https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pardons/trump-may-pardon-military-men-accused-or-convicted-of-war-crimes-new-york-times-idUSKCN1SO0QH (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.
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.
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.
Maybe Trump is anticipating the need for a more loyal bodyguard squad than the Secret Service soon?
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 ;-(
The Orange Shitgibbon loves criminals.... what with him being one himself.
Birds of a feather flock together?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 21, 2019, 01:20:39 PM
Birds of a feather flock together?
Politics most fowl ;-)
Got a blanket pardon in 1975. Very handy later in life.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
QuoteYou are asking for G-d, Zeus specifically.
Mmm no, I'm asking for, if the law states you shale receive 5-10 years for punching a baby, you get 5-10 years for punching a baby.... not 1+1/2 because you are rich and then half of that being reduced because you were "well behaved"... while someone gets 10 years + 10 for being poor and black.
I don't think that is particularly idealist. That seems much more pragmatic and even conservative imo.
The law should clearly state what the punishment is, and everyone should be forced to suffer the same punishment regardless of race, sex, religion, wealth, whatever. If the law is not equal for all, it does not deserve respect from all. And if it does not deserve respect then why should we expect it to be respected?
Quote from: Shiranu on May 21, 2019, 08:43:24 PM
Mmm no, I'm asking for, if the law states you shale receive 5-10 years for punching a baby, you get 5-10 years for punching a baby.... not 1+1/2 because you are rich and then half of that being reduced because you were "well behaved"... while someone gets 10 years + 10 for being poor and black.
I don't think that is particularly idealist. That seems much more pragmatic and even conservative imo.
Judge's discretionary powers are awesome. And jury nullification (doesn't happen often) the jury can ignore the judge and the law, because the people are sovereign. But don't tell the people that, or the upper classes are toast.
If you don't like the laws as written, run for office and change them. If you don't like how they are enforced, become a cop, a lawyer or a judge. Just don't expect anyone to notice how wonderful you are, how you would make a great commissar of whatever.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 19, 2019, 02:17:19 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pardons/trump-may-pardon-military-men-accused-or-convicted-of-war-crimes-new-york-times-idUSKCN1SO0QH (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pardons/trump-may-pardon-military-men-accused-or-convicted-of-war-crimes-new-york-times-idUSKCN1SO0QH)
I've seen some discussins about this on various TV news sources. Apparently, Trump is seeking votes from military people by forgiving some few soldiers who committed acts of atrocity against unarmed or innocent "others".
I understand that deaths occur in the heat of battle and when trained armed forces people are struggling to survive in difficult situations. Armed conflicts are hard on civilians and I don't think individual soldiers can be blamed for that.
But there are times when individuals act out of control and beyond what normal stress in battle can cause. As I understand it, those cases are reviewed by fellow soldiers who have similar experience. Sometimes, the soldiers are judged to have gone beyond was is allowed by battle and stress and reasonable fear.
The individuals Trump is proposing to pardon SEEM (I do not know all the details) to have gone beyond forvivable actions, shooting civilians randomly and harming those who are no longer a threat.
I support our military. Their job is hard. When they decide some of their own have gone too far, I will defer to their judgement.
When Trump takes those individuals and pardons them for his own political gains, that is wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who pays federal income taxes is complicit in murder.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 01:47:54 PM
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who pays federal income taxes is complicit in murder.
And in health care, education, infrastructure, etc.
What healthcare? What education? What infrastructure? I haven't seen much of any of those.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 01:47:54 PM
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who pays federal income taxes is complicit in murder.
Then you must be OK with murder, or you are a felon ;-) I do understand your argument however. It would not be good for anyone, if we start punishing thought crimes ;-(
I am OK with what the government does. I don't necessarily like it. My likes/dislikes only count as a bawling infant, and sometimes not then either.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 02:03:16 PM
What healthcare? What education? What infrastructure? I haven't seen much of any of those.
Oh, please. Don't be so whiny.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 02:03:16 PM
What healthcare? What education? What infrastructure? I haven't seen much of any of those.
