DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump's Pardons of Servicemen Raise Fears That Laws of War Won't Apply

If I were making an argument in any way resembling "war excuses everything", you'd have a point. I'm not making that argument, nor have I ever been. False "facts" were presented during the initial trial (i.e, "civilians"). There are multiple ways to interpret and/or extrapolate from the "facts" that were presented.

It was never a defense of Trump. I'm sorry I attempted to humanize the situation rather than relying on a slanted sentence in a piece clearly authored by someone against Trump regardless of the merits of a particular action. I'm not Pro-Trump. Trump can rot. I'm simply trying to analyze the possibilities of the actual situation in relation to the pardons. Not the narrative that has been concocted and distributed.

If we were talking about the absolute morality of foreign wars, you might be surprised by the side I fall on.

However, this is more about legality and the fate of someone caught in the gears of the military-industrial complex and putting punishment in context.

Well it's pretty simple. Trump doesn't have more facts than the courts that ruled in these hearings and proceedings. He's doing it for political reasons.

Just because justice at all levels fails sometimes isn't a sound reason to suggest or imply that these individuals were more or less likely to have been served justice than any other individuals found guilty by the military.

Pardoning war crimes is serious and has significant implications home and abroad. Then imposing yourself of the Navy and preventing them from ousting said individual just adds one more layer of 'wrong' on top of everything and shows this isn't about justice at all.

jmo.

Things are almost never as simple as they are presented. Trump did have whatever facts the court had along with whatever has been discovered since. He wasn't constrained like the appeals court (due to a legal technicality and subpar counsel) and was able to consider evidence that supported an argument that hadn't been made in the original trial. The reasons Trump did it are not related to the merits of doing it. If I was asked about Trump's reasons for granting the pardons, I'd guess they were probably bad. However, his reasons don't effect the "justice" of the pardons themselves.

Facts that have come to light in this particular (Lorance) case make it quite possible a miscarriage of justice occurred. To convict, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Innocence does not appear to have been assumed there. The reasons for the charges/conviction/deck stacking appear to have been largely political in my opinion.

I'm not as familiar with the Gallagher case you are mentioning, at least I'm assuming so with the Navy reference. I couldn't really say one way or the other. I agree the President shouldn't be pressing undue influence on personnel matters such as retention. Granting clemency, however, is within his purview (I'm mainly referring to the Lorance case here as I've dug into it the most and it seems to have the most material available.)

My biggest beef with the article was it lumped all the pardons together, and labeled them "bad" seemingly because Trump gave them rather than considering the actual merits of the individual circumstances. It felt overly-simplified and politicized.

The fact that military lawyers were found who sided with the military courts doesn't really give the argument a ton of weight in my opinion. Characterizing a "yessir" as "terse" seemed disingenuous. It's what you say when following orders. Quoting a marine who admitted to basically doing the same thing as claimed in the Lorance case and wasn't charged seemed unintentionally ironic.

If your beef is with article fine.... if you support Trump's decision based on zero information other than life experience and a "maybe", then I think that's the wrong position to take. Personally I'll take some clueless ladder climbing Military bureaucrat over Trump very day of the week and twice on Sunday - although I don't believe that these decisions were based on such an individual.

As for Trump having more facts ??? Sorry - Trump who can't concentrate or get through a daily briefing and hates to read didn't and doesn't have more facts than the court. Much of the discussion is based on hypothetical ... this bit I very certain of.

You may have a point. The people that researched the individuals proposed to Trump for pardons had more information available and were able to consider facts the court couldn't.

I still have a hard time believing that Trump was able to get enough votes to become President when I stop to think about it. When I think about that, I circle back around to the effectiveness of our justice system (and Presidential election system). If the people that vote for Trump are the same people that vote on juries, that system might have some potential flaws.

Dude, its WAR. S--t happens. Thank God for Trump.

Thus you prove a point made in a different thread. Thanks.

Spare me your Liberal tears.

No tears. Observations. But keep repeating your pre-programmed responses. All good.

It's the same Trumpian BS we see from him all the time.

The military disagreed with Trump about the guilt of this guy. So you know what that means. Military bad, Trump good.

Just ask the Khan family, the McCain family and the Vindman family.

.

Pence, second lady make unannounced trip to Iraq to visit US troops

The Pences also served Thanksgiving lunch to approximately 150 U.S. troops, after which the vice president delivered remarks to about 200 U.S. troops.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...visit-us-troops

My cousin had the same reaction. He went all ape the night of the election. Swearing, all "How can I go to work tomorrow and face my co workers?" (he was a college student at the time - and still is)

He, the son of a multimillionaire, who posts pic's from Hawaii, from Greece, Italy, Germany, Thailand, France, etc..............all paid for by his dad.

He's smart, according to him. He went to Cal Poly for a year. Majoring in aeronautical engineering. But after 1 year, he transferred to the U. of Washington. He's now on schedule to graduate with a degree in Business, at age 26, with no student loans. Thanks dad. I'll be debt free, and will change the world.

