Senators fuzzy on Presidential Pardon Power.

[SavannahMann]

Ok, let’s start with the link.

Senators challenge Trump on military pardons

Now, the rant. And it is going to be a rant. I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution. I swore an oath to support and defend it when I enlisted, and twice after that. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet to be released from that oath in my sense of honor. What that means is I will always side with the Constitution, over party, politics, or any other consideration.

The Constitution is pretty clear on what the President can do regarding Pardons. Allow me to quote Article two, Section Two, Clause One, of the Constitution regarding Pardons.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Pretty clear.

Yet the Senators want to know if the President cleared the Pardon’s with the Justice Department before issuing them. You see, that is not listed as a requirement. It is that the President has the power. The Senators wonder if he consulted the Department of Defense. Again, that is not a requirement. The President can require the various Secretaries of insert whatever department here to offer their opinions, but he does not have to take it. And he doesn’t have to ask for their opinions. The Department of Justice has no say over Pardons except Yes Sir when the President issues one. The Department of Defense has no say either. Not only does the President have the Power of the Pardon, but he has the job of Commander in Chief. Which means on two fronts the Military says Yes Sir so long as the order is not illegal.

Do I think he should have pardoned those guys? Let me repeat what I have written twice before. I think that those military people earned their convictions. I think they disgraced the uniform. I think they disgraced the service. I also believe that the President is the one with the say, and my sworn oath is to defend the Constitution and I will do so no matter who is the President, and no matter what party holds the White House. I can and do disagree with Trump on a number of issues. I would be saying this same thing if Obama had issued pardon’s that were controversial. I said the same thing when President Clinton issued controversial Pardons.

If you don’t like it, then here is what you do Senator. Again, it is in the Constitution. You start an Amendment. You pass it through Congress, and you ask the States to ratify the amendment. You don’t demand answers to stupid assed questions insisting that there needs to be a process that is followed.

Here is why there is a Pardons section in the Justice Department. If there wasn’t, the staff of the White House would be doing that job anyway. Researching the requests for Pardon’s from family and the convicted to see what the truth is. The “guidelines” are general and not binding. The President can pardon someone ten seconds after they are convicted, or before they are even charged with the crime.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 69

Yeah, that is exactly what the Founders intended. So Fuck off Senator.

 

[Penelope]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

 

[kyzr]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

 

[Penelope]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

You neither, the rule of law is right out the window, for the rich and military and whoever sucks up to tramp.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[beagle9]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

A military justice system being infiltrated by demos, and is run by deep state demos who have occupied it due to it's socialist leanings these days is definitely the problem. This is not the military it was during world war two in which I'm sure you will agree, and any blind monkey can see that now.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Leahy and Whitehouse are two of the biggest fools in Congress.

That said, they know better. As always, the Democrats rely on the ignorance of their supporters to lend credibility to their words.

 

[kyzr]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

A military justice system being infiltrated by demos, and is run by deep state demos who have occupied it due to it's socialist leanings these days is definitely the problem. This is not the military it was during world war two in which I'm sure you will agree, and any blind monkey can see that now.

Exactly right. Hope Trump gets another term to straighten all this shit out. Not sure who he can give this assignment to?

 

[beagle9]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

A military justice system being infiltrated by demos, and is run by deep state demos who have occupied it due to it's socialist leanings these days is definitely the problem. This is not the military it was during world war two in which I'm sure you will agree, and any blind monkey can see that now.

Exactly right. Hope Trump gets another term to straighten all this shit out. Not sure who he can give this assignment to?

I know a man that would be great. Worked with him for years, and know his character. He is former military as well, and I'm sure their are thousands out there just like him if were looked for, but as long as the agenda riddled deep state remains, we won't get there again in our lifetimes.

 

[SavannahMann]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

You neither, the rule of law is right out the window, for the rich and military and whoever sucks up to tramp.

Really? Trump has spent what? Every minute of his Presidency with people screaming Impeach Him. Hearings going on right now. Everyone who says Good Morning to Trump is investigated by the FBI and several have been convicted. What makes you think the rule of law is anything but there being used and abused?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok, let’s start with the link.

Senators challenge Trump on military pardons

Now, the rant. And it is going to be a rant. I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution. I swore an oath to support and defend it when I enlisted, and twice after that. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet to be released from that oath in my sense of honor. What that means is I will always side with the Constitution, over party, politics, or any other consideration.

The Constitution is pretty clear on what the President can do regarding Pardons. Allow me to quote Article two, Section Two, Clause One, of the Constitution regarding Pardons.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Pretty clear.

