With the lack of accountability for the evil acts, the narrative that the US is the 'good guy' in global affairs is harder and harder to spin throughout most of the world.
Did you actually read the entire article that you linked? Because while he may well be a POS and should be behind bars, there is not a whole lot of evidence against him, other than mostly second and third hand testimony. There is (or was) apparently some question whether or not he killed anybody. Not to mention the fact that there is evidence that some of those witnesses wanted to get together to "make sure their story jibed" before testifying to the NCIS.
This is not to say he should be pardoned; I think the trial should continue and let justice take its course. But it seems to me you are jumping to some conclusions that the facts may not support.
Navy prosecutors argue that Gallagher's accusers showed "the courage and integrity to come forward and report". So if a pardon pre-conviction is offered and taken, then the they sayers ought be believed.
I don't understand how that logically follows. If Gallagher gets pardoned, then that means the accusers should then be believed? How does a pardon have anything to do with their veracity?
Again, for the record, I'm not for a pardon here. I think a courts martial should determine the veracity of his accusers. But your statement doesn't make any sense to me.
My thinking here, and I might be wrong, but acceptance of a pardon before conviction is a passive admission of guilt and hence his boys were not ginning up some BS just to get back at him and were to be believed.