Trump issues pardons in war-crimes cases, despite Pentagon opposition to the move

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

President Trump intervened in three military justice cases involving war-crimes accusations Friday, issuing at least two pardons that will prevent the Pentagon from pursuing future charges against the individuals involved, according to one of their lawyers and a U.S. official.

The service members involved were notified by Trump over the phone, said the U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. Army Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, who faced a murder trial scheduled to begin next year, took the phone call and was informed he would receive a full pardon, said his lawyer, Phillip Stackhouse.

The calls were made at the tail end of a day dominated by impeachment hearings against Trump, and after days of efforts by some senior Pentagon officials to change his mind, according to three U.S. officials. The officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that some commanders have raised concerns that Trump’s move will undermine the military justice system.

Other U.S. officials and advocates for the service members involved have said that adopting the president’s desires in the military justice system should not be difficult. It typically focuses with commanders overseeing the process, with Trump serving at the top of that system as commander in chief.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/11/15/trump-issues-pardons-war-crimes-cases-despite-pentagon-opposition-move/

---

Original article and headline -

Trump intervenes in three military justice cases involving war-crimes accusations, issuing pardons

By Washington Post Staff
November 15, 2019 at 6:31 p.m. EST

President Trump notified the service members involved by phone, according to one of their lawyers and a U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The cases involve Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, a former Special Forces officer; former special warfare operator chief Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL; and former Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted of second-degree murder in 2013.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2019/11/15/trump-intervenes-in-three-military-justice-cases-involving-war-crimes-accusations-issuing-pardons/

[madaboutharry]

1. Dictators, War Crimes, Putting Babies in Cages...

Trump's wheelhouse.

[DENVERPOPS]

9. why the hell

Why the hell wouldn't he undermine the Military Justice System, he has already destroyed the U.S. Justice System !!!!!!!!!!!!

[dewsgirl]

2. He is practicing.

[JudyM]

4. Yep, this is the warmup.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Evidently for Trump, war crimes are just fine and dandy. No surprise.

[keithbvadu2]

5. Right now, it is Trump condoning/pardoning war crimes, but in the long run, it will be America appro

Right now, it is Trump condoning/pardoning war crimes, but in the long run, it will be America approving war crimes.

A pardon is acknowledgement of crimes.

When America accuses others of war crimes, it will be seen as hypocrisy and 'cry wolf'.

[stillcool]

6. he's kissing up...

every dictator needs their gestapo.

[SWBTATTReg]

7. I wonder how many pardons rump will grant when he is forced to leave office...can you ...

imagine thousands of his mafia buddies, being let out (pardoned)? Imagine others such as those convicted of treason and such. Imagine the worst kind of offenders, such as murders by white nationalists (spearheaded by steven miller)? I wouldn't put it past rump in doing this as a reverse sort of revenge...

[sdfernando]

8. OK...thought experiment...

So these service members get pardoned by the orange pustule. In accepting the pardon they have to acknowledge they did the crime.....the did a "war crime". So they essentially have admitted guilt. Could not the International Criminal Court at The Hague then indict them? The orange one's pardon powers cannot extend internationally.

[Red Mountain]

10. Interesting post

I've often seen it stated that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. Is it explicit? Is there a requirement to state your guilt and fill out paperwork or is it implied by accepting the pardon?

Any process? Any examples? Case law?

[sdfernando]

22. All good questions

I have no idea as I’m not a lawyer but my guess is that it is implied.

[dware]

16. The US is not a signatory to the ICC, therefore an indictment would be worthless and

unenforceable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

United States and the International Criminal Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute),[1] which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.[2]
As of January 2019, 123 states are members of the Court.[3] Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.[3] On May 6th, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement.[3]
United States policy concerning the ICC has varied widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The George W. Bush Administration, the U.S. administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court as an observer

[sdfernando]

23. Yes I would guess that is true

But if these guys (and I’m just assuming they are males) happened to travel, on their own to another country that is a signatory, could they not be arrested and turned over to the court? Big diplomatic messes would ensue but this is just a thought experiment.

[burrowowl]

24. Yes

That’s why Rummy doesn’t visit his cousins in Germany

[Haggis for Breakfast]

35. It's also why Cheney NEVER leaves the country.

[dware]

29. Yes they could, but the chances of that happening are minimal.

[calimary]

26. During bush/cheney, of course.

The assholes who proceeded to go straight on into committing war crimes.

Torture is a war crime.

[dware]

31. Pres. Clinton signed it but didn't submit it to the Congress,

probably because he knew it wouldn't be ratified.

At least Pres. Obama re-established a working relationship with the ICC, I would hope that the next President, (Biden) will submit it to the next Senate, hopefully Democrat controlled, for ratification.

[RainCaster]

11. Faux News told him to do this...

"Their cases have been featured on conservative media frequently in recent months, as they also prepared cases for the president behind the scenes."

