Trump working on pardoning people accused of war crimes

[Crixus]

There is a HUGE difference from not wanting to fight in a war and kill people, to going to war and killing innocent people. I can't believe you used that as an example. That's just flat out ridiculous.

This guy wasn't innocent, he was an Al Qaeda bomb-maker.

You could stop that idiotic nonsense at any second. There is patently no good, not even a justifiable reason to continue doing it. There hasn't been any right from the start.

It's really easy for us to judge, sitting behind our computers, in our nice warm houses, not having to live every day with people trying to kill us.

The message is, "Being caught in wanton murder will result in justice being rendered before a U.S. court." That was the right call. Whatever else you are making up to let a murderer escape is just you defending the indefensible.

As another poster said, charging people with murder in war is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. A lot of people felt this wasn't a fair ruling. Not only because the prosecution withheld evidence, but because they didn't take into account the soldier's mental state after two of his platoon had been murdered by this piece of shit.

Seriously, sending the platoon leader of the guys he killed to escort him back to his village... that was dumb.

The guy wasn't innocent? First off, how do you know? Secondly if he wasn't innocent then why was he ordered taken back to the city and RELEASED. In the military you do what you are told, unless it is blatantly against the law and you can prove that.

The rest of your post is garbage. We can't hold people accountable for murder during a war? Well yes, yes we can when they don't follow their orders, they strip the guy naked, they basically torture him, then blow up his body with a grenade and leave his naked corpse to be found without reporting it... then lie saying the guy was going for a gun so they had to kill him.

War is not like it was centuries or even hundreds of years ago. If you don't want rules in war, then how can you then hold it against other people when they kill Americans and desecrate the bodies? You are advocating for U.S. soldiers to do it in this thread.

You were there?

Yeah Joe has been in lots of wars in multiple branches.

 

[miketx]

There is a HUGE difference from not wanting to fight in a war and kill people, to going to war and killing innocent people. I can't believe you used that as an example. That's just flat out ridiculous.

This guy wasn't innocent, he was an Al Qaeda bomb-maker.

You could stop that idiotic nonsense at any second. There is patently no good, not even a justifiable reason to continue doing it. There hasn't been any right from the start.

It's really easy for us to judge, sitting behind our computers, in our nice warm houses, not having to live every day with people trying to kill us.

The message is, "Being caught in wanton murder will result in justice being rendered before a U.S. court." That was the right call. Whatever else you are making up to let a murderer escape is just you defending the indefensible.

As another poster said, charging people with murder in war is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. A lot of people felt this wasn't a fair ruling. Not only because the prosecution withheld evidence, but because they didn't take into account the soldier's mental state after two of his platoon had been murdered by this piece of shit.

Seriously, sending the platoon leader of the guys he killed to escort him back to his village... that was dumb.

The guy wasn't innocent? First off, how do you know? Secondly if he wasn't innocent then why was he ordered taken back to the city and RELEASED. In the military you do what you are told, unless it is blatantly against the law and you can prove that.

The rest of your post is garbage. We can't hold people accountable for murder during a war? Well yes, yes we can when they don't follow their orders, they strip the guy naked, they basically torture him, then blow up his body with a grenade and leave his naked corpse to be found without reporting it... then lie saying the guy was going for a gun so they had to kill him.

War is not like it was centuries or even hundreds of years ago. If you don't want rules in war, then how can you then hold it against other people when they kill Americans and desecrate the bodies? You are advocating for U.S. soldiers to do it in this thread.

You were there?

Yeah Joe has been in lots of wars in multiple branches.

No doubt a Perfumed Prince.

 

[Crixus]

There is a HUGE difference from not wanting to fight in a war and kill people, to going to war and killing innocent people. I can't believe you used that as an example. That's just flat out ridiculous.

This guy wasn't innocent, he was an Al Qaeda bomb-maker.

You could stop that idiotic nonsense at any second. There is patently no good, not even a justifiable reason to continue doing it. There hasn't been any right from the start.

