Trump pardons a US Army soldier convicted of murdering an Iraqi Man

[Machismo]

Because it's not based off of the site/show's actual coverage. It's based off of where their audience falls on the spectrum.

Which is how I was led to my conclusion about sticking to less (or one) news sources.

[Zaydin]

Trumpkins, meanwhile, will not see anything wrong with this.

[Citizen T]

Yeah, actually you do. Someone already linked the law. That was one of the things that Arpaio was asked when he got his pardon from Trump.

Someone linked Burdick v. US which was discussed and explained away as it was a specific case that was about the right to refuse a pardon because acceptance of it gave the public impression of guilt - not an admission of guilt.

The very concept of a pardon requiring admission of guilt is illogical. If a political executive (president, governor, etc) believes a person innocent, requiring an admission of guilt to accept the pardon is ludicrous.

[Thekri]

Trumpkins, meanwhile, will not see anything wrong with this.

They aren't even considering it. They are diverting the thread to their favorite topic of complaining about how mean and biased the media is. Don't want to address actual issues!

[Breccia]

Are you really wringing your hands over a likely Al Quada member

Funny, based on the evidence, he was released. People might have suspected, but he wasn't charged.

You know. Like Trump was.

"Likely" isn't something anyone in the rabid fanbase should use here. By the way, "self defense" still doesn't fit the situation of a naked guy killed and the death never being reported. That's just regular old murdering a guy.

[Heladys]

I've never attempted to hide my political leanings - Conservative Constitutionalist.

No, you're right. You've never hidden that you're politically-biased and terrible at what you do.

You simply hide gleefully behind our inability to call you out about it, like any good Trumpian maga-hatted patriot who talks big but hides behind others.

[Ghostpanther]

Your opinion means jack squat, man. The guy was actually convicted of murder, Trump merely gave him a pardon. He was already considered guilty.

That this happened does not shock me; warzones are never pretty, stress runs high, the ideal scenario of holding fire until absolutely necessary is not always realistic. What IS shocking, is refusing to punish this kind of behavior because we don't like who the target is. I don't give a fuck if China or Russia or whatever other pissant dictatorship does it all the time: the US is supposed to be better than this at holding its own accountable.

This is true. But no less than yours does.

- - - Updated - - -

He left the base to seize and interrogate someone that his unit already released. He then stripped that person naked and took him to the desert to interrogate him. If the person lunges at that point, that is still murder. Either way, he killed him, left the body in the desert and never reported anything happened.

That isn't "not following military rules" that is vigilante justice leading to an extra-judicial killing. That is murder, which is why he was convicted of murder. Which is something we have been systematically trying to get rid of in Iraq and Afghanistan both. By doing this, he embarrasses the nation, and sets us back on our mission. There is no realistic doubt that he killed him, a pardon is way of endorsing this brutal behavior.

I disagree he was not within his rights to self defense just because he had him stripped and was naked. If he gets a hold of the handgun, the Lt. could be dead instead. Sounds like they did not dispute his self defense claim, but still found him guilty of unpremeditated murder. Does not sound right to me.

[Trifle]

Someone linked Burdick v. US which was discussed and explained away as it was a specific case that was about the right to refuse a pardon because acceptance of it gave the public impression of guilt - not an admission of guilt.

The very concept of a pardon requiring admission of guilt is illogical. If a political executive (president, governor, etc) believes a person innocent, requiring an admission of guilt to accept the pardon is ludicrous.

By definition a pardon is forgiveness for an offense. It doesn't really make much sense to forgive someone for an act they said they didn't do. If you really believe they didn't do it, you shouldn't be offering forgiveness for it. And Presidents don't have constitutional authority to exonerate people of crimes, that's up to the courts.

For context the Burdick vs US thing is available at http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/...srep236079.pdf rather than just the wiki link. The key passage:

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is non-committal and tantamount to silence of the witness.

It doesn't say anything about public impressions, it says what they are. Even ignoring that though, you have department of justice pardon guidelines at https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardo...d-instructions

A pardon is not a sign of vindication and does not connote or establish innocence. For that reason, when considering the merits of a pardon petition, pardon officials take into account the petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement for the offense.

While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon.

There's nothing really stopping you from claiming your innocent even after you've received a pardon. But in the eyes of the law you're still guilty, and if you wanted to change that you really should have been going through the courts via appeals processes rather than applying for a pardon.

