Potential Memorial Day Pardons

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2019, 08:32 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?

The same citizenry that doesn't keep tally of how we eliminate terrorists react negatively to these acts perpetrated by terrorist organizations. Of course the terrorist organizations applaud mutilating and killing a young girl and assaulting her family simply because she was brave enough to try to walk to school. But that community was devastated. I can also share stories on communities that want(ed) assistance but where afraid because the terrorists would come out of the mountains and kill them the minute we left. 

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 08:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

"This" would be the pardon of US soldiers accused of war crimes; the question about how Afghans view the rule of law overturned by fiat, much as a tribal ruler might do had he a chance to "unconvict" members of his own tribe for killing members of another.

You are assuming a clear distinction between terrorists and innocent casualties, and a clear line between terrorists and "innocents" which everyone just sees, including ordinary Afghans. 

But Lorance could not have known the motorcycle riders he killed were terrorists before he ordered them shot. That's why he was convicted by the testimony of his own men, who were of a mind that random killing created more Taliban, not less.

That means that anti-Taliban Afghans who were "innocent" last week join the "terrorists" this week because family members were killed by Americans. 

So I assume Afghans might view many "terrorists" as family members, or even as "bomb makers" legitimately fighting occupiers. Afghans in some provinces must see friend, neighbors and relatives joining all the time; some must wonder where they'll stand next week or next month.

Further, if unarmed men on motorcycles are randomly shot, Afghans may become concerned that innocent family members can just as easily be viewed as terrorists by Americans uninterested in sorting out the difference. Some may be more concerned if Americans arrested for breaking their own Laws of War are summarily pardoned. So yes, they may not care a whole lot about HOW the US kills their family/tribal members, but they certainly care that they DO kill them, innocent or not.

If this still seems a question about "how we kill them," then nevermind.

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2019, 10:52 PM)Dill Wrote: "This" would be the pardon of US soldiers accused of war crimes; the question about how Afghans view the rule of law overturned by fiat, much as a tribal ruler might do had he a chance to "unconvict" members of his own tribe for killing members of another.

You are assuming a clear distinction between terrorists and innocent casualties, and a clear line between terrorists and "innocents" which everyone just sees, including ordinary Afghans. 

But Lorance could not have known the motorcycle riders he killed were terrorists before he ordered them shot. That's why he was convicted by the testimony of his own men, who were of a mind that random killing created more Taliban, not less.

That means that anti-Taliban Afghans who were "innocent" last week join the "terrorists" this week because family members were killed by Americans. 

So I assume Afghans might view many "terrorists" as family members, or even as "bomb makers" legitimately fighting occupiers. Afghans in some provinces must see friend, neighbors and relatives joining all the time; some must wonder where they'll stand next week or next month.

Further, if unarmed men on motorcycles are randomly shot, Afghans may become concerned that innocent family members can just as easily be viewed as terrorists by Americans uninterested in sorting out the difference. Some may be more concerned if Americans arrested for breaking their own Laws of War are summarily pardoned. So yes, they may not care a whole lot about HOW the US kills their family/tribal members, but they certainly care that they DO kill them, innocent or not.

If this still seems a question about "how we kill them," then nevermind.

Seems you really didn't want an answer; simply a point to dispute. No one in the Lorance scenario was shot "randomly"; that's just something you're making up. The terrorists were ordered to stop numerous times and failed to comply.

You asked a question of how would the Afghan citizenry respond to terrorists who were killed by means of which our courts deemed against the Rules of Engagement and I provided an answer. They care less about that than we do; it's their culture. 

Now ask the question "How does the middle-aged liberal American responds" and I'll provide you a mirror. 

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 11:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems you really didn't want an answer; simply a point to dispute. No one in the Lorance scenario was shot "randomly"; that's just something you're making up. The terrorists were ordered to stop numerous times and failed to comply.

You asked a question of how would the Afghan citizenry respond to terrorists who were killed by means of which our courts deemed against the Rules of Engagement and I provided an answer. They care less about that than we do; it's their culture. 

Now ask the question "How does the middle-aged liberal American responds" and I'll provide you a mirror. 

Lol, we're already to the "mirror" stage. 

Ok seems like you didn't want to hear a question; simply to dispute a point.  Twice.

Nevermind.

[*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.

(11-18-2019, 11:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol, we're already to the "mirror" stage. 