It's really easy for us to judge, sitting behind our computers, in our nice warm houses, not having to live every day with people trying to kill us.

The message is, "Being caught in wanton murder will result in justice being rendered before a U.S. court." That was the right call. Whatever else you are making up to let a murderer escape is just you defending the indefensible.

As another poster said, charging people with murder in war is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. A lot of people felt this wasn't a fair ruling. Not only because the prosecution withheld evidence, but because they didn't take into account the soldier's mental state after two of his platoon had been murdered by this piece of shit.

Seriously, sending the platoon leader of the guys he killed to escort him back to his village... that was dumb.

The guy wasn't innocent? First off, how do you know? Secondly if he wasn't innocent then why was he ordered taken back to the city and RELEASED. In the military you do what you are told, unless it is blatantly against the law and you can prove that.

The rest of your post is garbage. We can't hold people accountable for murder during a war? Well yes, yes we can when they don't follow their orders, they strip the guy naked, they basically torture him, then blow up his body with a grenade and leave his naked corpse to be found without reporting it... then lie saying the guy was going for a gun so they had to kill him.

War is not like it was centuries or even hundreds of years ago. If you don't want rules in war, then how can you then hold it against other people when they kill Americans and desecrate the bodies? You are advocating for U.S. soldiers to do it in this thread.

You were there?

Yeah Joe has been in lots of wars in multiple branches.

No doubt a Perfumed Prince.

Ayup.

 

[deanrd]

It is about time we had a president that stood up for Americans.

For war crimes? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Seriously do you have any clue what you’re talking about?

 

[miketx]

It is about time we had a president that stood up for Americans.

For war crimes? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Seriously do you have any clue what you’re talking about?

He's talking about how we have a president that stands up for Americans. That burns what ever is left of your soul doesn't it traitor?

 

[JoeB131]

The guy wasn't innocent? First off, how do you know? Secondly if he wasn't innocent then why was he ordered taken back to the city and RELEASED. In the military you do what you are told, unless it is blatantly against the law and you can prove that.

You've obviously never been in the military...

Secondly, the one thing I found is that higher ups do things, and then leave you high and dry. Even on little things. YOu don't think the officer who told Lt. Behenna to take the guy who killed two of his men knew exactly what was going to happen? Shit rolls downhill, as we used to say, and this Lt. was probably the lowest ranking guy.

The rest of your post is garbage. We can't hold people accountable for murder during a war? Well yes, yes we can when they don't follow their orders, they strip the guy naked, they basically torture him, then blow up his body with a grenade and leave his naked corpse to be found without reporting it... then lie saying the guy was going for a gun so they had to kill him.

If the prosecution had such a slam dunk case, why did they feel the need to suppress evidence, then?

War is not like it was centuries or even hundreds of years ago. If you don't want rules in war, then how can you then hold it against other people when they kill Americans and desecrate the bodies? You are advocating for U.S. soldiers to do it in this thread.

I'm a realist. They are going to do that shit no matter what we do. Yes, you maintain good order and discipline. I have no problem with discharging Lt. Behenna for disobeying orders. Charging him with murder for killing an Al Qaeda bombmaker... meh, can't get worked up about that.

 

[Olde Europe]

America Loves Excusing Its War Criminals
Bitter memories of impunity for U.S. soldiers still rankle even close allies.
By James Palmer | May 21, 2019, 6:14 PM

The report that U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to pardon a number of U.S. war criminals, both accused and convicted, has sparked rightful outrage. These are not ambiguous cases: Seven former platoon members have accused one of the men, Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, of routinely targeting women and children as a sniper in Iraq, as well as murdering a teenage captive in cold blood. Nicholas Slatten is a mercenary who is, so far, the only man convicted of a massacre of 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007. Trump has repeatedly expressed his support for torture and atrocity in war, though as with Trump’s previous pardons of murderers in uniform, many of those who, unlike the president, actually served in the military are particularly disgusted by the move.

