Comey even said so, moron:
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions but that’s not what we are deciding here."
How do you conclude.....
often subject to security or administrative sanctions
Means jail cell?
Dear
rightwinger
In the case of Allen West, when he was reprimanded for violating rules, he resigned. So if he was reprimanded when his contested actions SAVED lives of US troops, shouldn't Clinton be reprimanded if her security breaches either endangered or cost lives or both? What lives if any were saved by those decisions to warrant any compelling need to bypass procedures? At least West can explain why he did what he did (in shooting a gun during an interrogation to compel information that saved troops from a planned attack) and argue that this tactic was successful in saving lives while costing none, except maybe his job. What is Clinton's justififation and why isn't that held to at least the same scrutiny as West had to face for his actions?
Too funny
Allen West resigned his commission to avoid a court martial for actions that amounted to torture and he was a disgrace to his uniform
Bet if you ask any of his men they sure wouldn't agree with you. The world changes when you are being shot at but then you will never know.
Apparently not knowing where West's gun was aimed, Hamoody cracked and gave information about the planned ambush on West's convoy, thwarting the attack.
West said there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post on October 4.
"I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers," West testified to a military courtroom of observers and some teary-eyed troops formerly under his command.
Asked if he would have act differently if under similar circumstances again, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."
Sounds like a man his men would fight for and defend.
West engaged in torture...he did not save lives
Dear
rightwinger
Why don't we set up a meeting with West and the men involved.
If you really believe what you are saying, you'd be confident to say it to their faces.
If you are saying this for convenience, assuming you'll never face them or be held to account
for what you say, then you can say whatever you want and it has no bearing.
I bet you would change your mind if you were put into their context
and experienced for yourself what was really going on at the time.
Terrorists don't follow due process and equal protection/respect for the laws.
I don't agree with that in the first place,
but totally acknowledge that bullies only listen to other bullies.
So we just hope and pray the bigger bullies are on the side of right,
and not the side of wrong. West happens to be on the side of right,
so we are damned lucky. We should honor and respect those leaders
who have to put themselves on the line, because of criminals and terrorists
who don't follow the rules, and thus require preemptive strikes as deterrence.
Until everyone agrees to live by Constitutional principles like our military,
then we are going to have this inequality in law enforcement.
We all need to step up to the plate, so we don't put people like West
in contradictory situations where they have to overstep bounds sometimes.
If we addressed and corrected the initial refusal to follow laws, we wouldn't
end up with terrorists being tortured or Michael Brown's and Freddie Gray's getting killed.
We need to work on prevention, but until then, we put our
police and military into compromising situations of shoot first, ask questions later.
If we don't like it, we need to prevent abuses by agreeing to all citizens
enforcing laws to begin with. And quit excusing criminal abuses, expecting "the system" to address it "after the fact."
That's what's wrong with this picture.
if everyone took vows to uphold Constitutional laws and principles like our police and military,
we wouldn't have as much nonsense going on.
If you compare how people like the Clinton's and Obama's push whatever agenda/law
they want, then expect to be policed by the Constitution "after the fact" this is along the same thinking
as people with criminal behavior, hoping to get away with whatever, until met with a greater force that objects to it.
Instead, we need self-policing AHEAD of the fact, and not break laws or give appearance of doing so,
so that we reserve our govt and legal system for issues that can't be helped in advance.
We need to be more preemptive with law enforcement.
Instead we have people like the Clintons taking the Fifth instead of taking oaths seriously of
upholding the Constitution.
Comparing Clinton and West is like night and day.
We need to take a good hard look at what standards we are enforcing or enabling,
and which we are rewarding or penalizing.