Yet the Senators want to know if the President cleared the Pardon’s with the Justice Department before issuing them. You see, that is not listed as a requirement. It is that the President has the power. The Senators wonder if he consulted the Department of Defense. Again, that is not a requirement. The President can require the various Secretaries of insert whatever department here to offer their opinions, but he does not have to take it. And he doesn’t have to ask for their opinions. The Department of Justice has no say over Pardons except Yes Sir when the President issues one. The Department of Defense has no say either. Not only does the President have the Power of the Pardon, but he has the job of Commander in Chief. Which means on two fronts the Military says Yes Sir so long as the order is not illegal.

Do I think he should have pardoned those guys? Let me repeat what I have written twice before. I think that those military people earned their convictions. I think they disgraced the uniform. I think they disgraced the service. I also believe that the President is the one with the say, and my sworn oath is to defend the Constitution and I will do so no matter who is the President, and no matter what party holds the White House. I can and do disagree with Trump on a number of issues. I would be saying this same thing if Obama had issued pardon’s that were controversial. I said the same thing when President Clinton issued controversial Pardons.

If you don’t like it, then here is what you do Senator. Again, it is in the Constitution. You start an Amendment. You pass it through Congress, and you ask the States to ratify the amendment. You don’t demand answers to stupid assed questions insisting that there needs to be a process that is followed.

Here is why there is a Pardons section in the Justice Department. If there wasn’t, the staff of the White House would be doing that job anyway. Researching the requests for Pardon’s from family and the convicted to see what the truth is. The “guidelines” are general and not binding. The President can pardon someone ten seconds after they are convicted, or before they are even charged with the crime.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 69

Yeah, that is exactly what the Founders intended. So Fuck off Senator.

“I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution.”

Everyone’s a ‘constitutionalist,’ everyone believes in the Constitution.

That’s not the point.

That Trump has the authority to pardon isn’t the issue; the issue is Trump’s reckless, irresponsible use of the authority to pardon – and for Trump to pardon those involved in war crimes is reckless and irresponsible.

From your linked article:

‘“While the president possesses broad pardon powers, these pardons were issued in the face of strong opposition from senior military officials, who warned that such pardons would undermine the U.S. military justice system and shake faith in our military’s commitment to abide by the laws of war,” the senators wrote in a letter to Rosalind Sargent-Burns, the acting pardon attorney at the Justice Department.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

You neither, the rule of law is right out the window, for the rich and military and whoever sucks up to tramp.

Really? Trump has spent what? Every minute of his Presidency with people screaming Impeach Him. Hearings going on right now. Everyone who says Good Morning to Trump is investigated by the FBI and several have been convicted. What makes you think the rule of law is anything but there being used and abused?

Nonsense.

The investigations into Trump’s wrongdoings are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – consistent with the rule of law; Trump has only himself to blame.

The same is true of Trump associates convicted of crimes, likewise pursuant to the rule of law.

It’s Trump who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, for our democratic institutions, and for the Constitution.

 

[beagle9]

Ok, let’s start with the link.

Senators challenge Trump on military pardons

Now, the rant. And it is going to be a rant. I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution. I swore an oath to support and defend it when I enlisted, and twice after that. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet to be released from that oath in my sense of honor. What that means is I will always side with the Constitution, over party, politics, or any other consideration.

The Constitution is pretty clear on what the President can do regarding Pardons. Allow me to quote Article two, Section Two, Clause One, of the Constitution regarding Pardons.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Pretty clear.

Yet the Senators want to know if the President cleared the Pardon’s with the Justice Department before issuing them. You see, that is not listed as a requirement. It is that the President has the power. The Senators wonder if he consulted the Department of Defense. Again, that is not a requirement. The President can require the various Secretaries of insert whatever department here to offer their opinions, but he does not have to take it. And he doesn’t have to ask for their opinions. The Department of Justice has no say over Pardons except Yes Sir when the President issues one. The Department of Defense has no say either. Not only does the President have the Power of the Pardon, but he has the job of Commander in Chief. Which means on two fronts the Military says Yes Sir so long as the order is not illegal.

Do I think he should have pardoned those guys? Let me repeat what I have written twice before. I think that those military people earned their convictions. I think they disgraced the uniform. I think they disgraced the service. I also believe that the President is the one with the say, and my sworn oath is to defend the Constitution and I will do so no matter who is the President, and no matter what party holds the White House. I can and do disagree with Trump on a number of issues. I would be saying this same thing if Obama had issued pardon’s that were controversial. I said the same thing when President Clinton issued controversial Pardons.

