>"...signals our troops and allies that we don’t take the Law of Armed Conflict seriously. "
And when was that ever in place? There's a handful of officers who vote Democrat, but the rest of them are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who are LUVING the promise of shooting just about anyone and knowing they could get a pardon. Have fun in Iran, guys!
Likely you have to hide this sentiment from your unit/company, who are also likely to be thrilled at the ultimate wish for US military personnel: shooting civilians stateside.
So tell me about how many military personnel you know, that informs this position? Gotta say, I’ve known thousands over the last 30+ years associated with the military, and I’d bet my retirement that not one of them wants to shoot civilians, stateside or otherwise. But maybe you have a different experience.
Consider this: What good is is to bring people to trial for crimes when the president of the United States feels that anything is justified, even torture, assassination, fragging, random shooting of civilians. Would you want to be a JAG lawyer trying to keep some level of honor alive when you know that the president of the United States, your commanding officer, has no honor himself and will undo fairly arrived at judgments just because he wants to. This is a very dangerous precedent and only show that Donald J. Trump only cares about getting his way on things, and is now in a position where he can even get people killed just by making a scurrilous statement about their race, religion, gender, country of origin. The man is outright dangerous to the rule of law. That is why he needs to be removed from office.
I'm pretty sure that we lost the moral high ground the first time we waterboarded an Al-Qaeda or Taliban suspect. 😒 (No, I'm not pro-Al-Qaeda or pro-Taliban; but we don't get to pick and choose who The Law applies to.)
JFC, a one word comment and I misspell it...
>"...signals our troops and allies that we don’t take the Law of Armed Conflict seriously. "
And when was that ever in place? There's a handful of officers who vote Democrat, but the rest of them are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who are LUVING the promise of shooting just about anyone and knowing they could get a pardon. Have fun in Iran, guys!
I dunno, I heard Elizabeth Warren made some bank working on legal cases and hid like a common Goldman Sachs speech hider!
And he's right about that. Check out his poll numbers with the military, and be ready to shake your head.
Likely you have to hide this sentiment from your unit/company, who are also likely to be thrilled at the ultimate wish for US military personnel: shooting civilians stateside.
So tell me about how many military personnel you know, that informs this position? Gotta say, I’ve known thousands over the last 30+ years associated with the military, and I’d bet my retirement that not one of them wants to shoot civilians, stateside or otherwise. But maybe you have a different experience.
Consider this: What good is is to bring people to trial for crimes when the president of the United States feels that anything is justified, even torture, assassination, fragging, random shooting of civilians. Would you want to be a JAG lawyer trying to keep some level of honor alive when you know that the president of the United States, your commanding officer, has no honor himself and will undo fairly arrived at judgments just because he wants to. This is a very dangerous precedent and only show that Donald J. Trump only cares about getting his way on things, and is now in a position where he can even get people killed just by making a scurrilous statement about their race, religion, gender, country of origin. The man is outright dangerous to the rule of law. That is why he needs to be removed from office.
I'm pretty sure that we lost the moral high ground the first time we waterboarded an Al-Qaeda or Taliban suspect. 😒 (No, I'm not pro-Al-Qaeda or pro-Taliban; but we don't get to pick and choose who The Law applies to.)
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Don't you mean "Erik Prince"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Yep, that's what I meant.
Or felt empathy for anything but his own wallet.
Yes, ThIs.
Buddy Fucker. A soldier who fucks up his buddies.
He can't pardon state crimes, why can he pardon military crimes? Is there case law to support this?