But while the violence of Trump’s rhetoric is new, effective impunity for U.S. soldiers in foreign lands is not. Iraqis’ resentment of U.S. forces is obvious and violent, but the pardons will also further corrode U.S. credibility among its calmer allies. That’s especially true in East Asia, where the inequities of U.S. military justice have frequently riled locals. In South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, among others, the perceived impunity of U.S. military personnel has turned residents against the presence of military bases, sparked mass protests, and strained diplomatic relations. [...]

These emotions have practical consequences. Anti-Americanism remains a powerful force in South Korean politics, despite the looming threat of North Korea and the shield offered by U.S. troops. The building of U.S. bases on Okinawa has been frequently delayed or canceled due to opposition from locals. In the Philippines, U.S. forces were kicked out in 1991 and have been met with concerted protest and political opposition since their return in 1999. [...]

Vietnam was little better. While war crimes were sometimes investigated, many were swept under the carpet. To be clear, these weren’t the high-level war crimes that critics of the Vietnam War accused Washington of pursuing, such as strategic bombing of civilians, but acts of rape and murder illegal under U.S. military law—but rarely prosecuted. The men of Tiger Force, an elite unit of the U.S. Army, murdered, tortured, and mutilated their way across Vietnam’s highlands; a four-year investigation by the Army confirmed the crimes but produced no prosecutions.

After the massacre at My Lai, exposed by whistleblowers after a year of cover-ups by the U.S. Army, many Americans cried for justice—but far more enthusiastically supported the men who had murdered more than 500 Vietnamese villagers, gangraping the women and mutilating the children. Letters to the White House ran 100 to 1 in favor of the perpetrators, while polling showed 75 percent of the public backed them and just 17 percent disapproved of their actions. Twenty-six men were charged with crimes, but only one, Lt. William Calley, was convicted. Despite Calley originally receiving a life sentence, President Richard Nixon intervened to ensure he spent his time under cozy house arrest, until he finally received parole after just three and a half years in nominal confinement.

If Americans want to be seen as protectors, not oppressors, U.S. justice has to deliver in a way it has never managed in the past. Future leaders will have to seriously consider incorporating local courts into the military justice system—a solution that carries its own problems of cultural clashes and political biases, but that would go a long way to answering concerns. In the meantime, if Trump’s pardons happen, it will only reinforce the message already being heard by even America’s allies: U.S. troops can rape and murder in your country to their heart’s content, and U.S. leaders will defend them to the hilt over it.​

It would seem Trump is continuing the empire's tradition of long standing. American troops will be more reviled for it, less welcome, and therefore more imperiled. There's going to be a price to pay, and some of the cheerleaders on the sidelines will pose that crappiest of ignorant questions: "Why do they hate us so much?" When, actually, a look into a mirror would do just fine to answer it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again to all you MORONS, Trump has NOT pardoned any of them, nor am I seeing any reports in the press he is going to do so. You guys made a thread out of a bullshit story from the lying press and have run with it.

 

[miketx]

America Loves Excusing Its War Criminals
Bitter memories of impunity for U.S. soldiers still rankle even close allies.
By James Palmer | May 21, 2019, 6:14 PM

The report that U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to pardon a number of U.S. war criminals, both accused and convicted, has sparked rightful outrage. These are not ambiguous cases: Seven former platoon members have accused one of the men, Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, of routinely targeting women and children as a sniper in Iraq, as well as murdering a teenage captive in cold blood. Nicholas Slatten is a mercenary who is, so far, the only man convicted of a massacre of 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007. Trump has repeatedly expressed his support for torture and atrocity in war, though as with Trump’s previous pardons of murderers in uniform, many of those who, unlike the president, actually served in the military are particularly disgusted by the move.