If you don’t like it, then here is what you do Senator. Again, it is in the Constitution. You start an Amendment. You pass it through Congress, and you ask the States to ratify the amendment. You don’t demand answers to stupid assed questions insisting that there needs to be a process that is followed.

Here is why there is a Pardons section in the Justice Department. If there wasn’t, the staff of the White House would be doing that job anyway. Researching the requests for Pardon’s from family and the convicted to see what the truth is. The “guidelines” are general and not binding. The President can pardon someone ten seconds after they are convicted, or before they are even charged with the crime.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 69

Yeah, that is exactly what the Founders intended. So Fuck off Senator.

“I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution.”

Everyone’s a ‘constitutionalist,’ everyone believes in the Constitution.

That’s not the point.

That Trump has the authority to pardon isn’t the issue; the issue is Trump’s reckless, irresponsible use of the authority to pardon – and for Trump to pardon those involved in war crimes is reckless and irresponsible.

From your linked article:

‘“While the president possesses broad pardon powers, these pardons were issued in the face of strong opposition from senior military officials, who warned that such pardons would undermine the U.S. military justice system and shake faith in our military’s commitment to abide by the laws of war,” the senators wrote in a letter to Rosalind Sargent-Burns, the acting pardon attorney at the Justice Department.’

As long as we have a deep state with an ideology that goes against everything this nation has believed in, then Trump has every right to counter the deep state as the chief executive officer residing over the affairs of this nation in regards to such issues.

 

[Olde Europe]

Bummer. Folks questioning the wisdom of certain exercises of the (unquestioned) presidential pardon power... that's entirely, utterly, completely unprecedented.

In the entire history of the nation, there hasn't been a rant more justified than this one.

On another note, if that goofy whining on behalf of the Dear Leader, about the unspeakable horrors he is facing while failing on the job he sought, doesn't stop, I'm gonna puke.

 

[MAGAman]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

Typical. America hating Leftist always side with the enemy.

It's not a coincidence the same Tards that shit on the American military supported Obama/Biden sending a plane load of cash to fund Terrorism.

 

[MAGAman]

Ok, let’s start with the link.

Senators challenge Trump on military pardons

Now, the rant. And it is going to be a rant. I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution. I swore an oath to support and defend it when I enlisted, and twice after that. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet to be released from that oath in my sense of honor. What that means is I will always side with the Constitution, over party, politics, or any other consideration.

The Constitution is pretty clear on what the President can do regarding Pardons. Allow me to quote Article two, Section Two, Clause One, of the Constitution regarding Pardons.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Pretty clear.

Yet the Senators want to know if the President cleared the Pardon’s with the Justice Department before issuing them. You see, that is not listed as a requirement. It is that the President has the power. The Senators wonder if he consulted the Department of Defense. Again, that is not a requirement. The President can require the various Secretaries of insert whatever department here to offer their opinions, but he does not have to take it. And he doesn’t have to ask for their opinions. The Department of Justice has no say over Pardons except Yes Sir when the President issues one. The Department of Defense has no say either. Not only does the President have the Power of the Pardon, but he has the job of Commander in Chief. Which means on two fronts the Military says Yes Sir so long as the order is not illegal.

Do I think he should have pardoned those guys? Let me repeat what I have written twice before. I think that those military people earned their convictions. I think they disgraced the uniform. I think they disgraced the service. I also believe that the President is the one with the say, and my sworn oath is to defend the Constitution and I will do so no matter who is the President, and no matter what party holds the White House. I can and do disagree with Trump on a number of issues. I would be saying this same thing if Obama had issued pardon’s that were controversial. I said the same thing when President Clinton issued controversial Pardons.

If you don’t like it, then here is what you do Senator. Again, it is in the Constitution. You start an Amendment. You pass it through Congress, and you ask the States to ratify the amendment. You don’t demand answers to stupid assed questions insisting that there needs to be a process that is followed.

Here is why there is a Pardons section in the Justice Department. If there wasn’t, the staff of the White House would be doing that job anyway. Researching the requests for Pardon’s from family and the convicted to see what the truth is. The “guidelines” are general and not binding. The President can pardon someone ten seconds after they are convicted, or before they are even charged with the crime.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 69

Yeah, that is exactly what the Founders intended. So Fuck off Senator.

Agreed. Democrats being against the Constitution isn't new.

The Constitution is clear. The Democrats aren't fuzzy, they're opposed to the Constitution.

