President Trump gives clemency

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
10,338
Likes
9,220
Location
MA
Meh.

I feel about this the same way I feel about when judges set aside jury verdicts. It makes me roll my eyes. Why even bother having a trial or a UCMJ if the Big Man is just going to second-guess the whole process? Why should anyone take it seriously? It's the kind of thing that's ripe for corruption, and corruptible people are going to just make the process look worse.

I don't like that our legal system, both civilian and .mil, allows this kind of thing. I think it's a bad precedent.
 

Andy in NH

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
2,991
Likes
3,082
Location
SW NH
War crimes are determined by the side that wins.
"If we're gonna do things like this (strafe civilians), we sure as hell better make sure we're on the winning side."
Chuck Yeager in his autobiography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TLB

SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
5,856
Likes
4,418
Location
North of Boston
The precedent was set long, long ago.


President Barack Obama's use of his pardon power was relatively rare compared to other presidents. But he granted clemency—which includes pardons, commutations, and remissions—more times than any president since Harry S. Truman. Obama absolved the sentences of 1,937 convicts during his two terms in the White House.

According to the Pew Research Center:
"Barack Obama ended his presidency having granted clemency to more people convicted of federal crimes than any chief executive in 64 years. But he also received far more requests for clemency than any U.S. president on record, largely as a result of an initiative set up by his administration to shorten prison terms for nonviolent federal inmates convicted of drug crimes. Looking at the same data another way, Obama granted clemency to only 5 percent of those who requested it. That’s not especially unusual among recent presidents, who have tended to use their clemency power sparingly."
Here's a look at how many pardons were granted by presidents dating back to 1900, according to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney. This list is sorted by the number of pardons issued from highest to lowest. These data cover only pardons, not commutations and remissions, which are separate actions.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt: 2,819 pardons
  • Harry S. Truman: 1,913 pardons
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1,110 pardons
  • Woodrow Wilson: 1,087 pardons
  • Lyndon Johnson: 960 pardons
  • Richard Nixon: 863 pardons
  • Calvin Coolidge: 773 pardons
  • Herbert Hoover: 672 pardons
  • Theodore Roosevelt: 668 pardons
  • Jimmy Carter: 534 pardons
  • John F. Kennedy: 472 pardons
  • Bill Clinton: 396 pardons
  • Ronald Reagan: 393 pardons
  • William H. Taft: 383 pardons
  • Gerald Ford: 382 pardons
  • Warren Harding: 386 pardons
  • William McKinley: 291 pardons
  • Barack Obama: 212 pardons
  • George W. Bush: 189 pardons
  • George H.W. Bush: 74 pardons
  • Donald J. Trump: 10 pardons*
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,624
I get it.

I still don't like it much. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it just begs to be abused.
Plenty of people apparently have no problem with people getting away with it as long as said people dislike the victims.

Road straight to hell.
 

AllaSnackbah

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
5,726
Likes
3,169
You are a contrarian. These guys did what they thought they had to in war. Their job is to kill our enemy. They are heroes. I don't care what you have to say.
Would you suck off the SEALs that murdered the Army SF guy that was going to out their misconduct in the Philippines a few years back too?

"tHeY'Re hErOeS!!!"
 

jct61765

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
2,117
Likes
1,327
Location
New Hampshire
Would you suck off the SEALs that murdered the Army SF guy that was going to out their misconduct in the Philippines a few years back too?

"tHeY'Re hErOeS!!!"
I know there's a few of you assclowns on here that hate the military. Sounds like you may have some repressed desires to suck someone off.
 
Last edited:

jct61765

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
2,117
Likes
1,327
Location
New Hampshire
I get it.

I still don't like it much. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it just begs to be abused.
My son was a combat medic during obamas time. He was in Iraq 2 times. The rules of engagement were ridiculous. He saw things he still doesn't want to talk about. War is hell. Obviously president Trump gets to see the full version of what happened. These soldiers aren't friends of his or family. He saw enough to think they were railroaded. That's good enough for me, and from the looks of it, most people in here. There are a few military haters on here. I'm not one of them.
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,624
My son was a combat medic during obamas time. He was in Iraq 2 times. The rules of engagement were ridiculous. He saw things he still doesn't want to talk about. War is hell. Obviously president Trump gets to see the full version of what happened. These soldiers aren't friends of his or family. He saw enough to think they were railroaded. That's good enough for me, and from the looks of it, most people in here. There are a few military haters on here. I'm not one of them.
The ROE is a mess. There is no doubt. And its been a mess for a long, long time. There have also been soldiers rail roaded by politically motivated witch hunts.

That said, there are definitely bad people in the US military. Gallagher was not tied up by ROE. The things he was involved with are the exception, not the norm. And he was an exceptional sociopath who hurt or killed a lot of people outside of the mission. He was also involved with destroying evidence, threatening to murder peers for whistle blowing and blackmailing other service members.