He doesn't come around here much at all. Used to. (on his daddy's dime) We don't eat the 'proper' food. "No smoked salmon? You just have roast beef and mashed pototoes?

He is the epitome of what I consider a dumb ass who's had luxury handed to him and has no clue what work is.

He is currently in Washington, living off his mom and dad, and getting married this coming summer, and expects all his aunts and uncles and cousins to attend his wedding.

Guess who's not going? All of his cousins. I will never forget his election night posts, nor his posts prior to the election.

Your cousin sounds better though. Wish we would’ve got him instead of the cousin who thought Obama was a foreign born Muslim.

Oh well. We don’t all get what we want.

You mean the cousin, as I stated, that is living off his dad's (someone else's) money?

He's 26, still working to get his degree, after 8 years of college - well, 8 years of partial college, and much vacation.

Is that what you mean? Get someone that lives off others?

Yep

Glad you clarified that you believe in living off someone else's money.

That is what we have discovered since Trump's election, half of America sees everything with their hearts and emotions while the other half sees things with their brains and common sense.

It’s easier to tolerate leeches than people who think the first black president is a foreign born Muslim.

Wow.

That changed suddenly. Did I do that, ever? Or, is that just a last resort retort from you?

Ooooo - I knoww, lets post something about a crazy person who is really whacko and try to paint our political opponents as all being the same. LOL.

It’s just odd how you got issues with your brother and cousin now, who coincidentally seemed to have an easier go at life than you.

He sounds like a typical 1%er kid from what you describe. The same demographic that you spend time on here defending against me when we’re discussing taxes and other aspects of American life.

I’m just trying to figure out why it bothers you so much.

But verified sources said...



Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating this photo as an attempted smear.

And you voted for her!

Bro you voted for a racist draft dodger.

Who’s about to get impeached. Lol what about Clinton is the last desperate attempt of a rat on a sinking ship.

Actually, good questions Swish.

My brother is 56. Somehow, he was able to retire at that age, with a pension that is GREAT! (it comes off the backs of taxpayers, though) And, in all honesty, he DOES have to foot the bill for his healthcare - at least some of it.

My cousin, the world traveler, that hasn't had a full time job in is life? Living off his dad's money, yet wanting me to pay more in taxes to take care of the needy, while he lives his life sucking off the [censored] of his dad's money? Yeah, I have a problem with that.

It's the democratic way, make no mistake about that. It is what it is.

Here's the sad truth: At some point, the free money will run out. Before it happens, millions will lose everything, in order to satiate the masses.

Oh, just for craps and giggles, I think it's important for you to know that you are one of the VERY few libs on here I actually don't have on block. I won't name names, but trust me, when I read political posts, I don't see much due to the block. Idiots are idiots.

Is his dad cool with it?

You need to unblock people. That’s snowflake behavior and something you claimed to be against. That doesn’t sound like you at all.

You need to hit the bong.

Apparently. But his dad has his wealth "protected", thats why my cousin harps about people needing to pay more in taxes................while he's on some yacht off the coast of Greece.

Nah. First, I don't smoke weed. My decision.

Second, I can't deal with stupid.

3rd, there's 1 person in particular that pm'd me a rant like you can't believe. He/she couldn't stand an opposing view and went off on me.

That's fine.

You do the math on that swish. We don't agree on politics at all, yet I still communicate with you.

I see you are getting upset because of an attack on your beloved Obama? Take it easy - it's ok.

Ok so dad has a crap ton of money and doesn’t mind his son having a good time either.

If you want to have a discussion on parenting, then I mean....ok?

But I still don’t understand why you have an issue with it. It’s not like he’s on food stamps or section 8 and acting like that. He’s using money that had been privately earned by whatever business his dad does, which means it’s been taxed.

So what if the scrub thinks it should be taxed more? For all we know, daddy might be handing things over to his son once he’s ready to retire, which isn’t anytime soon. Or maybe the kid sees the financials and understands his privilege position and thinks if government raised taxes the old man wouldn’t notice it anyway.

And I think I told you this before; bro you whine about your brother...but he found something he was good at, that happened to pay well and retire earlier than average.

You conservatives use to call that the American Dream.

It just kinda comes off as salt, man.

Obama wasn't half bad.

Okay.

the "kid" wants others to pay more in taxes. Not his daddy.

But, anyway, nice talking to you. I now know that you are for wealthy people keeping their wealth and spending it as the choose, as opposed to wealthy people being taxed to death.

So, you're like me.

All y'all need to leave each other's families out of the trash talk.

He needs to pardon General Flynn and Roger Stone next.

why?

Because the deplorables don't mind criminals breaking the law and subverting justice if it gets them what they want.

I don’t ever think I’ve ever implied that wealthy people should be taxed to death.