[mpcamb]

12. trump feels better when he frees fellow guilty rats.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

13. Our thug (p)Resident

[bluestarone]

14. Just another reason to hate the bastard

[scarletwoman]

15. It's his big "fuck you" to America. He knows that non-MAGAts will be angered and appalled,

and he gets off on it.

This is just more of his petty vengeance on those of us who refuse to worship him.

He is such a foul specimen...

Words fail me when it comes to trying to describe that walking, talking putrid sack of unrelenting meanness and mendacity, masquerading as a human being.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Distraction and red-meat to base. . . . nt

[Nitram]

18. I believe this is a stupid move that will appeal too a very limited number of voters. And lose a

preponderance of the military vote.

[dware]

19. I think so also.

Trump thinks this will endear him with the rank and file? I think it will have the opposite effect.

[Calista241]

20. I seriously doubt he'd lose military votes over this.

One of the petitioners, Ed Gallagher, was acquitted of murder, but convicted of posing with a corpse. Do you have any idea how many combat veterans have pictures of themselves with corpses? It's WAY higher that anyone suspects.

There was also some prosecutorial wierdness going on with his trial when the prosecutor was removed from the case mid-trial. The other two cases I know less about.

[Nitram]

21. I may be wrong, but I believe anyone who supports that view is a hard core Tump supporter

who doesn't give a shit about rule of law, military law, or anything else.

[dware]

32. I have a pretty good idea,

saw numerous occasions of it in Vietnam.

[B Stieg]

25. Pardoning Murderers Now...

What's under a basement? I ask because tRump keeps taking us lower...

[gab13by13]

27. This is a warm up for Roger Stone and Rudy, if Barr allows Rudy's case to go on.

[BigOleDummy]

28. As a veteran

As a honorably discharged veteran I am sickened and outraged by this! These people committed WAR CRIMES for gebuses sake. It casts a pall over everything we as veterans tried to stand up for. How will other nations and their militaries look at American soldiers now? As men and women of at least some honor and ideals would YOU want to serve along side of a force that condones WAR CRIMES? The service branches involved found THEIR OWN guilty of these offenses and that's not good enough for the asswipes from faux and their idol in the WH?

Who have we become as a Nation? WHAT have we become as a Nation?

[dware]

33. Only one was convicted of murder,

one was acquitted of murder but was convicted of posing with a corpse, the last one hadn't even gone on trial yet, so he wasn't guilty of any crime yet.

As far as posing with a corpse? That has happened far more often than most people know, saw it numerous times in Vietnam.
I'm not condoning it, but it does happen quite frequently.

[demmiblue]

30. Trump Betrays the Military

His intervention in decisions about war crimes undermines the moral standing of the armed forces.

President Donald Trump on Friday cleared three military service members of war crimes, even after being reportedly advised against doing so by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Mr. Trump interceded on behalf of Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who had been charged with murdering an Afghan man; Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was convicted in connection with posing for a photo with the corpse of a fighter in Iraq; and Army First Lt. Clint Lorance, who, after nine fellow unit members testified against him, had been convicted of murdering two civilians in Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump may believe that intervening pays respect to those who have served in uniform, that it shows he’s “pro-military.” But if this is his view, he’s wrong. In reality, Mr. Trump’s meddling undermines the military’s institutional values, risks endangering American service members, and disrespects the honorable service of the overwhelming majority of veterans.

The military strives to ensure that its members adhere to the laws of war and respect human rights. Service members are trained, for example, to avoid civilian casualties by understanding rules of engagement and following the proper steps for escalation of force. They also learn the appropriate ways to treat detainees, and interrogators are trained to employ only the approved, legal methods.

During my two deployments to Afghanistan, my intelligence work helped lead to the capture of insurgent leaders. Sharing responsibility for their capture and as a recipient of the intelligence produced by their interrogations, I had a sense of moral reassurance in the understanding that my colleagues handled and interrogated the detainees humanely — just as they had been trained.

The lessons service members learn about the laws of war are not an afterthought. Rather, they are central, emphasized time and again — from training sessions and exercises, to military ethics discussions, to actual combat deployments. The Army’s official values, after all, demand that soldiers “do what’s right, legally and morally” and “treat others with dignity and respect,” making no exceptions for civilians or even enemies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/opinion/trump-war-crimes-pardons-gallagher.html

[Haggis for Breakfast]

36. Bravo Zulu, demmiblue.

You stated it more eloquently than I could have. I'm too enraged.

[Yeehah]

34. Yeah, who needs military discipline?

For Commander Bonespurs, it's all a TV show.

