War Crime Pardons

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Imagine being the kind of person who would rather have fellow countrymen murdered, than a terrorist dispatched.

Imagine being the kind of person who thinks soldiers should be able to kill at will, disregard their own rules of engagement and walk away scot free after their own military courts sentence them.

Oh and if you actually care about the lives of soldiers, then making sure they aren't committing war crimes is a really good place to start. Unless you want to see considerably higher rates of insurgency and crimes against humanity committed against them.
 
Upvote 0

DanishLutheran

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2018
404
184
41
Aarhus
✟25,867.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Imagine being the kind of person who thinks soldiers should be able to kill at will, disregard their own rules of engagement and walk away scot free after their own military courts sentence them.

Oh and if you actually care about the lives of soldiers, then making sure they aren't committing war crimes is a really good place to start. Unless you want to see considerably higher rates of insurgency and crimes against humanity committed against them.

Yeah, sure, because insurgencies and resistance cells didn't exist until this incident, and were completely dependent on it to function.
No.
If you value the enemy over your own soldiers, at least have the courage to say this rather than hide it behind concern for the soldiers. Don't insult our intelligences with that bovine manure.
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, sure, because insurgencies and resistance cells didn't exist until this incident, and were completely dependent on it to function.
No.
If you value the enemy over your own soldiers, at least have the courage to say this rather than hide it behind concern for the soldiers. Don't insult our intelligences with that bovine manure.

I will make absolutely no comment about the level of intelligence required to make an argument that could have equally defended the nazis at Nuremburg. Or indeed the level of intelligence of someone who thinks soldiers should be free to murder at will. As for the level of intelligence required to reduce a complex argument down to simplistic nationalism, I'll leave that for others to decide.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I will make absolutely no comment about the level of intelligence required to make an argument that could have equally defended the nazis at Nuremburg. Or indeed the level of intelligence of someone who thinks soldiers should be free to murder at will. As for the level of intelligence required to reduce a complex argument down to simplistic nationalism, I'll leave that for others to decide.

No need to wait... we've already decided. Our soldiers must be held accountable for when they break the law... as well as basic decency.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been military, all the women have married military. I spent 26 years in the Air Force myself.

If you recall back when there was debate about the CIA engaging in torture, the real issue was whether the CIA (which had actually never officially done interrogations before) should be required to adhere to the US Army interrogation field manual--which excluded torture as an interrogation tool.

If you noticed, it was the generals who spoke most strongly against torture. The generals do not want permission to torture. Permission given to torture in extreme situations would become a mandated requirement, because war is always an extreme situation.

The Law of Armed Conflict (the Geneva Conventions applied to military regulation) is mandatory annual training for every person in the US military. Each person is given a general course and then we are all given a second course in how the LOAC applies to their specific military specialty. Many people are given additional courses on the LOAC that are even more specific to particular job assignments. When I was involved in nuclear targeting, I was given more courses in placing Desired Grounds Zero according to even weather patterns to achieve the necessary destruction of military targets with the least civilian casualties.

All of this is not a matter of being soft on the enemy. It's a matter of reminding ourselves that even as men of war there is a floor of barbarity below which we will not descend.

No commander wants to lead a mob of barbarians. And if you think about it, you would not want such men who believed no level of indecency or violence was immoral to come home, marry your daughter, and buy the house next door.

"We never went that low" is something a soldier should be able to say to himself when he comes back from war and return to civil society. "My men never sank that low" is something a commander should be able to say to himself when he comes back from war and returns to civil society.

Even if a circumstantial exigency forces a soldier to do something he would not have otherwise done, at least he can say, "That is something I would never have otherwise done." In the dark hours of the night when he's 80 years old and has nothing to do but think of his past, at least he can say that.

The men who cannot say that are the men who can never return to being a farmer or shopkeeper or student. They become the fighters in ISIS who don't have a home to go to, who couldn't go back home if they had, but can do nothing but find new wars to fight.

The Law of Armed Conflict is not for the sake of the enemy, it's for the sake of ourselves. And nobody seems to know that more acutely than the men who have stood on that precipice.

The chickenhawks sure don't get it.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Yeah, sure, because insurgencies and resistance cells didn't exist until this incident, and were completely dependent on it to function.
No.
If you value the enemy over your own soldiers, at least have the courage to say this rather than hide it behind concern for the soldiers. Don't insult our intelligences with that bovine manure.
If “civilized” countries are no better at doing war than insurgents, then what ideals are they fighting for?
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What your wonderful conservative media arm isn't telling you is that the appeals court found that none of that mattered, since his self-defense claim was negated by the fact that he was the aggressor.

FYI the quotes I posted was not from a news source. So the ‘wonderful conservative media’ dig is moot.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If “civilized” countries are no better at doing war than insurgents, then what ideals are they fighting for?

Power. What else is there worth fighting for in the conservative world?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
FYI the quotes I posted was not from a news source. So the ‘wonderful conservative media’ dig is moot.

Making things up, then?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
FYI the quotes I posted was not from a news source. So the ‘wonderful conservative media’ dig is moot.

First, the word "moot" doesn't mean what you apparently think it does. In that context, "misguided" would've been more in line with your intent.

Second, if the quotes and your interpretation of events (and it's the interpretation towards which I was actually directing my comments; I don't really care about the source of the quotes) didn't come from some conservative media source, where did they come from?
 
Upvote 0

SarahsKnight

Jesus Christ is this Knight's truth.
Supporter
Jul 15, 2014
11,024
11,983
39
Magnolia, AR
✟981,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been military, all the women have married military. I spent 26 years in the Air Force myself.