Ok seems like you didn't want to hear a question; simply to dispute a point.  Twice.

Nevermind.

Nah, the question was clearly answered. But you reply with BS such as "randomly shot"

Those in the Lorance case were proven to be affiliated with terrorists at a minimum and I guarantee you the A-Ghan citizenry care a whole lot less about the circumstances in which they were killed than you appear to. 

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, the question was clearly answered. But you reply with BS such as "randomly shot"

Those in the Lorance case were proven to be affiliated with terrorists at a minimum and I guarantee you the A-Ghan citizenry care a whole lot less about the circumstances in which they were killed than you appear to. 

Does anyone care when nine men testify against another? Or does that get thrown out "at a minimum"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-18-2019, 11:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems you really didn't want an answer; simply a point to dispute. 

You have summarized Dill's entire posting history in one sentence, well done.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 09:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Does anyone care when nine men testify against another? Or does that get thrown out "at a minimum"?

Of course they care; as do I. It is why i stated I applauded Mayor Pete's words although I may disagree with the verdict. At at a minimum those shot were proven to have been working with terrorist groups.

Does anyone care when forum members slur service men by classifying their decision to fire on a hostile force only after coalition forces have as "randomly" shooting people?

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 04:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they care; as do I. It is why i stated I applauded Mayor Pete's words although I may disagree with the verdict. At at a minimum those shot were proven to have been working with terrorist groups.

Does anyone care when forum members slur service men by classifying their decision to fire on a hostile force only after coalition forces have as "randomly" shooting people?

I suppose "at minimum" we should investigate.  And then if they are found guilty and subsequently pardoned?

Still I suppose there is a "both sides" to the story.

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, the question was clearly answered. But you reply with BS such as "randomly shot"

As far as "randomly" shooting the Afghans in question, according to the article above, they had stopped and approached a unit of the Afghan military, who then told them merely to continue on.  By one account they were not even armed. So its not clear they were disobeying an order to stop when they were shot. In any case, the RoE for Afghanistan that time were NOT to engage civilians unless fired upon. So shooting fleeing Afghans who have not engaged you is against the law. The shooting is "random" in the sense that there was no legitimate cause, and part of a pattern of illegal behavior targeting civilians. E.g., Lorance had threatened to shoot an Afghan child and ordered his men to fire into a village, then falsify the action report to say they had been fired upon. Finding out after the fact that one had bomb making material on his hands and another "knew" some Taliban does not make the killing less random, since the Lorance knew none of that. But you are concerned that I have "slurred" Lorance, or not just him but "service members" by calling this illegal shooting "random"?

https://www.stripes.com/news/trump-is-asked-to-pardon-army-officer-convicted-of-afghan-murders-1.452228.

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Those in the Lorance case were proven to be affiliated with terrorists at a minimum and I guarantee you the A-Ghan citizenry care a whole lot less about the circumstances in which they were killed than you appear to. 

"I think the citizenry of A-Stan care a whole lot less about the method(s) we use to kill terrorists than we do"

That "clearly answers" a question like this: "Do Afghans care how we kill terrorists?" 

My actual question was "How do you think Afghans and Iraqis will react to this? Especially the Lorance case?"

It's possible the "this" confused you, though it was in reference to an article about Trump PARDONING people accused of war crimes--a question about law and the effect of its overturning on.

Neither the article nor the discussion to that point nor my post to you concerned "methods" of killing.

I made the question more specific in my second post.

"This" would be the pardon of US soldiers accused of war crimes; the question about how Afghans view the rule of law overturned by fiat, much as a tribal ruler might do had he a chance to "unconvict" members of his own tribe for killing members of another.

I added further points I thought might complicate the Afghani perspective--like the fact that a "terrorist" might be a relative, and that careless definition could result in the death of innocent people. Further, if people convicted by our own laws are set free by fiat, is it possible Aghans, like Americans, might see that as a LOOSENING of ROE, of fire control?

To which your response was still: "they care a whole lot less about how we kill them than we do." 

So they don't care how we control our own soldiers in their land?