But while the violence of Trump’s rhetoric is new, effective impunity for U.S. soldiers in foreign lands is not. Iraqis’ resentment of U.S. forces is obvious and violent, but the pardons will also further corrode U.S. credibility among its calmer allies. That’s especially true in East Asia, where the inequities of U.S. military justice have frequently riled locals. In South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, among others, the perceived impunity of U.S. military personnel has turned residents against the presence of military bases, sparked mass protests, and strained diplomatic relations. [...]

These emotions have practical consequences. Anti-Americanism remains a powerful force in South Korean politics, despite the looming threat of North Korea and the shield offered by U.S. troops. The building of U.S. bases on Okinawa has been frequently delayed or canceled due to opposition from locals. In the Philippines, U.S. forces were kicked out in 1991 and have been met with concerted protest and political opposition since their return in 1999. [...]

Vietnam was little better. While war crimes were sometimes investigated, many were swept under the carpet. To be clear, these weren’t the high-level war crimes that critics of the Vietnam War accused Washington of pursuing, such as strategic bombing of civilians, but acts of rape and murder illegal under U.S. military law—but rarely prosecuted. The men of Tiger Force, an elite unit of the U.S. Army, murdered, tortured, and mutilated their way across Vietnam’s highlands; a four-year investigation by the Army confirmed the crimes but produced no prosecutions.

After the massacre at My Lai, exposed by whistleblowers after a year of cover-ups by the U.S. Army, many Americans cried for justice—but far more enthusiastically supported the men who had murdered more than 500 Vietnamese villagers, gangraping the women and mutilating the children. Letters to the White House ran 100 to 1 in favor of the perpetrators, while polling showed 75 percent of the public backed them and just 17 percent disapproved of their actions. Twenty-six men were charged with crimes, but only one, Lt. William Calley, was convicted. Despite Calley originally receiving a life sentence, President Richard Nixon intervened to ensure he spent his time under cozy house arrest, until he finally received parole after just three and a half years in nominal confinement.

If Americans want to be seen as protectors, not oppressors, U.S. justice has to deliver in a way it has never managed in the past. Future leaders will have to seriously consider incorporating local courts into the military justice system—a solution that carries its own problems of cultural clashes and political biases, but that would go a long way to answering concerns. In the meantime, if Trump’s pardons happen, it will only reinforce the message already being heard by even America’s allies: U.S. troops can rape and murder in your country to their heart’s content, and U.S. leaders will defend them to the hilt over it.​

It would seem Trump is continuing the empire's tradition of long standing. American troops will be more reviled for it, less welcome, and therefore more imperiled. There's going to be a price to pay, and some of the cheerleaders on the sidelines will pose that crappiest of ignorant questions: "Why do they hate us so much?" When, actually, a look into a mirror would do just fine to answer it.

Excellent parrot job liar.

 

[anynameyouwish]

No low to low for a man who openly admires and seeks to emulate dictators and authoritarians.

Our military has standards and codes. It is professional and strict. Something our enemies typically lack. Trump seems to want them to emulate our enemies. No surprise.

Trump may pardon US soldiers accused or convicted of war crimes – report

Legal experts cited in the report said pardoning several accused and convicted war criminals, including some who have not yet gone to trial, has not been done in recent history. Some worried such pardons could erode the legitimacy of military law.

Perhaps he hopes they will commit a few more war crimes?

in his honor?

 

[BluesLegend]

It is about time we had a president that stood up for Americans.

The left hate Trump because the left hate America.

 

[Lewdog]

The guy wasn't innocent? First off, how do you know? Secondly if he wasn't innocent then why was he ordered taken back to the city and RELEASED. In the military you do what you are told, unless it is blatantly against the law and you can prove that.

You've obviously never been in the military...

Secondly, the one thing I found is that higher ups do things, and then leave you high and dry. Even on little things. YOu don't think the officer who told Lt. Behenna to take the guy who killed two of his men knew exactly what was going to happen? Shit rolls downhill, as we used to say, and this Lt. was probably the lowest ranking guy.

