Trump pardoned a convicted war criminal and troops who have yet to stand trial

[Butch_Coolidge]

With who?

Everybody.

Who is everybody?

That's a really common word, do you not know what it means?

It’s an exaggerated dim term, to bring the bullshit drama. Like all you woke faggots. Go back to sleep.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hilarious to hear a dumbass tRumpling talking about "bullshit drama".

That's what you idjits live on.

Good luck with your 2020 candidates, numbnuts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

I never hate on the individual soldier...sailor etc. These are good men with good intentions...it's the leadership that needlessly sends them to die which is at fault. Our leaders are putrid and vile....our fighting men are brave and good.

 

[pismoe]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

With who?

----------------------------------------------------- With the kinder gentler military hangers on currently embedded in USA Military BillyK

 

[Desperado]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

With who?

Everybody.

Who is everybody?

That's a really common word, do you not know what it means?

Where do you come off thinking you are speaking for everybody?

 

[pismoe]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

With who?

Everybody.

Yes, I know you think it's funny that Cheeto Jesus is destroying America's international credibility.

All you American hating fuckwads do.

--------------------------------- big deal on your perception of International Credibility Crep ,

 

[pismoe]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

It's a dumb idea.

hahahhahahha---yours is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen.....
1. most Americans don't care or know about the details---so most of the world does not know or care
2. please think--we've been in Afghanistan for YEARS.....MANY civilians have been killed--even at a HOSPITAL!!! many incidents--
--pardoning these personnel has NO impact on the US credibility--plain and simple

On 3 October 2015, a United States Air Force AC-130U gunship attacked the Kunduz Trauma Centre operated by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), or Doctors Without Borders in the city of Kunduz, in the province of the same name in northern Afghanistan. It has been reported that at least 42 people were killed and over 30 were injured

Kunduz hospital airstrike - Wikipedia

So, I'm betting you've never been outside of the States, and you probably don't associate with folks you don't think of as Americans, like immigrants and people with skin darker than yours.

------------------------------------------------- let them get their thinking straight Crep .

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

With who?

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

 

[pismoe]

an effect of these trials and and jailings of USA Military is to make American Military UNSURE of whether or not their Elites and Commanders can be trusted . That's a pretty poor situation to put any American Soldier in . I say the poor policies are designed by Military big shots to make ' SOY BOYS ' out of mostly younger USA Military Soldiers . Anyway , fixed for now with the TRUMP but lets hope that this issues on USA Military being fixed in the future is also fixed . And the only thing that will insure good USA Military is MORE Trumps and PRESIDENTS like the TRUMP .

 

[longknife]

Trump signed an executive order to grant clemency to US Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted of ordering soldiers to engage three unarmed Afghan men on a motorcycle, killing two of them in July 2012. Lorance served six years of his 19-year sentence.

Trump also signed an executive order to grant clemency to US Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, whose trial has yet to begin. Golsteyn stands accused of killing an unarmed Afghan man in 2010, and later disposing the body in a trash pit.

US Navy Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was demoted after a military trial found him guilty of posing in a picture with the corpse of an Islamic State militant, had his rank reinstated to Chief Petty Officer.

I object to “convicted war criminal” for Edit Gallagher. He was reduced in grade for posing with the body of a dead terrorist after a jury of his peers found him not guilty of ridiculous charges.

Lorance can’t get back the 6 years he lost but will be able to stand straight in front of the world.

Military leadership has been whining that this “degrades the military justice system.” These men were framed during the Obozo anti-military years and I’m glad to see this president set things right.

They're taught to be killers and then sent out with the heavy yoke of ignorant Rules of Engagement. And, let them do their assignments to the best of their ability, some desk jokey decides to punish them for it.

God Bless President Trump for doing this!

From @ Trump just overruled his top military officials in controversial war crimes pardons

Military leaders are worried that Trump pardoning troops accused of war crimes will impair the justice system and undermine overseas bases @ Military leaders are worried that Trump pardoning troops accused of war crimes will impair the justice system and undermine overseas bases

You realize that your title makes no sense, right?

Yeah. Just used what the article said.

 

[1911_fiend]

Good on ya Mr President! Heroes, one and all!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[joaquinmiller]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

With who?

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

With who?

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Pardoning convicted war criminals damages US credibility.

With who?

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

 

[Crepitus]

With who?

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

I have a real hard time believing some of these folks who claim to have actually served.

I have not, btw.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

I have a real hard time believing some of these folks who claim to have actually served.

I have not, btw.

Neither have I, but I am philosophically opposed to rules of engagement devised by the uninvolved that restrict our capacity to fulfill a mission.

 

[eagle1462010]

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

I have a real hard time believing some of these folks who claim to have actually served.

I have not, btw.

Jag officers can want power and fame just like anyone else...……….and the political motives were there to appease the politics in Afghanistan...……….

So they threw these guys under a Greyhound bus for politics...……...nothing more and nothing less.

The military isn't supposed to be the POLICE...……..they shouldn't have to call a jag officer for permission to fire as they did over there in the Middle East...…………..They make snap decisions on the battlefield...…….and then get thrown under the bus by political hacks FROM THE CHEAP SEATS...…...

It's not the Cheap Seats that die when it goes wrong...…..or their people die for making the wrong decision...……….

Why anyone wants to serve under this BS is beyond me anymore.

 

[joaquinmiller]

With the Afghans who thought the US was punishing a murderer of unarmed men, among others We do still have troops there.

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

I have a real hard time believing some of these folks who claim to have actually served.

I have not, btw.

I have, but it was over 45 years ago. I don't think the rules against killing the civilian population have changed.

 

[Crepitus]

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

I have a real hard time believing some of these folks who claim to have actually served.

I have not, btw.

Neither have I, but I am philosophically opposed to rules of engagement devised by the uninvolved that restrict our capacity to fulfill a mission.

The uninvolved. Like you? Let the experts determine the ROE. They know and what's more understand the objectives and what they need to achieve them.

 

[joaquinmiller]

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

I have a real hard time believing some of these folks who claim to have actually served.

I have not, btw.

Jag officers can want power and fame just like anyone else...……….and the political motives were there to appease the politics in Afghanistan...……….

So they threw these guys under a Greyhound bus for politics...……...nothing more and nothing less.

The military isn't supposed to be the POLICE...……..they shouldn't have to call a jag officer for permission to fire as they did over there in the Middle East...…………..They make snap decisions on the battlefield...…….and then get thrown under the bus by political hacks FROM THE CHEAP SEATS...…...

It's not the Cheap Seats that die when it goes wrong...…..or their people die for making the wrong decision...……….

Why anyone wants to serve under this BS is beyond me anymore.

Is there any question - from pardons to impeachment - that you guys can't address without smearing a character or impugning motives? Power and fame for a JAG Officer! What's his name again?

 

[Crepitus]

We go to war to kill enemies. While there, kill them. Don't punish the troops for doing what they were sent to do.

When you were in the military, were you taught you were sent there to kill unarmed people? I wasn't. In fact, I was taught that was murder.

An unarmed terrorist is still a terrorist.

That's as simple-minded as your previous post, which asked us to assume soldiers were sent there to kill unarmed men. There's a reason they were convicted. Trump can pardon them, but the UCMJ is there for a purpose, and it's not related to support-the-troops talking points.

I have a real hard time believing some of these folks who claim to have actually served.

I have not, btw.

I have, but it was over 45 years ago. I don't think the rules against killing the civilian population have changed.

My chosen career has had me associating with current and ex military personnel for decades, and I can assure you that you are correct.