 

[longknife]

By the end of his second and final term on January 20, 2017, United States President Barack Obama had exercised his constitutional power to grant executive clemency—that is, "pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve"[1]—to 1,927 individuals convicted of federal crimes. Of the acts of clemency, 1,715 were commutations (including 504 life sentences) and 212 were pardons.[2] Most individuals granted executive clemency by Obama had been convicted on drug charges,[3] and had received lengthy and sometimes mandatory sentences at the height of the war on drugs.[4]

Obama holds the record for the largest single-day use of the clemency power, granting 330 commutations on January 19, 2017, his last full day in office.[5][6] He also issued more commutations than the past 13 presidents combined.[2][7]

From List of people granted executive clemency by Barack Obama - Wikipedia

Don't forget Chelsea Manning and Bergdahl.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

You neither, the rule of law is right out the window, for the rich and military and whoever sucks up to tramp.

Did you bother to actually read what the two were convicted of? The LT took over a platoon where motorcycle riders attacked and killed the previous platoon leader and injured several of the platoon members. The two men he killed were acting exactly the same and on motorcycles. He made a split second decision in a war zone, hardly a crime. The Major killed a KNOWN bomb builder that had killed other soldiers that was released by stupid rules of engagement. Neither men should have been tried much less convicted.

 

[SavannahMann]

Ok, let’s start with the link.

Senators challenge Trump on military pardons

Now, the rant. And it is going to be a rant. I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution. I swore an oath to support and defend it when I enlisted, and twice after that. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet to be released from that oath in my sense of honor. What that means is I will always side with the Constitution, over party, politics, or any other consideration.

The Constitution is pretty clear on what the President can do regarding Pardons. Allow me to quote Article two, Section Two, Clause One, of the Constitution regarding Pardons.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Pretty clear.

Yet the Senators want to know if the President cleared the Pardon’s with the Justice Department before issuing them. You see, that is not listed as a requirement. It is that the President has the power. The Senators wonder if he consulted the Department of Defense. Again, that is not a requirement. The President can require the various Secretaries of insert whatever department here to offer their opinions, but he does not have to take it. And he doesn’t have to ask for their opinions. The Department of Justice has no say over Pardons except Yes Sir when the President issues one. The Department of Defense has no say either. Not only does the President have the Power of the Pardon, but he has the job of Commander in Chief. Which means on two fronts the Military says Yes Sir so long as the order is not illegal.

Do I think he should have pardoned those guys? Let me repeat what I have written twice before. I think that those military people earned their convictions. I think they disgraced the uniform. I think they disgraced the service. I also believe that the President is the one with the say, and my sworn oath is to defend the Constitution and I will do so no matter who is the President, and no matter what party holds the White House. I can and do disagree with Trump on a number of issues. I would be saying this same thing if Obama had issued pardon’s that were controversial. I said the same thing when President Clinton issued controversial Pardons.

If you don’t like it, then here is what you do Senator. Again, it is in the Constitution. You start an Amendment. You pass it through Congress, and you ask the States to ratify the amendment. You don’t demand answers to stupid assed questions insisting that there needs to be a process that is followed.

Here is why there is a Pardons section in the Justice Department. If there wasn’t, the staff of the White House would be doing that job anyway. Researching the requests for Pardon’s from family and the convicted to see what the truth is. The “guidelines” are general and not binding. The President can pardon someone ten seconds after they are convicted, or before they are even charged with the crime.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 69

Yeah, that is exactly what the Founders intended. So Fuck off Senator.

“I am a constitutionalist. That means I believe in the Constitution.”

Everyone’s a ‘constitutionalist,’ everyone believes in the Constitution.

That’s not the point.

That Trump has the authority to pardon isn’t the issue; the issue is Trump’s reckless, irresponsible use of the authority to pardon – and for Trump to pardon those involved in war crimes is reckless and irresponsible.

From your linked article:

‘“While the president possesses broad pardon powers, these pardons were issued in the face of strong opposition from senior military officials, who warned that such pardons would undermine the U.S. military justice system and shake faith in our military’s commitment to abide by the laws of war,” the senators wrote in a letter to Rosalind Sargent-Burns, the acting pardon attorney at the Justice Department.’

Every pardon or commutation is controversial. Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and even Carter. Every Parole hearing is controversial.

Officer Down Memorial Page has a webpage dedicated to getting people to write and object to any Cop Killer who might be paroled. The Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)

Those parole hearings are a parade of friends, and relatives of the dead cop to object to the release of the convicted person, no matter how much time has passed.