The reason I asked YOU the question, and not Dino or Hollo, was because I believed you had spent time with Afghans in the line of fire, and so was drawing upon your hoped for expertise/experience. You are satisfied you have answered my question. And the repetition suggests that refining/clarifying the question will not get a different, more appropriate answer.  So lets leave it at that.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 04:42 PM)Dill Wrote: As far as "randomly" shooting the Afghans in question, according to the article above, they had stopped and approached a unit of the Afghan military, who then told them merely to continue on.  By one account they were not even armed. So its not clear they were disobeying an order to stop when they were shot. In any case, the RoE for Afghanistan that time were NOT to engage civilians unless fired upon. So shooting fleeing Afghans who have not engaged you is against the law. The shooting is "random" in the sense that there was no legitimate cause, and part of a pattern of illegal behavior targeting civilians. E.g., Lorance had threatened to shoot an Afghan child and ordered his men to fire into a village, then falsify the action report to say they had been fired upon. Finding out after the fact that one had bomb making material on his hands and another "knew" some Taliban does not make the killing less random, since the Lorance knew none of that. But you are concerned that I have "slurred" Lorance, or not just him but "service members" by calling this illegal shooting "random"?

https://www.stripes.com/news/trump-is-asked-to-pardon-army-officer-convicted-of-afghan-murders-1.452228.

Just following orders Dill.

Can't hold anyone responsible...even the ones giving the orders.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 04:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I suppose "at minimum" we should investigate.  And then if they are found guilty and subsequently pardoned?

Still I suppose there is a "both sides" to the story.

Nowhere did I say "at a minimum" we should investigate, no idea how you arrived at that narrative.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 04:42 PM)Dill Wrote: As far as "randomly" shooting the Afghans in question, according to the article above, they had stopped and approached a unit of the Afghan military, who then told them merely to continue on.  By one account they were not even armed. So its not clear they were disobeying an order to stop when they were shot. In any case, the RoE for Afghanistan that time were NOT to engage civilians unless fired upon. So shooting fleeing Afghans who have not engaged you is against the law. The shooting is "random" in the sense that there was no legitimate cause, and part of a pattern of illegal behavior targeting civilians. E.g., Lorance had threatened to shoot an Afghan child and ordered his men to fire into a village, then falsify the action report to say they had been fired upon. Finding out after the fact that one had bomb making material on his hands and another "knew" some Taliban does not make the killing less random, since the Lorance knew none of that. But you are concerned that I have "slurred" Lorance, or not just him but "service members" by calling this illegal shooting "random"?

https://www.stripes.com/news/trump-is-asked-to-pardon-army-officer-convicted-of-afghan-murders-1.452228.

Yeah, I can find numerous versions of the events that unfolded to dispute "they complied" narrative.  I've made no assertion that you slurred all service members just that you slurred Lorance when you called them random. I appears you are confused on the definition of random and meant unwarranted, ect...But to call that firing random is BS and I'm pretty sure you know it.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nowhere did I say "at a minimum" we should investigate, no idea how you arrived at that narrative.

That was a callback to the one victim being "at a minimum" involved with terrorists which apparently no one knew when he was killed.

So "at a minimum" there should be investigations, then trials if warranted and then guilt or innocence.  

The "narrative" is now that (in retrospect) all the killings and hiding of bodies was fine and dandy with the POTUS even if the military disagrees.

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 04:44 PM)Dill 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"

That "clearly answers" a question like this: "Do Afghans care how we kill terrorists?" 

My actual question was "How do you think Afghans and Iraqis will react to this? Especially he Lorance case?"

It's possible the "this" confused you, though it was in reference to an article about Trump PARDONING people accused of war crimes--a question about law and the effect of its overturning on.

Neither the article nor the discussion to that point nor my post to you concerned "methods" of killing.

I made the question more specific in my second post.

"This" would be the pardon of US soldiers accused of war crimes; the question about how Afghans view the rule of law overturned by fiat, much as a tribal ruler might do had he a chance to "unconvict" members of his own tribe for killing members of another.

I added further points I thought might complicate the Afghani perspective--like the fact that a "terrorist" might be a relative, and that careless definition could result in the death of innocent people. Further, if people convicted by our own laws are set free by fiat, is it possible Aghans, like Americans, might see that as a LOOSENING of ROE, of fire control?

To which your response was still: "they care a whole lot less about how we kill them than we do." 

So they don't care how we control our own soldiers in their land?

The reason I asked YOU the question, and not Dino or Hollo, was because I believed you had spent time with Afghans in the line of fire, and so was drawing upon your hoped for expertise/experience. You are satisfied you have answered my question. And the repetition suggests that refining/clarifying the question will not get a different, more appropriate answer.  So lets leave it at that.