Karl Rove says ... it is a big club and you aren't in it ... no, George Carlin said that, but Karl Rove means it ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2019, 04:10:43 PM
Oh, please. Don't be so whiny.
Maybe like Redd Foxx's character, Mr Sanford, he prefers Ripple?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 01:47:54 PM
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who pays federal income taxes is complicit in murder.
Perhaps, and it seems we may be more complicit than the man now giving orders, which is strangely poetic.
Unbeliever, do you live in the US? Are your lights on? Do you travel on the Federal Interstate Highway System?
I live in the U.S., I have no lights, and I don't drive.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 05:11:06 PM
I live in the U.S., I have no lights, and I don't drive.
You are the uni-poster ;-) Even the uni-bomber had a shack in the woods. I would suggest staying near a Starbucks ;-(
I live under a bridge, so I'm a troll.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 22, 2019, 04:47:50 PM
Perhaps, and it seems we may be more complicit than the man now giving orders, which is strangely poetic.
Nuremberg. Get your Nuremburger here, Hamburgers are out of style!
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 05:13:43 PM
I live under a bridge, so I'm a troll.
Most newspapers are only useful in bird cages. You could pretend you are a parrot, and maybe people will share their old newspapers with you ;-(
I live under a bridge because I refuse to pay federal income taxes, and this is the only way I can manage that legally.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 05:11:06 PM
I live in the U.S., I have no lights, and I don't drive.
Didn't ask if you drive.
Well, by not driving I don't use the interstate highway system.
Also, I don't ride in cars, either, nor even busses.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 06:00:14 PM
Well, by not driving I don't use the interstate highway system.
Also, I don't ride in cars, either, nor even busses.
Those trucks on the highway, do you know what's in them?
I assume they don't all contain the same stuff.
Why the guessing games? What's your point?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 06:22:11 PM
I assume they don't all contain the same stuff.
Why the guessing games? What's your point?
You buy stuff. How did that stuff get there?
The fact that money is used for good by an organization does not negate the money it spends badly. EXON is not environmentally friendly just for investing in clean energy as well as oil.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2019, 06:23:09 PM
You buy stuff. How did that stuff get there?
More guessing games?
Enough of your facile posturing.
Well, I'm trying to watch Penn and Teller's April Fool Us, so I'm not paying much attention.
And never will.
Ah, you're just pissed off because I said that anyone who pays federal income taxes is complicit in murder. But you've presented no argument against that position, you've just spouted blatherskite.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 07:06:09 PM
Ah, you're just pissed off because I said that anyone who pays federal income taxes is complicit in murder. But you've presented no argument against that position, you've just spouted blatherskite.
As compared to your blather about not using the infrastructure? I'll take it, the high ground is fine by me.
I never said I don't use the infrastructure. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
We're done. Via con diablos.
Hasta la vista.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2019, 05:26:40 PM
I live under a bridge because I refuse to pay federal income taxes, and this is the only way I can manage that legally.
Brave and principled. Speaking truth to power gets you killed ;-( My admiration (from a Statist). I have managed to avoid owning real estate for ethical reasons, for 30 years now.
Have you stopped paying state and local taxes too? It is very hard to be sufficiently puritan. I rent, so I enable my landlord to be evil.
Godzilla ... this guy is the real thing, a practicing nihilist (at least on that one aspect). Like a vegetarian ;-) Other people here who are anti-social are pikers compared to him.
Having no income at all let's me get by without paying any taxes. The occasional sales tax is about it, then. But even that very rarely applies. Sometimes people give me money, and I then buy what few things I need.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 23, 2019, 01:14:38 PM
Having no income at all let's me get by without paying any taxes. The occasional sales tax is about it, then. But even that very rarely applies. Sometimes people give me money, and I then buy what few things I need.
I bet you have long hair and a beard, just like Jesus ;-)) That is just the kind of person portrayed in the Gospels ... an unemployed homeless day laborer, doing his own thing, outside of government or social mores. But not harmless, not at all ;-) I am surprised you don't know all the songs from Godspell.
