Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well, op says (in his article) Trump may be preparing pardons for servicemen accused of war crimes, and he was using these Marines as one of the examples. Maybe you should ask him why he used them in his op.
A Marine staff sergeant who urinated on dead Taliban insurgents has pleaded guilty to two charges, the Marine Corps said on Thursday. His sentence was a reduction in rank and forfeiture of $500 in pay. Staff Sergeant Joseph Chamblin pleaded guilty at a court-martial to dereliction of duty.
So his sentence was also involved with reduction in rank. Yes, it is proportional to the "crime" he committed. Do i think they should even be considered as some kind of war criminals? no, absolutely not. By the way, A federal pardon in the United States is the action of the President of the United States that completely sets aside or commutes (lessens) the punishment for a federal crime. These Marines were accused of committing a federal crime, so the pardon does not seem unreasonable to me.
In addition to that, A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense, as if the act never occurred. The pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.
The OP used quotes directly from the article s/he linked to.
If you think that crimes committed while in theater in a war zone shouldn't be characterized as "war crimes" well, probably want to take that up with either the author of the article or whomever is responsible for prosecuting these crimes.
And, they weren't just accused. They entered guilty pleas. They did what they were accused of and admitted that they did so.
This is their character.
This is who they are.
Why should they be pardoned for bringing shame to their unit and their branch?
The OP used quotes directly from the article s/he linked to.
If you think that crimes committed while in theater in a war zone shouldn't be characterized as "war crimes" well, probably want to take that up with either the author of the article or whomever is responsible for prosecuting these crimes.
And, they weren't just accused. They entered guilty pleas. They did what they were accused of and admitted that they did so.
This is their character.
This is who they are.
Why should they be pardoned for bringing shame to their unit and their branch?
For your information, I don't judge a person's character based on one questionable thing they do.
Secondly, since these Marines were accused of committing federal crime, then pardon does not seem unreasonable to me.
Last, but not the least, urinating on the dead enemies TO ME (keywords) is uncivilized, but it is not a war crime. So reduction in rank (because their behavior might have tarnished the image of the Marine Corps) is proportional to the "crime" (for lack of a better word) they committed.
If they committed a federal crime, then Trump has the right to pardon them. The pardon, therefore, does not seem unreasonable. A pardon does not change the fact of a conviction. It is not the same as saying, "They have done nothing wrong."
Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted. Pardons can also be a source of controversy. There are many reasons why a pardon is considered.
Does repeatedly shooting unarmed women and kids, on a daily basis, to the point where your fellow soldiers turned you in over it, seem like a war crime to you?
Does repeatedly shooting unarmed women and kids, on a daily basis, to the point where your fellow soldiers turned you in over it, seem like a war crime to you?
yes, if and only if that was true. I need to know if he did indeed repeatedly shooting unarmed women and kids on a daily basis. I also need to know why he has been allowed to do it for such a long time. Many unanswered questions so far.
Like I posted earlier, I have many friends who fought in IRAQ, I have known zero Marine who was allowed to shoot unarmed women and kids, ALSO MEN on a daily basis. It is unheard of to me. Actually, they follow STRICT and often ridiculous rules of engagement. I know ONE former Marine being processed out immediately because he seemed unstable. Trigger happy soldiers is frowned upon in the military, this is common sense. If something made no sense, it needs to be investigated.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 05-24-2019 at 10:31 AM..
Did I say their behavior should not be encouraged? But treating them as war criminals as the soldier who participated in My Lai massacre is outrages. Plus, will you call ww2 veterans war criminals if they have done the same? Answer this question first will be more helpful to understand your arguing point. or to show if you are a fair person lol
Their actions stand on their own, they are accountable for their crimes. Going back in time looking for the least common denominator in an attempt to dismiss their actions doesn’t fly. If the military felt there was extenuating circumstances they could recommend their pardon. Besides why is he considering pardons before there is even a trial.