The rest of your post is garbage. We can't hold people accountable for murder during a war? Well yes, yes we can when they don't follow their orders, they strip the guy naked, they basically torture him, then blow up his body with a grenade and leave his naked corpse to be found without reporting it... then lie saying the guy was going for a gun so they had to kill him.

If the prosecution had such a slam dunk case, why did they feel the need to suppress evidence, then?

War is not like it was centuries or even hundreds of years ago. If you don't want rules in war, then how can you then hold it against other people when they kill Americans and desecrate the bodies? You are advocating for U.S. soldiers to do it in this thread.

I'm a realist. They are going to do that shit no matter what we do. Yes, you maintain good order and discipline. I have no problem with discharging Lt. Behenna for disobeying orders. Charging him with murder for killing an Al Qaeda bombmaker... meh, can't get worked up about that.

I've posted proof of number one. Just curious, how many direct orders have you not followed?

It's funny how you contradict yourself from your first round of comments to the second. First you say that it was obvious from the beginning that he would kill the man, and it is the fault of his superiors for it happening, then in the second bunch you say he was only found guilty because the prosecution suppressed evidence.

There is nothing realist about what you've stated. The man flat out killed the man, desecrated the remains buy blowing up the body with a grenade, then lied about it. You don't get a simple discharge for that.

 

[JoeB131]

It would seem Trump is continuing the empire's tradition of long standing. American troops will be more reviled for it, less welcome, and therefore more imperiled. There's going to be a price to pay, and some of the cheerleaders on the sidelines will pose that crappiest of ignorant questions: "Why do they hate us so much?" When, actually, a look into a mirror would do just fine to answer it.

Here's the reality.... War Crimes Trials are usually just the winners punishing the losers. Winners get streets named after them, losers get branded as war criminals.

MOST countries forgive their war criminals after a certain point. Yes, while we hung a few Nazis at the end of World War II, by the 1950's, Germany had forgiven most of it's ex-Nazis and they worked their way back into polite society.

Denazification - Wikipedia

Several amnesty laws were also passed which affected about 792,176 people. Those pardoned included people with six-month sentences, 35,000 people with sentences of up to one year and include more than 3,000 functionaries of the SA, the SS, and the Nazi Party who participated in dragging victims to jails and camps; 20,000 other Nazis sentenced for "deeds against life" (presumably murder); 30,000 sentenced for causing bodily injury, and 5,200 who committed "crimes and misdemeanors in office".[97] As a result, many people with a former Nazi past ended up again in the political apparatus of West Germany. In 1957, 77% of the German Ministry of Justice's senior officials were former Nazi Party members.[98]

The same with Japan. Fuck, the biggest War Criminal in Japan was Emperor Hirohito, and that guy died quietly in his bed.

Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia

By the end of 1958, all Japanese war criminals, including A-, B- and C-class were released from prison and politically rehabilitated. Hashimoto Kingorō, Hata Shunroku, Minami Jirō, and Oka Takazumi were all released on parole in 1954. Araki Sadao, Hiranuma Kiichirō, Hoshino Naoki, Kaya Okinori, Kido Kōichi, Ōshima Hiroshi, Shimada Shigetarō, and Suzuki Teiichi were released on parole in 1955. Satō Kenryō, whom many, including Judge B.V.A. Röling regarded as one of the convicted war criminals least deserving of imprisonment, was not granted parole until March 1956, the last of the Class A Japanese war criminals to be released. On April 7, 1957, the Japanese government announced that, with the concurrence of a majority of the powers represented on the tribunal, the last ten major Japanese war criminals who had previously been paroled were granted clemency and were to be regarded henceforth as unconditionally free from the terms of their parole.

Yup. Kind of puts stuff in perspective for poor Lt. Behenna shooting a bomb-making terrorist.

 

[JoeB131]

I've posted proof of number one. Just curious, how many direct orders have you not followed?

A couple. But I didn't get caught.

