quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I’m good with the other two. But one of them got a free ride, the officer who ordered his people to shoot at unarmed people and none of his people testified for him. One of those who supposedly was under him at the time pointed this out. For me, that speaks volumes.

Do you know if the underlings were pushed into testifying against him for them not being charged? It’s a simple plot that prosecutors use daily...

So when I hear that his men turned against him and said he was a bad guy I just know a back room deal was cut

Both Lorance and Gallagher had a lot of subordinates saying they fucked up. Both Lorance and Gallagher had reputations as being hard chargers, wanting to get into action, etc. I can see where that might make them unpopular and make it easy for subordinates to spin things to get them removed.

I don't know all the evidence presented, and I've only read about the prosecutorial misconduct in the Gallagher case, but that alone is enough to make me question any "well, his unit said that he...." testimony in Lorance's case.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I’m good with the other two. But one of them got a free ride, the officer who ordered his people to shoot at unarmed people and none of his people testified for him. One of those who supposedly was under him at the time pointed this out. For me, that speaks volumes.

Do you know if the underlings were pushed into testifying against him for them not being charged? It’s a simple plot that prosecutors use daily...

So when I hear that his men turned against him and said he was a bad guy I just know a back room deal was cut

I don’t know if he testified but this guy identified himself as being a part of the unit and pointed out that no one spoke on his behalf. He also gave a history of the guy prior to heading the team.

I have no reason to doubt him and it’s not like I was in argument with him and he was trying to make his case or impress me.

I’m just saying, that those guys who tend to throw someone under the bus during a Courts Martial usually are pressured into their testimony after several hours of coaching.

I know, I’ve been railroaded while in the service. I saw a lot of feelings and conjecture given much more weight than the facts

Plus the prosecutions are measured on convictions and not on fact finding. Which is what the investigation and following prosecution should be about.

I served for 20 years and I was a cop and saw how the prosecution worked. I give very little weight to the testimony of the said “coworkers”

God Bless our President!!

we train people who's sole purpose of their career is to kill the enemy

and then we prosecute them for doing so

is that a mixed message or what?

civilized war fighting? now there's an oxymoron for the SJW crowd

“A top Navy SEAL officer is defying President Donald Trump’s defense of Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher by sending his controversial case to a military review board which could result in his ultimate expulsion from the SEALs.

On November 15 Trump reversed the demotion of Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who acquitted of murder this summer, and restored his title of Chief Petty Officer. The president also pardoned two other officers jailed for war crimes as well.

Trump’s grant of executive clemency has been harshly criticized over violations of international humanitarian law.

Despite the Commander in Chief's pardon, Rear Admiral Collin Green, the head of the Navy Special Warfare Command, is taking the matter before a military board.

'This is a review of their suitability to be a SEAL,' an unnamed Navy officer said to CBS News, adding the review has the backing of both the secretary of the Navy and the chief of Naval Operations…”

https://mol.im/a/7703603

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
“A top Navy SEAL officer is defying President Donald Trump’s defense of Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher by sending his controversial case to a military review board which could result in his ultimate expulsion from the SEALs.

On November 15 Trump reversed the demotion of Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who acquitted of murder this summer, and restored his title of Chief Petty Officer. The president also pardoned two other officers jailed for war crimes as well.

Trump’s grant of executive clemency has been harshly criticized over violations of international humanitarian law.

Despite the Commander in Chief's pardon, Rear Admiral Collin Green, the head of the Navy Special Warfare Command, is taking the matter before a military board.

'This is a review of their suitability to be a SEAL,' an unnamed Navy officer said to CBS News, adding the review has the backing of both the secretary of the Navy and the chief of Naval Operations…”

https://mol.im/a/7703603

Unnamed navy officer said . . . .

To me, the smacks of yet another obummer appointed military officer conduct.

We send our military elites into combat, then prosecute them for doing it!

Like that asinine order from obummer regarding wounded enemy. I.e. If a wounded enemy was found WHILE IN ACTUALY COMBAT our troops were supposed to administer 1st aid, and stay with the wounded enemy until that enemy was tended by US medical support.

My suggestion would be for Trump to fire every flag grade officer promoted by obummer and replace them with warriors!!

quote:

My suggestion would be for Trump to fire every flag grade officer promoted by obummer and replace them with warriors!!

This 100%,these officers keep popping up in places that hurt the President.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I.e. If a wounded enemy was found WHILE IN ACTUALY COMBAT our troops were supposed to administer 1st aid, and stay with the wounded enemy until that enemy was tended by US medical support.

