.

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Mayor Pete is not a fan:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/16/pete-buttigieg-hits-trump-soldier-pardons-071266

I'm not sure I can take as of a black and white stance as Mayor Pete does on the subject, due to my experiences; however, I applaud him for not mincing words.

Curious. How do you think Afghans and Iraqis will react to this? Especially he Lorance case.  

Outside news doesn't seem to circulate well in A-stan so maybe a lot of people won't hear about it. But the people killed did have families and tribal affiliations.  Hekmatyar/Taliban would care, wouldn't they? Hekmatayar's in the government now. They have repeatedly complained about random killing of civilians by the "occupiers."

Iraq is a different story though--high rate of literacy, radio, television, etc.

[Dill]

(11-16-2019, 10:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/11/16/trump-grants-clemency-to-troops-in-three-controversial-war-crimes-cases/


What a little "war crime" when you're the POTUS and you need some good press on the right?

Do whatever you want for at least the next year ladies and gents!  Ol' DJT has your back...for the small price of your pride and a vote.

I don't think Trump has a very good sense of how US/international law is supposed to work.

Pretty sure it makes little sense to him that ANY US military should be prosecuted for random/extra-judicial murder in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This has to be confusing for the military too. Should one even report murder and other violations now?  

[Au165]

My issue is the DoD was telling him not to do it and that it would undermine their authority and ability to operate globally, he disregarded it for a political win because of whats going on with the hearings.

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2019, 03:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Curious. How do you think Afghans and Iraqis will react to this? Especially he Lorance case.  

Outside news doesn't seem to circulate well in A-stan so maybe a lot of people won't hear about it. But the people killed did have families and tribal affiliations.  Hekmatyar/Taliban would care, wouldn't they? Hekmatayar's in the government now. They have repeatedly complained about random killing of civilians by the "occupiers."

Iraq is a different story though--high rate of literacy, radio, television, etc.

I think the citizenry of A-Stan care a whole lot less about the method(s) we use to kill terrorists than we do. I cannot speak to Iraq. 

[GMDino]

(11-18-2019, 05:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the citizenry of A-Stan care a whole lot less about the method(s) we use to kill terrorists than we do. I cannot speak to Iraq. 

What about how they kill innocent people and desecrate bodies?  Any thinking on that?

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2019, 05:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: What about how they kill innocent people and desecrate bodies?  Any thinking on that?

Who is "they" in your question; are you talking Al-Quida and Taliban? If so I can provide stories and reactions. If you're talking US Soldiers I have no experience of the reaction for US Soldiers doing so.

[GMDino]

(11-18-2019, 06:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who is "they" in your question; are you talking Al-Quida and Taliban? If so I can provide stories and reactions. If you're talking US Soldiers I have no experience of the reaction for US Soldiers doing so.

Ok.

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 05:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the citizenry of A-Stan care a whole lot less about the method(s) we use to kill terrorists than we do. I cannot speak to Iraq. 

"Terrorist" to us might be Uncle Musa or Cousin Bashir to them. Hence my sense is that they do care a great deal about US "methods," especially drones, targeted assassinations, special operations raids and the like. They certainly raise up a storm when civilians are killed and/or the wrong target is struck.

My curiosity was not whether the average Afghan might share US understanding of and sensitivity to international law and human rights issues.  I.e., I was not wondering whether Afghans might think it improper for people "wearing the uniform" to murder randomly and with impunity. They have experienced people in power doing that for over four decades now.

Rather, I was wondering how you thought they might respond to US soldiers going unpunished for war crimes, and at the intervention of the President at that. We are always telling them how important rule of law is (partly in fighting corruption); and in a few cases we have put our money where our mouth is, prosecuting our own when they've misbehaved. We can count on "westernized" Afghans registering anger and amazement, but I was wondering if you thought rank and file types you worked with would see any further implications for or risks to themselves. Or would they just not bother to think that far, if their own tribe/relatives/valley were not victimized?

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 06:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who is "they" in your question; are you talking Al-Quida and Taliban? If so I can provide stories and reactions. If you're talking US Soldiers I have no experience of the reaction for US Soldiers doing so.

I think Dino might have been asking about US soldiers desecrating bodies.

But you've piqued my curiosity about responses to Al Qaeda/Taliban desecration. Did you see any difference in response to Al Qaeda desecration vs Taliban? Did type of desecration matter?

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2019, 08:25 PM)Dill Wrote: "Terrorist" to us might be Uncle Musa or Cousin Bashir to them. Hence my sense is that they do care a great deal about US "methods," especially drones, targeted assassinations, special operations raids and the like. They certainly raise up a storm when civilians are killed and/or the wrong target is struck.

My curiosity was not whether the average Afghan might share US understanding of and sensitivity to international law and human rights issues.  I.e., I was not wondering whether Afghans might think it improper for people "wearing the uniform" to murder randomly and with impunity. They have experienced people in power doing that for over four decades now.

Rather, I was wondering how you thought they might respond to US soldiers going unpunished for war crimes, and at the intervention of the President at that. We are always telling them how important rule of law is (partly in fighting corruption); and in a few cases we have put our money where our mouth is, prosecuting our own when they've misbehaved. We can count on "westernized" Afghans registering anger and amazement, but I was wondering if you thought rank and file types you worked with would see any further implications for or risks to themselves. Or would they just not bother to think that far, if their own tribe/relatives/valley were not victimized?

You asked how they would react to "this" and each of the examples quoted in the pardons showed the individuals killed were terrorists, had ties to terror organizations, or at an absolute minimum participated in bomb making (aka terrorists). And I will tell you again: they care a whole lot less about how we kill them than we do.

Please don't move the goalpost now and suggest you were talking about innocent causalities of war. Because that's a whole separate issue.