You asked a question and it was answered. Quit trying to cling to the ambiguous "this" to prove your question was unanswered. You asked what they react to "this" referencing 3 cases in which Terrorists were killed, by means outside our ROE and I told you: They care a whole lot less (read no reaction) than we do. I'm sure the Afghani are happy that we hold our servicemen accountable (given that they even understand the concept). But they are much happier that another bomb making terrorist has been eliminated (I'm 100% sure they understand that concept).  

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 04:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just following orders Dill.

Can't hold anyone responsible...even the ones giving the orders.

Unsure why you and Dill want to make a divisive issue out of this; as I applauded Mayor Pete in his conviction, just said I'm not totally sure agree with the findings. So you and Dill had to totally ignore the praise given to Mayor Pete's character and focus in on a point I caveated with "not sure".

Yours and Dill's reaction to my assertion of Mayor Pete's words simply bring to mind Aseop's fable of the frog and the scorpion. Perhaps you cannot help it; it's just in your nature.

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 06:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I can find numerous versions of the events that unfolded to dispute "they complied" narrative.  I've made no assertion that you slurred all service members just that you slurred Lorance when you called them random. I appears you are confused on the definition of random and meant unwarranted, ect...But to call that firing random is BS and I'm pretty sure you know it.

The version that counts is the one given by the soldiers under Lorance's command.

Looks like "random" was the trigger here, the "slur."  The killing was random in the sense that ANY three Afghans riding a motorcycle might have been singled out for Lorance's attention that day. Not random in the sense that he fired his weapon in the air and a falling bullet punctured some unseen person's brainpan a half mile away. That's how the Court Martial viewed it as well. Finding out AFTER THE FACT that one or two of those men had Taliban connections does not make the killing non-random.

(11-19-2019, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You asked a question and it was answered. Quit trying to cling to the ambiguous "this" to prove your question was unanswered. You asked what they react to "this" referencing 3 cases in which Terrorists were killed, by means outside our ROE and I told you: They care a whole lot less (read no reaction) than we do. I'm sure the Afghani are happy that we hold our servicemen accountable (given that they even understand the concept). But they are much happier that another bomb making terrorist has been eliminated (I'm 100% sure they understand that concept).  

A question was certainly answered. Just not mine. The article referred to by "this" was not simply reporting what happened in three cases. The article was published to inform of the PARDONS and the questions raised by them.  That was the topic.

But you decided my question was about "means" of killing from the get go, and not about law and legal/political implications of the pardon--i.e. the "ambiguous" point of the article which I "cling" to. Not a question respecting your experience. Just a "divisive" question.  

That just dismisses considerable evidence that Afghans do care very much about our RoE--
both back then https://www.rt.com/news/afghanistan-us-military-drone-strikes-786/
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/07/mil-070703-irin01.htm
and now https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/30/afghanistan-war-afghan-forces-kill-more-civilians-than-taliban/1864749001/

And so might be interested in whether a soldier convicted of war crimes in Afghanistan was let off the hook.

I do believe you have understood and "answered" as best you can. The Afghans you knew would sense no danger to themselves from lax ROE, or lax response to violations thereof.  Let's stop before we get to your pigeon-checkers metaphor.  Nothing left to discuss.

[Belsnickel]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-trident.html

Quote:The Navy SEAL at the center of a high-profile war crimes case has been ordered to appear before Navy leaders Wednesday morning, and is expected to be notified that the Navy intends to oust him from the elite commando force, two Navy officials said on Tuesday.

The move could put the SEAL commander, Rear Adm. Collin Green, in direct conflict with President Trump, who last week cleared the sailor, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, of any judicial punishment in the war crimes case. Military leaders opposed that action as well as Mr. Trump’s pardons of two soldiers involved in other murder cases.

Navy officials had planned to begin the process of taking away Chief Gallagher’s Trident pin, the symbol of his membership in the SEALs, earlier this month. But as he waited outside his commander’s office, Navy leaders sought clearance from the White House that never came, and no action was taken.

Admiral Green now has the authorization he needs from the Navy to act against Chief Gallagher, and the formal letter notifying the chief of the action has been drafted by the admiral, the two officials said.

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-trident.html

From the beginning I have asserted Gallagher should be thrown under the Brig. My concern in that case was immunity granted to other witnesses/participants.