Maybe because you can learn more from a live, captured enemy than a dead one.

But I know Obama is the Booogyman - I know he did a lot of damage to the military but caring for and capturing enemy soldiers has been done since, well, forever.

The reason this Major got jammed up is he was stupid enough to tell people about it during an interview. That's on him.

“Donald Trump said Thursday that retired naval officer Eddie Gallagher will keep his status as a special operations SEAL following an acquittal for war crimes and a presidential pardon for a less serious offense.

'The Navy will NOT be taking away Warfighter and Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s Trident Pin,' Trump tweeted. 'This case was handled very badly from the beginning. Get back to business!'

Navy commanders had begun an administrative process to strip Gallagher of his SEAL status after the president ordered them to cancel his demotion in rank…”

https://mol.im/a/7711235

Military Times article:

================

How the long-term effect of Trump’s recent war crimes actions could play out

By: Todd South and Kyle Rempfer   1 day ago

President Donald Trump’s decision to grant clemency in the cases of three military members tangled in war crimes cases raises questions about whether troops are being given a green light to disobey the rules of law.

But interviews with current and former military leaders, lawyers and outspoken military commentators also show a belief that Trump’s actions may have no effect on troops predisposed to follow those rules.

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 while being convicted of posing with a dead Taliban member, had his rank restored to Chief Petty Officer by the president.

POTUS intervenes in the cases of two Army officers and a Navy SEAL.
By: Leo Shane III, Meghann Myers, Carl Prine

Former Marine Corps Commandant, retired Gen. Charles Krulak, released a statement on the Human Rights First website that Trump’s actions amounted to circumventing the military legal system and the president’s intervention “relinquishes the United States’ moral high ground.

“Disregard for the law undermines our national security by reducing combat effectiveness, increasing the risks to our troops, hindering cooperation with allies, alienating populations whose support the United States needs in the struggle against terrorism, and providing a propaganda tool for extremists who wish to do us harm,” Krulak wrote.

Another Marine, now serving in Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, released his own statement, supporting the president.

“For years, rampant prosecutorial misconduct, political correctness, and procedures that weight the scales of justice against the accused have personified our military justice system,” he said. “Self-serving military bureaucrats have felt empowered in instituting policies that have been damning to our warriors on the front lines.”

Hunter publicly advocated for a pardon of Gallagher before his trial earlier this year and established the Justice for Warriors Caucus with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, to advocate for military defendants.

At least two military attorneys doubted that the rulings would have much impact on troops adherence to rules of engagement. But one of them saw deeper problems with military justice that may need the president to get involved.

Retired Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, the former deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, told Military Times that the president’s pardon won’t have much impact on how ROEs are perceived among troops.

“Let’s give the troops credit for understanding that what may or may not have happened in a situation that occurred almost a decade ago doesn’t have much to do with what they are trying to accomplish today,” said Dunlap, who is now the director of Duke Law School’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

“I don’t believe that the theoretical availability of a pardon or commutation at some undetermined time in the future has anything to do with troop behavior,” he added. “I’ve actually never heard of anyone contemplating committing a crime including the remote possibility of a pardon into their calculation as to whether or not they’ll carry out their plan.”

Colby Vokey, a civilian military attorney and former Marine Corps JAG, also doubted that the pardons would have much impact on the battlefield.

Vokey referenced his son, who recently returned from a Middle East deployment as an infantry platoon commander.

“They were all aware of these and other war crimes cases but never once did any of these Marines ever consider that rules didn’t apply to them because the president had granted and was considering additional pardons,” Vokey wrote in an email response.

Dunlap noted that ROEs should be constructed to enable service members to accomplish their mission while still complying with the law and whatever policy restrictions are put in place.

"Personally, I can’t recall ever having seen ROEs that were not in some way more restrictive than what the law would require," Dunlap said.

ROEs in combat zones are not made public, and Dunlap said there’s solid reasoning behind that. Doing otherwise gives enemies the ability to use the rules to their advantage.

He gave the example of a hypothetical ROE that demanded there be “a reasonable certainty of zero civilian casualties before an attack is authorized,” which is something the law doesn’t require.

In such a situation, “you can bet that the enemy is going to do exactly what you don’t want him to do: surround himself with civilians so as to ward off attack,” Dunlap said.

In light of the recent war crimes cases, Vokey said that the ROEs are not the problem.

“It is the perversion of these rules in the investigative and legal processes which cause our troops to distrust the military justice system,” he wrote. “The root of these problems start with the inadequate, biased and politically motivated investigations by (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) and (Criminal Investigation Division).”