[pat_k]

37. "'completely dishonors' tens of thousands of American service members"

Former Navy Secretary says Trump pardons 'completely dishonors' tens of thousands of American service members

MSNBC Yesterday (Video)

When Obama granted immunity to CIA torturers, I was just as horrified. We can laud Obama for many, many, things, but when he granted immunity to torturers, his legacy was indelibly stained.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. Sorry but

The Libertarian/anti-Democratic party Glenn Greenwald's spin and abject Obama-bashing, doesn't engender any legitimacy to him, nor any credibility. There was no "immunity granted" under Obama and no equivalency to this story. If Greenwald needs to blame anyone about what happened under Shrub then he needs to look to Shrub.

As is typical, Greenwald has his own issues - some of which bubbled up a few weeks ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/glenn-greenwald-slapped-in-the-face-by-brazilian-columnist-during-live-stream/2019/11/07/bd65cf46-0189-11ea-8341-cc3dce52e7de_story.html

Link to tweet

TEXT
George Marques
✔
@GeorgMarques

Veja o momento em que @augustosnunes agride @ggreenwald ao vivo na @JovemPanNews. É um absurdo esse descontrole por parte de Nunes, que usou os filhos do Glenn para atacá-lo por causa de matérias da Vaza Jato
Embedded video
5,711
10:48 AM - Nov 7, 2019 · Brasília, Brazil

[pat_k]

39. Any administration that makes

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2019, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

a terrible, damaging, decision should be called to account for that decision -- Democratic or Republican.

-----------------
Members of the CIA tortured people (Obama's unforgettable quote "We tortured some folks." )

He opposed prosecution of those individuals. He stated this within the first month in office.

Holder closed the CIA cases without prosecution a few months later.

This was a terrible, incredibly damaging decision that was a slap in the face to all who were called upon to condone or take part in war crimes, and refused to do so. Heroic people like General Consul of the Navy Alberto Mora.

This is not "bashing." These are facts.

Would I go to see Obama if he spoke here? Of course.

Would I heartily shake his hand? Absolutely.

But if I had a chance, I would say something like. "There's one thing you did that I think was incredibly damaging to our country, and that was your administration's failure to prosecute war criminals in the intelligence services." If he showed any interest in hearing why, I would explain how I think that failure damaged us as a nation.

If you want to call that "bashing," so be it.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. You have conflated his "we"

with his own personal agenda vs a "universal we" that engrosses his embrace of the Executive Branch that he inherited... and you make no attempt to differentiate policies. His position is here and the practice was ended - https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/politics/obama-torture-comments/index.html

There is no "equivalency".

[pat_k]

41. Effectively...

Obama came in and said "This administration is banning torture" (which was already a war crime that doesn't need to be "banned" ) followed by "but we won't be prosecuting those who committed the crime before this administration declared it banned."

The problem is, claiming presidential power to "ban" a war crime is also granting presidential power to "unban" it.

It's like coming into office and saying "We're banning murder of elected officials" (already a Federal crime), but won't be prosecuting anyone who murdered an elected official before we declared the ban because the last administration declared open season on elected officials.

Absurd. Wrong. Immoral. A terrible mistake.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. He made a public directive to basically ban the bullshit term "enhanced interrogation"

because it was equated with "torture" and this would make sure that there was no doubt about it vs what Shrub did by hiding "torture" under a different name and allowing it to continue.

Remember it was all a game of language and purported legal technicalities when it came to Shrub and Darth and Yoo. Even Ashcroft and Comey refused to sign off on it. And all of this was called out while the scope of what happened was being investigated and eventually reported on in 2014.

So no - there is no "equivalency".

[pat_k]

43. Which is why failure to prosecute was so egregious.

Prosecute. Apply the law as defined by the international treaties we have adopted into federal code -- not as twisted by John Yoo and his ilk.

Draw the lines clearly, grounded in reality and the law. Make sure everyone, everywhere, knows that the United States will not tolerate the conduct, whether "under orders" or not.

That's how a moral nation is built. And that's how you put the bullshit obfuscation to rest.

And here we are. No lines drawn. Torture "ok" if under orders (sound familiar?). Trump's pardons are just another declaration that we are an outlaw nation with no respect for the international laws our Greatest Generation fought for, and died for.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Have you not seen how difficult it is to prosecute just simple stuff right now

I think the lines were clearly drawn. The problem is dealing with the rogue operators and navigating around your own party when it comes to "priorities" and your opposition, who will ensure the facts are well-hidden, both of whom are against you, and both thwarting you every step of the way.

[pat_k]

45. Give me a break...

Back in '09 they had solid cases from '03 to '08 they could have pursued. I suggest you do some reading up. Obama knew "we tortured some folks" because in most cases, the torturers had no qualms about keeping records on what they were doing. "We" were torturing in plain sight. And where there were cover ups, there is usually a witness or two with a few principles left willing to come forward.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. I have "read up" and watched panel discussions and hearings at the time.

Are you watching the hearings going on right now? Some of the GOP actors were involved under Shrub.

I think folks have a complete lack of awareness of how big and complex the federal government is all that is going on, between FTEs and contractors, and I say this as a now-retired 30+ federal employee.