If theres a hill to die on for a vet whos been wrongfully committed, this is not that guy.
 

n1oty

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,671
Likes
1,198
Location
SE Mass
The ROE is a mess. There is no doubt. And its been a mess for a long, long time. There have also been soldiers rail roaded by politically motivated witch hunts.

That said, there are definitely bad people in the US military. Gallagher was not tied up by ROE. The things he was involved with are the exception, not the norm. And he was an exceptional sociopath who hurt or killed a lot of people outside of the mission. He was also involved with destroying evidence, threatening to murder peers for whistle blowing and blackmailing other service members.

If theres a hill to die on for a vet whos been wrongfully committed, this is not that guy.
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I suggest you research the trial records in all three cases in depth. The amount of prosecutorial misconduct is STUNNING! Prosecutors did some things such as spying on defense counsel, threatening potential witnesses with prosecutions of their own instead of immunizing them unless they stated certain things. I'm actually hoping that DJT orders an investigation into the prosecutors involved. At least he rescinded those "attaboy" medals that the Navy gave to those clowns in JAG following the Gallagher prosecution.
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
22,693
Likes
15,568
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
The ROE is a mess. There is no doubt. And its been a mess for a long, long time. There have also been soldiers rail roaded by politically motivated witch hunts.

That said, there are definitely bad people in the US military. Gallagher was not tied up by ROE. The things he was involved with are the exception, not the norm. And he was an exceptional sociopath who hurt or killed a lot of people outside of the mission. He was also involved with destroying evidence, threatening to murder peers for whistle blowing and blackmailing other service members.

If theres a hill to die on for a vet whos been wrongfully committed, this is not that guy.
On the other hand, we are reminded daily now that not every whistle blowing requires a whistle, thus we end up with a lot of blowing only.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
10,338
Likes
9,220
Location
MA
My son was a combat medic during obamas time. He was in Iraq 2 times. The rules of engagement were ridiculous. He saw things he still doesn't want to talk about. War is hell. Obviously president Trump gets to see the full version of what happened. These soldiers aren't friends of his or family. He saw enough to think they were railroaded. That's good enough for me, and from the looks of it, most people in here. There are a few military haters on here. I'm not one of them.
It's not "military-hating" to feel sqeamish about political interference in the military justice system. Or political interference in any other aspect of the military, for that matter. If I want politicians staying out of infantry leaders' consciousness while they're planning (and I do), I also want them staying out of JAG leaders' minds in the same way.

I recognize the world I want is, in this matter, not the real world. But I don't see a reason to cheer about it.
 

n1oty

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,671
Likes
1,198
Location
SE Mass
It's not "military-hating" to feel sqeamish about political interference in the military justice system. Or political interference in any other aspect of the military, for that matter. If I want politicians staying out of infantry leaders' consciousness while they're planning (and I do), I also want them staying out of JAG leaders' minds in the same way.

I recognize the world I want is, in this matter, not the real world. But I don't see a reason to cheer about it.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, POTUS sits atop the military chain of command per the Constitution.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
10,338
Likes
9,220
Location
MA
Regardless of whether you like it or not, POTUS sits atop the military chain of command per the Constitution.
Obviously I understand that.

Suppose the boots on the ground judge that indirect fire would be an appropriate response to insurgents firing mortars at a nearby village. They run it up the chain of command. The chain of command denies the request because the commander-in-chief has political motives to limit media coverage of the conflict in which those troops are involved in the run-up to an election. Civilians end up dead, their homes wasted.

This happened to me. The commander-in-chief was Bill Clinton. It was wrong for him, despite his constitutional status as CinC, to second-guess the professionals who were trained to assess the situation and conduct the mission. I'm sure most people here would agree he was wrong to do so. I don't see a bit of difference between that situation and this one.

Why have any sort of "justice system," and train personnel at GREAT expense to manage it, if you're just going to ignore its findings and do yo' own thang?
 

n1oty

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,671
Likes
1,198
Location
SE Mass
Obviously I understand that.

Suppose the boots on the ground judge that indirect fire would be an appropriate response to insurgents firing mortars at a nearby village. They run it up the chain of command. The chain of command denies the request because the commander-in-chief has political motives to limit media coverage of the conflict in which those troops are involved in the run-up to an election. Civilians end up dead, their homes wasted.

This happened to me. The commander-in-chief was Bill Clinton. It was wrong for him, despite his constitutional status as CinC, to second-guess the professionals who were trained to assess the situation and conduct the mission. I'm sure most people here would agree he was wrong to do so. I don't see a bit of difference between that situation and this one.