It's funny how you contradict yourself from your first round of comments to the second. First you say that it was obvious from the beginning that he would kill the man, and it is the fault of his superiors for it happening, then in the second bunch you say he was only found guilty because the prosecution suppressed evidence.

Not seeing the contradiction, as he wasn't prosecuted by his superiors.

He was prosecuted by seven REMF officers who never saw a day of combat in their lives.

There is nothing realist about what you've stated. The man flat out killed the man, desecrated the remains buy blowing up the body with a grenade, then lied about it. You don't get a simple discharge for that.

No, he flat out killed a terrorist. I thought that is what we were over there for, to kill terrorists.

 

[Lewdog]

I've posted proof of number one. Just curious, how many direct orders have you not followed?

A couple. But I didn't get caught.

It's funny how you contradict yourself from your first round of comments to the second. First you say that it was obvious from the beginning that he would kill the man, and it is the fault of his superiors for it happening, then in the second bunch you say he was only found guilty because the prosecution suppressed evidence.

Not seeing the contradiction, as he wasn't prosecuted by his superiors.

He was prosecuted by seven REMF officers who never saw a day of combat in their lives.

There is nothing realist about what you've stated. The man flat out killed the man, desecrated the remains buy blowing up the body with a grenade, then lied about it. You don't get a simple discharge for that.

No, he flat out killed a terrorist. I thought that is what we were over there for, to kill terrorists.

Yes you most certainly contradicted yourself. You said it was HIS SUPERIORS fault he killed the guy, only to follow that up with he was only found guilty because the prosecution suppressed evidence.

He killed a terrorist? That might be your opinion, but obviously the U.S. military didn't think that or they wouldn't have released him. He didn't just kill whom you think was a terrorist, he killed him, desecrated his body, then lied about it.

Also, your comment about him being found guilty by people have never seen a day of combat in their lives, you got proof for that? Do you also have problems with judges who are sometimes tasked with deciding a criminals guilt or innocence when defendants wave their right to a jury trial despite those judges never seeing a day of their life arresting criminals?

 

[JoeB131]

Yes you most certainly contradicted yourself. You said it was HIS SUPERIORS fault he killed the guy, only to follow that up with he was only found guilty because the prosecution suppressed evidence.

those two statements don't contradict each other.

The issue of his guilt was whether or not he shot Abdul Ratbastard in self defense or not. Clearly, putting him in that situation was the fault of his superiors, as they probably had a lot of officers whose men Abdul Ratbastard hadn't blown up to take him home.

On the issue of self defense, the prosecution claimed that Abdul was sitting when he was shot... but the forensic expert said, Um, no, he was standing and the wounds are consistent with him charging Behenna. So they just took that guy off the witness list and didn't tell the defense about him.

He killed a terrorist? That might be your opinion, but obviously the U.S. military didn't think that or they wouldn't have released him. He didn't just kill whom you think was a terrorist, he killed him, desecrated his body, then lied about it.

Um, yeah, so what. I think he should have also buried him in pig guts.. but that's just me.

This trial shows the whole problem with Military Justice trials in general. Nobody wants to be the officer who goes against command by acquitting a guy command has decided to make an example out of.

The UCMJ isn't designed to protect the rights of the accused, it's designed to terrify people into compliance.

Also, your comment about him being found guilty by people have never seen a day of combat in their lives, you got proof for that? Do you also have problems with judges who are sometimes tasked with deciding a criminals guilt or innocence when defendants wave their right to a jury trial despite those judges never seeing a day of their life arresting criminals?

Here's the problem with that analogy, they waived their right to a jury. In fact, most cops pick bench trials because they know judges are more likely to acquit them than juries.

This wasn't an option that Behenna had. What he got was 7 REMF's trying to please their superiors by hanging him out to dry.

This trial was a travesty, and Trump did the right thing, words I never thought I'd see myself typing.

 

[JoeB131]

This is a very good article on the details of the case... either side could find stuff to support their position on it.