In the non-canonical Gospels, Jesus is sexually active, either with Mary of Magdala or initiating young men. It was a Hindu idea, not Jewish, that being a virgin was special. Jews love sex. Ascetism isn't Jesus either though. The mendicant life and lack of crazy fasting, is Buddhist.
Some would say a historical Jesus had been to India, and maybe returned there.
Jesus didn't have long hair or a beard, because Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 23, 2019, 02:04:07 PM
Jesus didn't have long hair or a beard, because Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
The real Jesus(s) were not G-d. Jesus the one and only god never existed. Except that all people are the image of G-d. And humans aren't the only images, just the ones we relate too best (see cats).
There were many men named Jesus back then, still are. Judaism(s) existed, still does. Because Gilligan's Island never existed, you can't deduce that there have never been castaways. See the true story of Moby Dick. But if all stories are false, then there never was the whale ship Essex.
The image we have of Jesus is a stereotype, modified from fictional writings. Just because Washington never chopped down a cherry tree, doesn't mean there never was a Washington. Neither Founding Fathers nor Jesus, did any miracles, as we now misdefine them.
Other than God-Emperor Trump of course ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf_5xwxgkBo
Keep on paying those income taxes and subsidizing mass murder.
Actual pacifists are interesting studies in extreme psychology. Fake pacifists (virtue signalers) are not. I think you are the real thing. In short, you are a holy man ;-)
I'm not a pacifist, sometimes violence is necessary to protect the innocent. But murdering the innocent is vile and evil. And the U.S. military has been murdering the innocent in the Middle East for far too long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m47jVEXSok
War is very lucrative, so America will never give up its addiction to mass murder.
So it's a war crime to pee on dead enemies corpses. So you can't even teabag?
Well, that might be considered poor taste...
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 24, 2019, 05:42:43 PM
I'm not a pacifist, sometimes violence is necessary to protect the innocent. But murdering the innocent is vile and evil. And the U.S. military has been murdering the innocent in the Middle East for far too long.
There are no innocent. That is so ... St Joan of Arc. Expelling the English from France are we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnKA8kKuvG0
She was the real Anya.
I agree with you, and with Tulsi Gabbard ... our Middle East policy is disastrous. So, go join the Jihadis ... or vote.
Trump is suggesting (not actually has) pardoning some few military people who wantonly killed innocent men, women, and children. They were judged by their own military peers to have committed crimes.
But Trump is using the IDEA of falsely-punished military people to gain sympathy as a distraction from his real lack of understanding military stresses. I won't give him any points for that.
Cavebear ... did you support Bill Clinton's outrageous pardons of Dec 2000? Mark Rich for example?
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:16:25 AM
Cavebear ... did you support Bill Clinton's outrageous pardons of Dec 2000? Mark Rich for example?
No.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 26, 2019, 04:19:13 AM
No.
Good. Of course one bad thing doesn't excuse another. I don't know if anyone, in any trial, is actually guilty. I admit my limits. Do you believe that every jury is correct?
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:20:19 AM
Good. Of course one bad thing doesn't excuse another. I don't know if anyone, in any trial, is actually guilty. I admit my limits. Do you believe that every jury is correct?
No. Witness evidence is routinely poor and evidence is routinely misread. Yet the guilty parties in most instances are so obviously guilty that even errors don't matter much.
Various studies estimate that in the United States, between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent. One study estimated that up to 10,000 people may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year.
A 2014 study estimated that 4.1% of inmates awaiting execution on death row in the United States are innocent, and that at least 340 innocent people may have been executed since 1973. (Wikipedia)
College experiments have routinely shown that most witnesses misremember the most obvious facts.
I once saw a PBS show that demonstrated that. A staged "crime" was committed in a public area. The witnesses were interviewed by professionals. The witnesses had wildly varying accounts of the criminal, the crime, and the aftermath.
Is that sufficient?
Yes. So why are these convicted people guilty, other than they were part of a policy you oppose?
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2019, 04:56:55 AM
Yes. So why are these convicted people guilty, other than they were part of a policy you oppose?
Its not my policy. Innocent people are routinely convicted by bad evidence. Not most, but too many.