Obama was accused of the same things for Manning, and several others. Pardons are strictly up to the discretion of the President. Think about that for a moment. The Pardon’s are less about the controversy, and more about soothing the soul of the President. There are probably tens of thousands, or even millions of things the President can have no influence on the outcome of. But he can give people a clean slate, of sorts, and let them start over. Perhaps it is the impassioned plea of the letter asking for it.

In olden times, when the laws were strictly enforced, Presidents passed out far more pardons. Roosevelt gave out almost 3,000 pardons. Truman gave out nearly two thousand. These don’t include the Turkeys and other stunts. These are people who were forgiven for their crimes by the compassion of one man who had the opportunity to do so.

Think about it for a moment. Perhaps it was a leftover of the bad old days of Europe when a King could grant you clemency and forgive your crimes. Perhaps it was a considered thing, to give the President a way to sooth his soul as I said above. Either way, every single person Pardoned, has someone claiming they shouldn’t get one on the other side. Trump pardoned a dead guy, and the Justice Department said that was a waste of time and energy to even consider. A pardon of a guy who had been dead since 1946 was somehow controversial.

Every release of a prisoner no matter the circumstances is controversial. Even if they serve their entire sentence, victims will argue they didn’t suffer enough for whatever wrong was done.

That is the flaw in your argument. The idea that no pardon was ever controversial before this. Think about it and be honest and realize that the Senators are just grandstanding hoping to get marked as good anti Trump politicians.

 

[SavannahMann]

Then you should never complain about what ISIS etc should do to our military people, if they set them on fire, cut off their heads, etc, nothing.

Also from now on the military can kill, rape, and torture indiscriminately. Tramp has given the right for the military to do all 3 when in uniform.

1. ISIS has done all those things already, so what's your point? ISIS militant who beheaded a former Army Ranger killed by US airstrike
2. Trump pardoned 3 deserving guys, he did not pardon everyone who committed crimes while in uniform, so your point is dis-proven.
3. I hope he pardons the sailor who took a photo of his sub and got 20-years too.
4. The military wonders why enlistments are down, the fucked-up military justice system could be part of the problem.

You neither, the rule of law is right out the window, for the rich and military and whoever sucks up to tramp.

Did you bother to actually read what the two were convicted of? The LT took over a platoon where motorcycle riders attacked and killed the previous platoon leader and injured several of the platoon members. The two men he killed were acting exactly the same and on motorcycles. He made a split second decision in a war zone, hardly a crime. The Major killed a KNOWN bomb builder that had killed other soldiers that was released by stupid rules of engagement. Neither men should have been tried much less convicted.

I may be learning something here. For more than thirty years I have always believed the Marines were entrusted with guarding Embassy’s, Nuclear Weapons, and the President because they were first and foremost loyal and obeyed orders no matter what. If you are now saying this legendary reputation is in fact history I am extremely disappointed.

Let’s talk about the Major. The Command was to release the man. I don’t remember anything where I was told the why of an order. I was just told what to do when I served. Apparently things have changed.

What if the suspected bomb maker was being released to follow him and identify more insurgents? What if his release was part of an intelligence gathering mission? What if he was being released to cause dissection in the enemy ranks? There are a lot of reasons why he might be released. I don’t need to know the why. It is enough that I am told what. I thought the Marines were trained the same way. I can only assume you all sit in a circle and pass the stuffed animals around so you can cuddle it and feel warm and fuzzy as everyone talks about if an order is idiotic or not.

In every case the question is did the troops follow orders. The answer in every case is no. If you were a Gunny and worth half what every Gunny I ever met was, you would expect instant obedience from your troops. No discussion. No debate. And certainly not any disobedience. If you are now going to tell me that you believe that the troops can decide what orders they will follow and what they won’t without repercussions I am going to wonder if your honor is the stolen variety.

The only way you can disobey about order is if it is illegal. Being told to release the prisoner is not an illegal order. Being told to hold your fire until you have a verified attack is not illegal. Do not fire until fired upon is not a new order. We had the same god damned orders in Panama in 1989. We had the same orders in place many times in history. You obey the fucking orders or you face the consequences.

When I was in we used to say that There was a Right Way, the Wrong Way, and the Army way. I assume that you have a similar saying in the Marines.

Every one of these troops was found guilty in a Courts Martial. That means fellow military members made up the jury. It also means they understand the military mindset and the military way. In every case the fellow troops said that they expected the guilty to obey orders and do it right. You strive for and demand a higher standard. Not a lower.

Or have the Marines changed and become little more than a bunch of hoodlums or gang bangers?