In developing countries like Afghanistan, where local police are not always well-trained and military police are not immediately on-hand, investigators are sometimes accused of failing to gather the evidence that would be necessary in civilian courts to secure convictions.

That’s part of why some have suggested there should be a committee to review war crimes cases before they’re turned over to military prosecutors.

“The culture in the military changed with the infamous Haditha war crimes cases, causing commanders to prosecute any and all allegations and presume guilt," Vokey said. "Hopefully, President Trump’s actions will send a message to military leadership that the default position is not to throw our troops under the bus without a full and fair investigation."

But presidential intervention isn’t something that Vokey sees as detrimental. Instead, it’s a key part of the process.

“President Abraham Lincoln intervened in hundreds of military court-martial cases during the Civil War, granting many pardons and commutations, often against the advice of his cabinet and military leaders,” Vokey said. “His actions on hundreds of cases resulted in no loss of good order and discipline. To the contrary, his actions provided a sense of fairness and justice amongst military forces.”

.One soldier who served with Lorance said the wrong signal from leadership can have swift effects.

“Having been in the Army for ten years, I’ve seen how quickly the leadership—both good and bad—can change the institutional culture of units all the way down to the troop level,” said Drew Duggins, a former Army captain and special operations JTAC who served with Lorance in the 82nd Airborne Division.

Duggins disagreed with Trump’s military justice decisions.

“It sends a message to the guys on the ground that instead of trying to win hearts and minds and run a counter insurgency strategy that builds consensus and unity of purpose with host nations, our leaders at every level may be willing to look the other way,” Duggins said.

Duggins cited the transition away from the Pentagon’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as an example of positive executive influence.

Many of the soldiers he worked with "had not been exposed to LGBT folks and had some pretty antiquated views,” Duggins said.

The atmosphere shifted when all leaders, from then-President Barack Obama down to the company commanders, instituted the policy shift.

“They knew that homophobia and hazing wouldn’t be tolerated and I saw the mindset of the force change within a matter of months,” Duggins added. “That’s a testament to leadership. Now imagine what the lack of leadership from President Trump regarding war crimes says to our troops especially when you take into account his previous statements about killing terrorists’ families.”

The perceptions of military justice can also have effects on the battlefield.

Retired Army Col. Mike Jason commanded combat units in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. In a Twitter thread this week he shared experiences with the fallout that military units face in theater when soldiers commit war crimes.

He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 when news broke that Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales murdered 16 Afghan civilians.

Jason wrote that his unit immediately began meeting with Afghan counterparts and tribal leaders, ensuring them that the soldier would be held accountable.

“We are supposed to be the good guys. At our nation's founding, George Washington directed our troops to fight honorably. We designed the Nuremberg Trials,” Jason tweeted. “We chased Bosnian war criminals for decades. Our movies and pop culture taught us to despise war criminals.

"The decision to pardon these three men, countering the sanctity of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, the decisions of commanders, the verdict of their peers, our adherence to the Laws of Warfare---WILL have long lasting battlefield consequences.”

Link.

Regarding the Military article above:

What a load of dreck from the perfumed princes. The senior leadership of the military needs a house cleaning just like the swamp needs to be drained.

^^^^ yup.

"Threaten to resign"? Trump needs to relieve them NOW. There is politics and there is good order and discipline. When military men disregard good order and discipline they endanger every man and woman in uniform. A chain of command is there for a reason. If you don't like an order you are given tough shit. There is NOTHING illegal about the Commander In Chief's order. Resignation is too good for these assholes.

President Trump, please relieve them of their duties.

"BREAKING: U.S. Navy Will Take CPO Gallagher’s SEAL Trident Despite POTUS Twitter “Order”

The New York Times reports just hours ago, the Secretary of the Navy and the Admiral in charge of Naval Special Operations Forces have threatened to resign if President Trump makes his twitter “order” to the Navy to refrain from taking Chief Petty Officer Gallagher’s SEAL Trident, official. Here’s the meat of the story

https://www.redstate.com/darth...otus-twitter-“order”

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I.e. If a wounded enemy was found WHILE IN ACTUALY COMBAT our troops were supposed to administer 1st aid, and stay with the wounded enemy until that enemy was tended by US medical support.

Maybe because you can learn more from a live, captured enemy than a dead one.

But I know Obama is the Booogyman - I know he did a lot of damage to the military but caring for and capturing enemy soldiers has been done since, well, forever.

The reason this Major got jammed up is he was stupid enough to tell people about it during an interview. That's on him.