If you recall back when there was debate about the CIA engaging in torture, the real issue was whether the CIA (which had actually never officially done interrogations before) should be required to adhere to the US Army interrogation field manual--which excluded torture as an interrogation tool.

If you noticed, it was the generals who spoke most strongly against torture. The generals do not want permission to torture. Permission given to torture in extreme situations would become a mandated requirement, because war is always an extreme situation.

The Law of Armed Conflict (the Geneva Conventions applied to military regulation) is mandatory annual training for every person in the US military. Each person is given a general course and then we are all given a second course in how the LOAC applies to their specific military specialty. Many people are given additional courses on the LOAC that are even more specific to particular job assignments. When I was involved in nuclear targeting, I was given more courses in placing Desired Grounds Zero according to even weather patterns to achieve the necessary destruction of military targets with the least civilian casualties.

All of this is not a matter of being soft on the enemy. It's a matter of reminding ourselves that even as men of war there is a floor of barbarity below which we will not descend.

No commander wants to lead a mob of barbarians. And if you think about it, you would not want such men who believed no level of indecency or violence was immoral to come home, marry your daughter, and buy the house next door.

"We never went that low" is something a soldier should be able to say to himself when he comes back from war and return to civil society. "My men never sank that low" is something a commander should be able to say to himself when he comes back from war and returns to civil society.

Even if a circumstantial exigency forces a soldier to do something he would not have otherwise done, at least he can say, "That is something I would never have otherwise done." In the dark hours of the night when he's 80 years old and has nothing to do but think of his past, at least he can say that.

The men who cannot say that are the men who can never return to being a farmer or shopkeeper or student. They become the fighters in ISIS who don't have a home to go to, who couldn't go back home if they had, but can do nothing but find new wars to fight.

The Law of Armed Conflict is not for the sake of the enemy, it's for the sake of ourselves. And nobody seems to know that more acutely than the men who have stood on that precipice.

The chickenhawks sure don't get it.

Just want to say you certainly have my respect in saying this, RDKirk.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
What the wonderful democratic media arm is not saying:

  • Dr. MacDonnell is not called to testify in the case and instead is sent home. Just before leaving the courthouse he picks up his coat from the prosecution room and says to the three prosecutors (Megan Poirier, Jason Elbert, and Erwin Roberts), ‘The explanation that Lt Behenna just testified to was the exact same scenario I told you yesterday. Lt Behenna is telling the truth.’
  • Jack Zimmermann, defense counsel, asks prosecutors if they have any exculpatory evidence that should be provided to the defense (referring to Dr. MacDonnell’s demonstration). Prosecutors deny having any such evidence despite having been told by their own expert witness that Lt Behenna’s explanation was the only logical explanation.
  • Prosecutors withholding of this evidence allowed them to argue that Lt. Behenna executed Ali Mansur while seated when the forensic experts, including Dr. MacDonnell, agree that Ali was standing with his arms outstretched when shot
Hmmm....

The appeals circuit held that since Behenna was the aggressor, his affirmative self-defense claim was without merit.
Remember, he shot a naked, unarmed man at close range, twice.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Something I'd point out about courts-martial: They are convened by the "court-martial authority" who is the commander over the theater or zone in which the alledged crime occurred. The military members (officers in a case like this) will also be from that zone.

On the jury will be soldiers who have actually been there, seen that, were faced with the same dilemmas--they may even have been dealing with those issues the day before being detailed to serve on the jury and will return to them the day after delivering the verdict. In other words, a court-martial is a "judgment by peers" more closely than a civilian court.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Imagine being the kind of person who would rather have fellow countrymen murdered, than a terrorist dispatched.

Imagine being so short sighted to not see the forest for the trees.

"Dispatch" one prisoner, none of the others will ever surrender. How many of your "fellow countrymen" will be murdered because they're fighting to the last man now?
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Further, the circumstances would appear - to me - to warrant nothing more than a new trial, at most.

He didn't get one though. So what other recourse did he have but a presidential pardon?

The facts of the case are not in dispute here, merely the interpretation of them.

A presidential pardon is not a comment on the facts of the case. It is simply a decree that, despite a defendant's conviction, he is to receive no further punishment. He was released five years ago in any case.

There was an appeal. The CAAF heard his appeal and decided it was without merit.

His conviction wasn't overturned, but his sentence was reduced. That implies some measure of merit.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,076
7,405
✟343,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
His conviction wasn't overturned, but his sentence was reduced. That implies some measure of merit.
His sentence wasn't reduced by the CAAF. It was reduced by the Army Porale and Clemency Board before the CAAF decided his case.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
He didn't get one though. So what other recourse did he have but a presidential pardon?
He asked for one, stated his case, and was denied by the CAAF after they reviewed the evidence. Clearly they disagreed - as do I.

A presidential pardon is not a comment on the facts of the case. It is simply a decree that, despite a defendant's conviction, he is to receive no further punishment. He was released five years ago in any case.
I'm aware. However, you're arguing that he was wrongfully convicted, and others have said that he did nothing wrong. Those were the points I was speaking to with that statement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
A presidential pardon is not a comment on the facts of the case.

Actually, in effect... Burdick v United States established that a pardon must be voluntarily accepted, as offering a pardon is an imputation of guilt (and accepting it is an acceptance of guilt).


It is simply a decree that, despite a defendant's conviction, he is to receive no further punishment. He was released five years ago in any case.

So why bother with the pardon at all?

His conviction wasn't overturned, but his sentence was reduced. That implies some measure of merit.

A model prisoner, no doubt.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0