Why have any sort of "justice system," and train personnel at GREAT expense to manage it, if you're just going to ignore its findings and do yo' own thang?
The chain of command is the chain of command. I didn't always like the orders I was given, but I followed all lawful orders. You do not get to pick and choose among the lawful orders. End of story.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
10,338
Likes
9,220
Location
MA
The chain of command is the chain of command. I didn't always like the orders I was given, but I followed all lawful orders. You do not get to pick and choose among the lawful orders. End of story.
You do, actually, if the CinC makes it known he’ll blithely pardon those who do.
 

dustoff22

NES Member
Rating - 100%
87   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
2,930
Likes
1,097
Location
Cape Cod
Being scared sh1tless a whole lot during my time in Vietnam, obeying the rules of the Geneva Convention while flying a clearly marked air ambulance, and getting shot at and hit on a regular basis, and evacuating first hand a dead young Special Forces NCO who was tortured, replaced my innocence with a whole lot of hate and vengeance. I guess for that reason I have total empathy for the two Army officers pardoned by the President. If you haven't walked a mile in someone's shoes who's seen the sh1t, then you can't possibly understand. Nor can the REMF JAG staff or most politicians and I suspect a whole bunch in today's (and Vietnam era) Army senior officers.

I'm not saying they weren't guilty of a 'war crime' but I believe you have to recognize that these guys no doubt saw and experienced things that most will never see or have to experience.
 

jct61765

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
2,117
Likes
1,327
Location
New Hampshire
Obviously I understand that.

Suppose the boots on the ground judge that indirect fire would be an appropriate response to insurgents firing mortars at a nearby village. They run it up the chain of command. The chain of command denies the request because the commander-in-chief has political motives to limit media coverage of the conflict in which those troops are involved in the run-up to an election. Civilians end up dead, their homes wasted.

This happened to me. The commander-in-chief was Bill Clinton. It was wrong for him, despite his constitutional status as CinC, to second-guess the professionals who were trained to assess the situation and conduct the mission. I'm sure most people here would agree he was wrong to do so. I don't see a bit of difference between that situation and this one.

Why have any sort of "justice system," and train personnel at GREAT expense to manage it, if you're just going to ignore its findings and do yo' own thang?
If your not good with following the chain of command, you probably should not join the military. YOU may think command made a bad call, but YOU don't have all the information. That's for command to know, not you. On one hand you say command makes bad calls. On the other hand you say command shouldn't be second guessed when they convict someone. Which is it? Gallagher was railroaded, again President Trump has more information than we do here. He decided to pardon them. Wiki is not the place to go for information. Anyone can change anything there. If not for President Trump saving these guys, then who? These guys are top tier guys. They're arrogant, tuff, and probably things we shouldn't know about. The military needs that. They are the best of the best. President Trump understands that and is looking out for them. MAGA
 
Last edited:

Cur

NES Member
Rating - 92.9%
13   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
425
Likes
150
Location
Just a 1/2 mile from Freedom.
You have to read many articles on the case of Chief Gallagher, as there is TONS of bits of info to piece together.

The short version of the long story is that his "team" wanted him gone as he was riding them very hard to live up to the "old" standards of SF and they didn't like it. He was due to become either the next head of training for the SEALs or maybe just one SEAL base. They conspired against him via text messages and group chats a got him jacked up on those charges. The NCIS also broke a ton of protocol including taking his family out of their home at gunpoint, and not allowing the very young children to get dressed i.e. harassment. In the end, he was acquitted as mentioned, but he was 'convicted' of taken a pic with a dead terrorist. That cost him his billet, his E-7 and the rest of a very decorated career that would only have better than SEALs. None of the other people in the pictures were convicted, let alone charged.
 
Rating - 50%
1   1   0
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
4,820
Likes
4,545
Location
South Shore
You have to read many articles on the case of Chief Gallagher, as there is TONS of bits of info to piece together.

The short version of the long story is that his "team" wanted him gone as he was riding them very hard to live up to the "old" standards of SF and they didn't like it. He was due to become either the next head of training for the SEALs or maybe just one SEAL base. They conspired against him via text messages and group chats a got him jacked up on those charges. The NCIS also broke a ton of protocol including taking his family out of their home at gunpoint, and not allowing the very young children to get dressed i.e. harassment. In the end, he was acquitted as mentioned, but he was 'convicted' of taken a pic with a dead terrorist. That cost him his billet, his E-7 and the rest of a very decorated career that would only have better than SEALs. None of the other people in the pictures were convicted, let alone charged.
This is easily refuted, see here: Orange man bad.
 

n1oty

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,671
Likes
1,198
Location
SE Mass
So who's lying? Chief Gallagher or his teammates?

"Reeeee tHeY'Re hErOeS, iF yOu dOnt LikE iT lEaVe! yOu pRoBaBlY hAte CoPs tOO!!!" -nes boomer squad

Obviously, his teammates. They all received grants of immunity in order to testify against him. Many of them testified that Gallagher stabbed the detainee. The medic on the team came clean and admitted to asphyxiating the prisoner by putting his finger over the ET tube.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
10,267
Likes
5,268
Location
Right behind you.
HE’S the monster? You need monsters to fight other monsters. I don’t see where he burned alive anyone. They trained him to kill monsters and he did. You do know anyone can change things in wiki, right?
I personally have no issue with him killing the isis clown while captive. Good.

Shooting a random girl and an old man? Yeah, that's murder. ...assuming any of it's true.
 
Top Bottom