No Excuses Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 Deserves its own thread at this point, since approving of convicted war criminals is apparently now a thing. Quote The secretary of the Navy and the admiral who leads the SEALs have threatened to resign or be fired if plans to expel a commando from the elite unit in a war crimes case are halted by President Trump, administration officials said Saturday. The Navy is proceeding with the disciplinary plans against the commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, who counts Mr. Trump as one of his most vocal supporters. After reversing a demotion in recent days, the president suggested on Thursday that he would intervene again in the case, saying that Chief Gallagher should remain in the unit. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/us/politics/navy-discipline-edward-gallagher.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 been following this...orange julius can once again weigh nat'l security interest (as in keeping the sec and admiral in place) against satisfying one of his personal twisted ****brain needs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Jumbo said: been following this...orange julius can once again weigh nat'l security interest (as in keeping the sec and admiral in place) against satisfying one of his personal twisted ****brain needs Unfortunately, every person here knows, if forced to choose between what's good for our people in combat and our national security, or his own ego, which one he's going to pick. The fact that this is now public isn't going to help, either. Granted, it's his own fault. If he didn't want to lose this fight in public, then he shouldn't have started it there. But still, I really would have preferred if respect for CINC woulf have caused them to try to come up with some way of obeying his orders without threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 Come soon, WH employee some somehow setting policy for the Navy, Edward Gallagher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 This is all so surreal. Sad times we are living in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said: This is all so surreal. Sad times we are living in You're just tired of winning. (So am I.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 noting that one outlet at least is reporting that secnav has denied "threatening to resign" , but that's all i heard---no exact wording or more detial given facts/patterns to date, it might be like the tillerson, mattis, cohn, mcmaster, etc type denials of saying no-no's in reaction to trump moves....techncially cya by parsing words but basically "yeh, i said something like that in the heat of the moment..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 2 hours ago, No Excuses said: Deserves its own thread at this point, since approving of convicted war criminals is apparently now a thing. I think calling him a "convicted war criminal" is arguable at best. That doesn't mean I don't think he committed war crimes. But he was only convicted of posing with a dead body. It's not clear that itself is a war crime. Quote Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher was acquitted in July by a military jury of murder and war crimes but was found guilty of posing with the corpse of the teenage fighter for the Islamic State militant group. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-slams-navy-acting-against-seal-convicted-posing-isis-corpse-n1088356 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 23, 2019 Author Share Posted November 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I think calling him a "convicted war criminal" is arguable at best. That doesn't mean I don't think he committed war crimes. But he was only convicted of posing with a dead body. It's not clear that itself is a war crime. Gallagher may be arguable but the other two aren’t: Quote President Trump threatened both those pillars by pardoning Clint Lorance, a former Army officer serving a 19-year sentence for murdering two civilians, and Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, accused of killing an unarmed Afghan, and by reversing the demotion of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, the subject of a high-profile war crimes trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 Yeah, at least the things I've read (and I haven't read much) seem a whole lot more damning than that. Like, one report stated that he had developed such a reputation for shooting civilians (including women and children) that the members of his own team had taken to adjusting the sights on his rifle behind his back. My thought was that if things had truly become that bad, then there's a lot more than one guy who needs to be off that team, because that is about the clearest example of something that is against the good of the service that I can even imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 1 minute ago, No Excuses said: Gallagher may be arguable but the other two aren’t: Yes. But the title of the thread specifically calls out the one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 23, 2019 Author Share Posted November 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Yes. But the title of the thread specifically calls out the one person. True, although I intend for this thread to be about all the recent ones since this is one larger story that has been playing out under the radar due to impeachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 1 minute ago, No Excuses said: True, although I intend for this thread to be about all the recent ones since this is one larger story that has been playing out under the radar due to impeachment. Fair. FWIW, I think this argument needs to be had behind closed doors (at least in regards to the military people speaking out against the POTUS). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 Trump isn’t going to back down from this. It’s literally one of his rules. Hes going to **** up everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Fair. FWIW, I think this argument needs to be had behind closed doors (at least in regards to the military people speaking out against the POTUS). It’s important that the public sees or knows about this in some way. I won’t argue the best way for that to happen but crazy/dictator Trump needs to be constantly on display. I’m just waiting for Trump to threaten them all North Korea style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Fair. FWIW, I think this argument needs to be had behind closed doors (at least in regards to the military people speaking out against the POTUS). Agreed. I'd certainly HOPE that people in that job could figure out how to deal with a CINC who's also an ADHD 10 year old. Give him his rank and title, and put him in an empty office somewhere with nothing to do. Figure out how to manipulate the Toddler in Chief. Order a Code Red, once a week till he gets the message. SOMETHING. But (if the stories are true), threatening time resign (and letting it go public)? That tactic really FORCES Trump to fire you. (MAYBE that tactic is justified, IF POTUS orders that he be restored to duty, assigned to a team, and sent on missions. Maybe in that case, a response like that is necessary, or you're going to have a dead team. But had it gone that far?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 I can see the political angle to most of the stuff the Trumpers do, even if it's horrible and immoral. But what is the desired outcome of pardoning war criminals? Isn't that something that everyone would see as a bad thing? I'm just not sure what he's trying to prove other than absolute authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said: I can see the political angle to most of the stuff the Trumpers do, even if it's horrible and immoral. But what is the desired outcome of pardoning war criminals? Isn't that something that everyone would see as a bad thing? I'm just not sure what he's trying to prove other than absolute authority. You answered your own question but I’ll had that he so desperately wants to appear tough. He’s maybe the biggest coward of all and he overcompensates for it constantly believing people will love him being this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 2 hours ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said: I can see the political angle to most of the stuff the Trumpers do, even if it's horrible and immoral. But what is the desired outcome of pardoning war criminals? Encouraging more people to do them? Just pointing out, one of the elements of "Trump's management style" is to encourage (he thinks subtly) subordinates to do theing that he knows would be illegal for him to suggest. (See: Many of his "immigration policy's" finer maneuvers, Ukraine, Russian email hacks.) He thinks it cleverly makes him immune from consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.