For your information, I don't judge a person's character based on one questionable thing they do.
Secondly, since these Marines were accused of committing federal crime, then pardon does not seem unreasonable to me.
Last, but not the least, urinating on the dead enemies TO ME (keywords) is uncivilized, but it is not a war crime. So reduction in rank (because their behavior might have tarnished the image of the Marine Corps) is proportional to the "crime" (for lack of a better word) they committed.
If they committed a federal crime, then Trump has the right to pardon them. The pardon, therefore, does not seem unreasonable. A pardon does not change the fact of a conviction. It is not the same as saying, "They have done nothing wrong."
Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted. Pardons can also be a source of controversy. There are many reasons why a pardon is considered.
You keep using words like "accused" and "if."
Again, they admitted guilt and were penalized accordingly.
The only reason to pardon them would be to show that they deserved no punishment for their crimes.
So much for the UCMJ and Geneva convention.
Now, maybe you believe that they didn't deserve any punishment and so are deserving of pardons.
If so, fine.
But the military disagrees and pardoning this behavior sets a very bad precedent for unit cohesion, decorum and everything else the Marines in particular purportedly stand for.
To accept one of these pardons would further dishonor themselves and their service, particularly after admitting guilt for their actions.
Their actions stand on their own, they are accountable for their crimes. Going back in time looking for the least common denominator in an attempt to dismiss their actions doesn’t fly. If the military felt there was extenuating circumstances they could recommend their pardon. Besides why is he considering pardons before there is even a trial.
So will you call ww2 vets who urinated on dead German and Japanese soldiers criminals too? Just answer the question. Don't make this so complicated. If you cannot give straight forward answer, just say so. if you want to have double standards based on the nature of the war, just say so. Going back in time looking for the least common denominator i an attempt to dismiss their action does not fly? This sentence is so laughable. Disrespecting the dead in war is so common, it happens in every war!!!!! It is NOT civilized, it should not be encouraged, but they are simply not the same as My Lai massacre. If you wanted to paint these people as horrible war criminals, you do so. I have a different opinion. Plus, a punishment should be proportional to the "crime" they committed. Reduction in rank seems reasonable, but they should not be treated as convicted felons for the rest of their lives, so a pardon is absolutely reasonable in my book.
The bold, The pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction. A pardon is "considered" does not mean a pardon will be granted. Get your fact straight.
plus, Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted. Pardons can also be a source of controversy. There are many reasons why a pardon is considered. So if the prosecutors mishandled the case, the person might be pardoned as well. There are many reasons why a pardon is considered.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 05-24-2019 at 10:46 AM..
Dan Crenshaw doesn't think that pardoning people before they have even been tried is such a great idea:
Quote:
Freshman Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, says service members who have been accused of war crimes should undergo a war crimes trial before being pardoned by President Trump. Trump is reportedly weighing pardons on or around Memorial Day for multiple members of the military accused or convicted of war crimes, according to the New York Times. Crenshaw said these pardons should wait until the courts decide the cases. “These cases should be decided by the courts, where the entirety of the evidence can be viewed,” Crenshaw said in a statement to National Review. “Only after that should a pardon be considered.” https://www.businessinsider.com/us-v...-crimes-2019-5
yes, if and only if that was true. I need to know if he did indeed repeatedly shooting unarmed women and kids on a daily basis. I also need to know why he has been allowed to do it for such a long time. Many unanswered questions so far.
.
I will concede that there are many unanswered questions still.
But apparently the investigation was done and the evidence (to include testimony from those 7 servicemen who turned him in) was strong enough, as Gallagher is currently in prison for war crimes....
talk to me after you find one of your fellow soldiers with his hands tied behind his back, a bullet hole in his temple, and his testicles in his mouth...………...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plus, will you call ww2 veterans war criminals if they have done the same? Answer this question first will be more helpful to understand your arguing point. or to show if you are a fair person lol