[Canpinter]

I disagree he was not within his rights to self defense just because he had him stripped and was naked. If he gets a hold of the handgun, the Lt. could be dead instead. Sounds like they did not dispute his self defense claim, but still found him guilty of unpremeditated murder. Does not sound right to me.

Self defense does not apply if your the one who assaulted the person you claim to be defending yourself from. You cant kidnap a man drag im into the desert at gunpoint and then shoot him when he attempts to fight back, in that situation hes defending himself.

[Realitytrembles]

I really don't give a crap because the deceased wasn't an American citizen.

The only "right" non-Americans have when one of our soldiers puts a gun in their face is simple: do as you're told and answer all questions.

[Orbitus]

I really don't give a crap because the deceased wasn't an American citizen.

The only "right" non-Americans have when one of our soldiers puts a gun in their face is simple: do as you're told and answer all questions.

So, you don't care about war crimes? Good to know. Can we ban this poster now?

[Realitytrembles]

So, you don't care about war crimes? Good to know. Can we ban this poster now?

I've said before I disagree fundamentally with the very concept of a war crime.

For me, losing is the only crime on the field of battle.

Ban me? For what exactly? Disagreeing with the far-Left?

[Jotaux]

I disagree he was not within his rights to self defense just because he had him stripped and was naked. If he gets a hold of the handgun, the Lt. could be dead instead. Sounds like they did not dispute his self defense claim, but still found him guilty of unpremeditated murder. Does not sound right to me.

I mean if the victim would have killed the soldier instead the victim would have had a better self defense case.

[Orbitus]

I've said before I disagree fundamentally with the very concept of a war crime.

For me, losing is the only crime on the field of battle.

Ban me? For what exactly? Disagreeing with the far-Left?

No, for cheering on killing innocent people. If I can get banned for it, so should you. And I am not far left. I am just not an irrational poster cheering murder of an innocent.

[Jotaux]

I've said before I disagree fundamentally with the very concept of a war crime.

For me, losing is the only crime on the field of battle.

Ban me? For what exactly? Disagreeing with the far-Left?

So if a canadian walks into the US and kills someone then no one in Canada should care?

[PACOX]

The defense contended that Behenna was under an acute stress disorder as a result of the attacks on his platoon and that during the shooting he had acted in self-defense after Mansur lunged at him.[13] After less than three and a half hours of deliberation, the jury came back finding Behenna not guilty of making a false declaration and premeditated murder, but guilty of UCMJ Article 118, unpremeditated murder and sentenced to 25 years confinement.[2]

Acute stress disorder is a mental health condition that can occur immediately after a traumatic event. It can cause a range of psychological symptoms and, without recognition or treatment, it can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder.

It's wrong to kill people but these high stress conflict zones can have a terrible effect on peoples minds.

It would be great if we could just point the finger and say "Yer your a monster, lock him up for ever" but in reality i think its alot more complex than that.

Urges are not excuses. If stress can drive him to kill someone he might not be a monster be he doesn't need to in public.

[Realitytrembles]

No, for cheering on killing innocent people. If I can get banned for it, so should you. And I am not far left. I am just not an irrational poster cheering murder of an innocent.

Who's "cheering" ? I said i just don't care about the guy because he isn't American.

- - - Updated - - -

So if a canadian walks into the US and kills someone then no one in Canada should care?

Canadians should care about whatever they want.

Just like Americans will.

[Jotaux]

Who's "cheering" ? I said i just don't care about the guy because he isn't American.

- - - Updated - - -



Canadians should care about whatever they want.

Just like Americans will.

I guess, we'll just hold our citizens to actual standards then...

[Orbitus]

Who's "cheering" ? I said i just don't care about the guy because he isn't American.

- - - Updated - - -



Canadians should care about whatever they want.

Just like Americans will.

Bullshit. Just because he isn't American, doesn't mean he doesn't have rights. Specifically if this fucking dumbass did what he was convicted of. Kidnapping him, stripping him naked, then executing him? This guy deserves to go back to prison and the pardon removed. He is nothing but a piece of shit. He isn't judge, jury, and executioner. This isn't the Judge Dredd Universe.

[PACOX]

I would imagine there are soldiers who aren't too happy with the pardon. The military has standards. With power comes responsibility. This man allowed himself to cross a hard line and those with integrity would find it hard just to sign away their responsibility for such actions.