And that the evidence against him is rather thin?

Not to take away from the discussion about Trump being a huge POS for even considering pardoning these criminals, but the Navy and the DoD needs to take a hard look at the SEAL community.

It has always been composed of far too many cowboys that think they are above the law. Over the past several years there have been multiple reports of rampant breaches of discipline, substance abuse, sexual assaults, etc that are out of proportion with their size. Our country did a significant ramp up of the number of SEAL teams in the last 18 years and all of the worst characteristics and stereotypes of SEALs seem to only have been magnified.

This admission (which given how it came about, I am going to be doubtful of its truthfulness) by SWO 1st Class Corey Scott that he- with an immunity deal- not Chief Gallagher killed an captive is a prime example of how the SEALs have a fundamental problem.

I don't quite understand why people keep saying this. There are three direct eyewitness.

"“I saw him stab the prisoner in the side of the neck.” (Miller).

That's prosecutorial gold. Direct eyewitness account is really strong direct evidence. Yet I read some news stories that say things like, "No evidence beyond eyewitness accounts." Which is weird to me. It's not "thin." And then there's a text that Gallagher sent with photo of him holding the body with knife wounds in the neck with the accompanying text, "Got him with my hunting knife." And beforehand *other* witnesses claiming Gallagher got all excited when he heard the victim was in custody and said, "Lay off, he's mine." Take all that and tell me some story were Gallagher isn't the one who caused the knife wounds in the neck. I have a hard time thinking of one.

It'd be super nice to have like Gallagher's knife with the victim's blood on it. It'd also be nice to have a body. But plenty of people have been put away without the murder weapon or body as evidence. Direct eyewitness accounts are strong.

One of the 3 eyewitnesses suddenly changing his story certainly doesn't help....but I he *still* says Gallagher stabbed the victim in the neck. So that has to be attempted murder at the least. Unless you can convince me in some way that a SEAL stabbing someone in the neck with a hunting knife is just "assault" and not an attempt to kill.

And somehow given all the stories about Gallagher's extreme competence at killing people, I tend to think if he stabs a defenseless person in the neck, he's probably not going to screw it up.

Meanwhile the defense's case seems to be, "All these other SEALs turned on him. Because they're jealous that Gallagher is tough." Uh-huh.

I’m totally disgusted by Trump’s pardons and reinstatement of rank today.

This is a new low.

Fair comment.

I see this as tapping into the most perverse and immature understanding of what it means to be member of US military and how we conduct ourselves in the worse of conditions. I understand the fog of war, the confusion of the modern battlefield and the nature of the most recents conflicts, but even under those tremendously difficult situations we must adhere to the rule of war.

In issuing these pardons and reinstatement of rank, he is not standing in solidarity with our military, he is attacking it. These pardons are an attack on those who have remained faithful to lawful orders, rule of land warfare, and their own integrity... this is an attack on the soul of our military and our nation.

So new low, maybe not. But a new corner that demonstrates how low we have let ourselves go.

I would agree. I thought i read somewhere last week that Sec Def had spoken with the president to advise against such action as it was harmful to the Military justice system. He marches to his own and marches by himself.

I would agree. I thought i read somewhere last week that Sec Def had spoken with the president to advise against such action as it was harmful to the Military justice system. He marches to his own and marches by himself.

Don't even give him that sliver of respect. Soldiers march. The President is not worthy of even that figure of speech.

E

And the timing of it might suggest he was using it to counter bad PR.

If it was accompanied by some written essay or op-ed explaining the rationale and factors used in making the decision, I might be convinced. But I haven't seen one.

It appears to just cater to a few service members who've achieved celebrity in some "conservative" circles.

https://apple.news/A7SpxLZEjQAKDbcWfZ0umEA

But if President Trump wants to successfully demonstrate to America’s rank-and-file troops that there’s no such thing as going too far, he hasn’t quite gone far enough. Trump must immediately issue a full pardon to Brigadier General Francis X. Hummel of the United States Marine Corps.

General Hummel’s story is a typical example of the great lengths left-wingers will go to in order to besmirch a patriotic soldier’s reputation. The general served three tours in Vietnam, saw action in Panama and Grenada, and led Marine Force Reconnaissance operations during Operation Desert Storm, earning three Purple Hearts, two Silver Stars, and the Congressional Medal of Honor over the course of a long career spent faithfully defending America’s freedoms. Calling him a “hero” or “man of honor” barely scratches the surface. “Legend” might be a better description.
Unfortunately, in the summer of 1996, a cabal of unelected Clinton administration bureaucrats, intent on transforming the finest fighting force in human history into a half-baked social justice experiment, decided to second-guess General Hummel’s battlefield actions from the safety and air-conditioned comfort of their offices. These overpaid, beige-Volvo-driving coastal elites, who were just as out of touch with real American values in 1996 as they are today, didn’t have enough warfighting experience to understand General Hummel’s split-second decision to infiltrate a chemical weapons depot, use brutal but nonlethal force to steal 15 missiles loaded with VX nerve gas, infiltrate Alcatraz Island disguised as a tourist, take 81 civilian hostages, and threaten to treat everyone in San Francisco to a free lungful of C11H26NO2PS unless the United States transferred $100 million from the Pentagon’s secret Grand Cayman Red Sea Trading Company account to an account designated by General Hummel within 40 hours. For these brave decisions, General Hummel should have become a national hero, or at least been given safe transport to a non-extradition country like he wanted. Instead, the Clinton administration took an overtly punitive approach, going so far as to release a British secret agent from prison in an effort to discredit and smear an American patriot, and also in an effort to prevent that American patriot from releasing nerve gas into the atmosphere above a major American city. The result of this all this meddling from liberal pantywaists

Pardons - the never-ending political argument. It’s a strange power in a country of laws. One can be charged, tried and convicted through our legal system then walk away because the President made the decision - for whatever reason. I would prefer we either do away with Presidential pardons or allow the President to nominate individuals to a body who make the final determination based on some set of criteria. Could even be SCOTUS who have to approve.

I’d prefer they just go away. Trump won’t be the last POTUS to take great liberties with this power.

Replying to the last comment but the nyt is reporting that the navy will take Gallagher’s trident tomorrow. Relevant officer(s) acknowledge Trump will reinstate and appear ready to end their careers to make the point.