Plans of Pardoning War Criminals on Memorial Day

Started by Shiranu, May 19, 2019, 02:17:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pardons/trump-may-pardon-military-men-accused-or-convicted-of-war-crimes-new-york-times-idUSKCN1SO0QH


QuoteWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has asked for files to be prepared on pardoning several U.S. military members accused of or convicted of war crimes, including one slated to stand trial on charges of shooting unarmed civilians while in Iraq, the New York Times reported on Saturday.
Trump requested the immediate preparation of paperwork needed, indicating he is considering pardons for the men around Memorial Day on May 27, the report said, citing two unnamed U.S. officials. Assembling pardon files normally takes months, but the Justice Department has pressed for the work to be completed before that holiday weekend, one of the officials said.
One request is for Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs, scheduled to stand trial in coming weeks on charges of shooting unarmed civilians and killing an enemy captive with a knife while deployed in Iraq.

Also believed to be included is the case of Major Mathew Golsteyn, an Army Green Beret accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in 2010, the Times said.
Reuters could not immediately identify a way to contact Gallagher and Golsteyn.
The newspaper reported that the cases of other men are believed to be included in the paperwork, without naming them.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the report, while the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Legal experts cited in the report said that pardoning several accused and convicted war criminals, including some who have not yet gone to trial, has not been done in recent history, and some worried such pardons could erode the legitimacy of military law.

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

Do we let people off, who are guilty, on a legal technicality?  I have never liked that.  Virtue signaling by an imperfect prosecution.  Not the same as freeing people who are innocent.

There are always war criminals in war.  But the people at the top are the biggest criminals of all.  Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barak Obama and now Donald Trump.  Prior presidents are equally guilty of being "war" presidents.  The only one with regrets was Eisenhower.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Shiranu

QuoteDo we let people off, who are guilty, on a legal technicality?  I have never liked that.

I'll be honest, my brain is running a bit slow right now, but you are referring to the pardon?

If so, I'm not a huge fan of it either, tbh. If evidence comes up someone's innocent, they shouldn't need a pardon... they should just be set free. If evidence comes up that puts the case in question, they should be retried. But randomly getting to set people free on nothing more than a whim is a bit more monarchical than I think the Founding Fathers intended.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Unbeliever

Maybe Trump is anticipating the need for a more loyal bodyguard squad than the Secret Service soon?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 19, 2019, 05:44:19 PM
Maybe Trump is anticipating the need for a more loyal bodyguard squad than the Secret Service soon?

The Obama Secret Service people all died of STD gotten from Columbian whores ;-(
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Minimalist

The Orange Shitgibbon loves criminals.... what with him being one himself.
The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails.

-- H. L. Mencken

Unbeliever

God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gawdzilla Sama

Got a blanket pardon in 1975. Very handy later in life.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Shiranu

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 21, 2019, 03:58:15 PM
Got a blanket pardon in 1975. Very handy later in life.

And it's situations like that that make me have mixed feelings.

Yes, it's good that people who didn't really do anything wrong benefit from them, but shouldn't we just change the law so that people who don't do anything wrong don't get punished in the first place, or have those punishments taken off their record?

I realise that's easier said than done, but what is the point of having laws if they are subjective? It's like judges who punish people to set an example, or let people off easy because of their background... that's not how the law should work.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Unbeliever

What really chaps my hide is when someone gets off because of the "affluenza" defense.


And when I suggested that Trump is looking for a more loyal bodyguard squad, I wasn't kidding. I think that may actually be his motive. What other motive could there be?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

#11
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 21, 2019, 04:13:33 PM
What really chaps my hide is when someone gets off because of the "affluenza" defense.


And when I suggested that Trump is looking for a more loyal bodyguard squad, I wasn't kidding. I think that may actually be his motive. What other motive could there be?

Jealousy.  Bet you won't get into Harvard Med School without the help of your dad, lying coach and a certain recently arrested con man jazzing up your bonfides too.  Helps to claim you are a Black Indian too.  Just passing as White and Paleface.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#12
Quote from: Shiranu on May 21, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
And it's situations like that that make me have mixed feelings.

Yes, it's good that people who didn't really do anything wrong benefit from them, but shouldn't we just change the law so that people who don't do anything wrong don't get punished in the first place, or have those punishments taken off their record?

I realise that's easier said than done, but what is the point of having laws if they are subjective? It's like judges who punish people to set an example, or let people off easy because of their background... that's not how the law should work.

Laws are always interpreted, by police, by the judge, by the jury.  It is fortunate if the statute or regulation is even readable (ever read legal text?) given the illiteracy of our politicians.  So yes, it isn't objective, it is subjective.  Always has been.  In the past, pre-scientific evidence, if a person who was charged, was actually guilty was random

Walter Cronkite, in his boy-reporter years, was in Houston TX.  Back in the early 30s, when a crime was committed, the Houston police would randomly troll for a Black man, beat him into confessing, and then enacting justice on him.  They didn't know who did it, and didn't even care.  We are slightly more advanced now.  We can actually use fingerprint and DNA evidence.  Except in Oklahoma a few years ago, the state crime lab boss, was convicted of incompetence.  Years of crime lab data was worthless, because the crime lab boss didn't know what they were doing.

justice is far from Tomorrowland ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNzukD8pS_s
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Shiranu

QuoteLaws are always interpreted, by police, by the judge, by the jury.  It is fortunate if the statute or regulation is even readable (ever read legal text?) given the illiteracy of our politicians.  So yes, it isn't objective, it is subjective.  Always has been.  In the past, pre-scientific evidence, if a person who was charged, was actually guilty was random

I'm not talking about the law (though I believe it can be much closer to objective than it currently is), I am talking about the consequences for breaking the law. There shouldn't be anything subjective about that.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

Quote from: Shiranu on May 21, 2019, 08:33:35 PM
I'm not talking about the law (though I believe it can be much closer to objective than it currently is), I am talking about the consequences for breaking the law. There shouldn't be anything subjective about that.

You are asking for G-d, Zeus specifically.  Do try to be well grounded, if a lightning bolt comes your way.  Also, since the accuser is always projecting, don't ask for whom the bolt comes ...

That is the problem with idealists.  Their dark side.  The side that says I am Judge Dred.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.