The story of Michael Behenna and Mad Dog 5: “Self-defense” in war - SCOTUSblog

 

[Lewdog]

Yes you most certainly contradicted yourself. You said it was HIS SUPERIORS fault he killed the guy, only to follow that up with he was only found guilty because the prosecution suppressed evidence.

those two statements don't contradict each other.

The issue of his guilt was whether or not he shot Abdul Ratbastard in self defense or not. Clearly, putting him in that situation was the fault of his superiors, as they probably had a lot of officers whose men Abdul Ratbastard hadn't blown up to take him home.

On the issue of self defense, the prosecution claimed that Abdul was sitting when he was shot... but the forensic expert said, Um, no, he was standing and the wounds are consistent with him charging Behenna. So they just took that guy off the witness list and didn't tell the defense about him.

He killed a terrorist? That might be your opinion, but obviously the U.S. military didn't think that or they wouldn't have released him. He didn't just kill whom you think was a terrorist, he killed him, desecrated his body, then lied about it.

Um, yeah, so what. I think he should have also buried him in pig guts.. but that's just me.

This trial shows the whole problem with Military Justice trials in general. Nobody wants to be the officer who goes against command by acquitting a guy command has decided to make an example out of.

The UCMJ isn't designed to protect the rights of the accused, it's designed to terrify people into compliance.

Also, your comment about him being found guilty by people have never seen a day of combat in their lives, you got proof for that? Do you also have problems with judges who are sometimes tasked with deciding a criminals guilt or innocence when defendants wave their right to a jury trial despite those judges never seeing a day of their life arresting criminals?

Here's the problem with that analogy, they waived their right to a jury. In fact, most cops pick bench trials because they know judges are more likely to acquit them than juries.

This wasn't an option that Behenna had. What he got was 7 REMF's trying to please their superiors by hanging him out to dry.

This trial was a travesty, and Trump did the right thing, words I never thought I'd see myself typing.

You keep repeating that the man is a terrorist and/or that he killed the men. If he was guilty of that, THE SUPERIOR OFFICERS WOULD NOT HAVE JUST FREED HIM. Your whole argument is based on something you don't know as a fact and is totally against everything that U.S. military leaders would do. Why is that so hard to figure out?

 

[Lewdog]

This is a very good article on the details of the case... either side could find stuff to support their position on it.

The story of Michael Behenna and Mad Dog 5: “Self-defense” in war - SCOTUSblog

There are pretty blaring holes in the self-defense theory. If it were in self-defense why did he force the man to take his clothes off at knife point? If it were in self-defense why did he take the man under a bridge out of sight? If it were in self-defense why did he blow the man's body up with a grenade AFTER killing him? If it were in self-defense why did he initially lie about it?

Use some common sense.

 

[JoeB131]

You keep repeating that the man is a terrorist and/or that he killed the men. If he was guilty of that, THE SUPERIOR OFFICERS WOULD NOT HAVE JUST FREED HIM. Your whole argument is based on something you don't know as a fact and is totally against everything that U.S. military leaders would do. Why is that so hard to figure out?

Yeah, at the end of the article I just posted.

Between 2007 and 2008, nine servicemen, including Behenna, were convicted of unauthorized killings. CNN investigated one such incident, which occurred in Iraq in 2007: three decorated officers were convicted of the premeditated murders of four detainees. In the interrogation tapes that CNN obtained, one of the convicted men explains to an army interrogator that the policy of catching suspected terrorists, only to release them when photo evidence or witness statements against them weren’t available, was not working: “Seems like, even if you do your job and take these guys to the detainee center, they just come right back . . . The same [expletive] guys shooting at you.” CNN reported that of the 87,011 detainees captured during the Iraq war, 76,985 were released.

This was a pretty fucked up way to fight a war. Imagine in WWII, if we just kept letting the Germans and Japanese PW;s go after every battle, only to have them show up again at the next one.