I am fully aware of the Geneva conventions. I am also aware the stopping an operation in mid stride to tend a wounded enemy is not especially smart.

Especially given the small unit size of Special Force units where even 1 man or 2 missing can compromise the operation.

I have a family member over there now, 6th tour. Their units are small, and leaving even 1 man behind to tend wounded enemy will damage unit efficiency and endanger the troops.

Again, obummer was issuing orders regarding issues about which he had no conceivable idea! But that was not unusual, was it?!

^^ were I President, I’d call the secretary and the admiral and have them standing tall before the oval offices desk...Then I’d ask them if they can follow my order to leave the Chief alone and his trident and follow orders. Or I’d , court martial the admiral and fire the Secretary on the spot.

quote:

Then I’d ask them if they can follow my order to leave the Chief alone and his trident and follow orders.

Exactly. This kills me: Trump's "Twitter Order"? Hey Einstein he is the Commander In chief. It does not matter if his order comes from Twitter, NIPR, or SIPR. It's an order. If you cannot follow that order, stand by to stand by.

I agree I would tell them they have 24 hours to REPORT. That means standing tall in front of my desk. In the Oval Office. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington DC. Full dress uniform. Present yourself accordingly. Just like you are a boot checking in to the CO at a new unit.

Trump should order him to DC to become the "Senior Staff NCO Asymmetric Warfare Advisor" or something. Let him ride it out until he can drop papers.

Currently being covered and discussed over at The Conservative Tree-house -

STUNNING if True – NYT Reports U.S. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer Blackmailing President Trump…

Posted on November 23, 2019 by sundance

The initial jaw-dropping compromise within the Pentagon was first noted when Lt. Col Alexander Vindman, on assignment to the National Security Council, admitted during his deposition to defying White House policy and delivering countermanding instructions to his colleagues in the Ukraine government.

Alex Vindman compromised his position, compromised his leadership, and made himself an issue for National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. However, it wasn’t what Vindman did per se’, but rather what the Dept. of Defense didn’t do that was more alarming. Immediately upon notification of the compromise Defense Secretary Mark Esper (above left) was under the obligation to remove the compromise, yet he did nothing.

The Vindman example was/is a concerning lack of action by Defense Dept. leadership, and that situation is made all the more alarming today as the New York Times is reporting Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer is now openly blackmailing CiC President Donald J Trump and rebuking civilian authority and oversight.

New York Times […] The secretary of the Navy and the admiral who leads the SEALs have threatened to resign or be fired if plans to expel a commando from the elite unit in a war crimes case are halted by President Trump, administration officials said Saturday.

The Navy is proceeding with the disciplinary plans against the commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, who counts Mr. Trump as one of his most vocal supporters. After reversing a demotion in recent days, the president suggested on Thursday that he would intervene again in the case, saying that the sailor should remain in the unit.

The threats by the Navy secretary, Richard V. Spencer, and the commander, Rear Adm. Collin Green, are a rare instance of pushback against Mr. Trump from members of the Defense Department. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, scrambled to come up with a face-saving compromise this past week in the hope that Mr. Trump could be persuaded to change his mind.

[…] One argument that officials said may be relied on is the assumption that a tweet does not constitute a formal presidential order. Mr. Esper and General Milley conveyed to the president that if he followed up that tweet with a direct order, there would be huge consequences: Mr. Trump would lose Mr. Spencer and Admiral Green, further infuriate his top military leadership and do untold damage to decades of military justice doctrine, according to administration officials. (read more)


Let’s cut through the chaff and fog.

The military, nor any person therein, does not get to “threaten” the President of The United States. The President is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces. It is not President Trump who would be doing “untold damage to decades of military justice doctrine“, but rather the insubordination of flag officers who are duty bound to carry out legal and constitutional instructions from the President.

The DoD inaction surrounding Lt. Col Vindman was a precursor, a visible symptom few were paying attention to; indicating a political cancer within the unified chain of command. The U.S. Secretary of the Navy threatening the U.S. President is an even more alarming symptom.

A military officer does not get to threaten his leadership with a ‘do what I demand or I will quit’ approach. Any senior level military officer who would express such a sentiment would be regarded as unstable, compromised and unfit to hold a leadership rank.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Stupid CTH writer. "Blackmailing"? You blackmail when you have some dirt on your opponent. What does Spencer have on the President? NOTHING! Sure, he threatened to resign, but that ain't blackmailing.

And yes, were I the President, I would have no hesitation firing this insubordinate asshole on the spot.