Should President Trump provide credibility back to UCMJ by charging to start with: Admiral Green, Adm Gilday, Secretary Spencer?

A draft dodger should not be making decisions about military justice.

No sympathy here...he is a SNCO and he knew better than to do what he did. In any other career field say for example aviation....you screw up in it you get your wings yanked and are no longer a pilot. No difference here. Leadership knows better the day to day workings of their units...not the President and he should have trusted his Captains and Admirals to make the right calls. IMHO.

Maj Marty Hogan Lt Col Charlie Brown 1stSgt Glenn Brackin
Cpl Craig Morton SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth COL Mikel J. Burroughs
LTC Stephen C. CPL Dave Hoover PO3 Bob McCord
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Sgt Wayne Wood PVT James Strait
SFC Jack Champion MSgt David Hoffman MSgt Stephen Council
SGT Elizabeth Scheck PO1 H Gene Lawrence 1SG Steven Imerman SGT Steve McFarland SSgt Terry P.

Yet another inaccurate headline. He was not CLEARED by Trump, he was tried and found guilty. His rank was restored by Trump, but (at least as far as I can tell) Trump never reversed the conviction.

And no, Trump cannot provide credibility to UCMJ by chardging Commanders who were themseleves EXERCISING THEIR AUTHORITY under UCMJ. He would only FURTHER undermine UCMJ, which has already started by his undue influence and reversal of demotion, amongst other things.

As the President and Commander in Chief he has the Authority of override any verdict set down by subordinate commanders and military courts.
President Obama pardoned multiple persons convicted of treason against the United States, and I don’t remember anyone resigning over that.
It’s clear, As an officer if you can’t follow the orders of the president resign, and don’t try to use the lame excuse “I’m trying to effect change from with in”. Just get out.
As for this SEAL, I personally wouldn’t have restored his rank but no one asked me.
I support my President like the oath of service states.
So let him go off into the world and live his life with full honors.

Attempted Murder; Premeditated Murder; Aggravated Assault with a Dangerous Weapon x2 on non-combatants; Firearm, discharging-willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life at non-combatants; Obstructing Justice (three counts); Wrongfully pose for an unofficial picture with a human casualty; Wrongfully complete reenlistment ceremony next to a human casualty; Wrongfully Operate a drone over a human casualty; Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance – Tramadol Hydrochloride; and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance – Sustanon-250.

Those were the charges brought against Chief Gallagher. By a jury of his peers, he was found Not Guilty on all charges except for the posing with a dead body charge. Where is the dereliction of duty? Where is the Insubordination? What is your basis for needing to receive maximum rank reduction and a DD? The period of UCMJ is done. He is not going to be facing these charges again.

A bit extreme, but agree with your point. They need to review the authority of the CINC and UCMJ. Both, as career military and leader in public service, I understood my role as an advisor to my seniors and decision maker after listening to my subordinates.

I’m having a real difficult time withe a couple of things going on right now including this discussion. Regarding this discussion, the tone being taken by military members here seems to be running close to the boarder of disobeying our oath to obeying the order of those appointed over us. As much as a PV1 has a lawful duty to obey the lawful orders of his/her squad leader, General Officers and Flag Officers have a duty and have sworn an oath to obey the orders of the civilian elected CiC of the armed forces. If the orders given are unlawful than there is a duty to disobey the orders given but there are also consequences to that action. If I cannot follow orders given, I bare the responsibility to leave the military and oppose the CiC in the political arena as my conscience dictates. We do not have the option of publicly opposing the orders of our Platoon SGT or Company Commander any more than we can oppose orders given by the CiC. “Oh, he never served so, he has no understanding about deploying to a war zone. Therefore, I will not deploy and, I’ll make a public statement about it”. That seems to be willful and contemptuous disobedience to orders. Simply because someone achieves a higher rank does not allow them to show contemptuous disregard for the orders of the CiC. And when we use our rank in discussing these matters, we need to keep an awareness to that particular requirement. I did not like, nor respect, Pres Clinton under any condition but, I would never, ever state that in public to anyone while he was in office and while using my rank or being in uniform. Trying to take any further action either through UCMJ or administrative action towards any service member involved in this matter appears to be in direct contradiction of the orders of the CiC. Simply said, while using my rank, this is not a matter of my public disagreement, no matter how I might feel. We follow the orders of the CiC or we get out. We have no absolute right to serve in the military. If I loose my physical health, I can be eliminated no matter what civilians think or what standard they try to apply. The President of the United States, the CiC, has made his wishes known and has so issued an orders to that affect. Follow orders or get out and run for political office or join the 4th estate (the press corps).

Most points are dodging what's really going on. The President took and action to restore rank. That's it. No other restrictions apply. Whether this reprieve happened or not, Admiral Green is in a lose-lose situation. What do you do with this guy? He'll be toxic wherever he goes in the Seal community. Most times, there's a quiet retirement and life goes on for everybody. Apparently the Chief isn't going quietly soon enough. So there are the administrative options. Best business option is to slide him far away and let him be backwatered (Keflavik). To do that, make him ineligible for your billets. You make him ineligible by pulling his warfare qualifications. You can do that anytime for "loss of confidence". Better yet, if you have a process where the dirty deed is spread amongst, gasp, his peers; The Tribe Has Spoken.

The Chief's lawyers are doing their due diligence by trying to frame this stuff as going against the President because they want that hammer to be applied. It doesn't go against the President, but the optics aren't great. The MIL side is framing it as legitimate actions for the good of the force. This stuff isn't done in a vacuum. I'd suspect the CoC through SECDEF is in lock step and the President has been briefed. My take is the President has pulled about all the political capital out of this one and should leave this bone alone. Business people understand toxic situations in the HR world.

BTW, the Chief will never get promoted, nor allowed to reenlist. I don't know what the remaining clock is, but it'd be interesting to see the numbers run on leaving now with an early bump vs. hanging around. Regardless, there's a pile to be made on the outside for the Chief. His value will decline with time. An agent will tell him to strike while the iron is hot.

Another attempt to thwart the intent of the President of the United States. This attempt is petty and unworthy of a flag officer.

Okay all, one final thought on this subject and than I’ll go away. I’ve seen it alluded to that although President Trump is the CinC of the armed forces that he does not have the constitutional authority to issue direct orders unless it is given him by US Code Annotated.. I’ve also seen it referred to that he was not a soldier and thus without understanding of the demands of military leadership, duties and responsibilities.

I’d like people here to ask themselves, under what authority did Lincoln relieve the “do nothing” Generals who were in command at the outset of the Civil War (incidentally the bulk of which were West Point graduates)? The U.S. Army was commanded first by Gen McDowell (first battle of Bull Run/Manasses) and than by Gen George McClellan. Neither shared Lincoln’s vision of prosecuting that war. They were both relieved by the CinC. Many of the subordinate Generals were also relieved for failing to carry out Lincoln’s vision regarding the prosecution of that war. That is how General Grant became the commander of all the Northern Armies. Interesting also was Lincoln’s limited exposure to military service. It was necessary for him to take crash courses in military tactics and procedures under the tutorship of General Winfield Scott and Gen Meigs. Lincoln became a follower of von Clausewitz during this period also.

So, for the critics of the Presidents involvement in this matter, under what authority did President Truman relieve General of the Army (5 stars) during the Korean conflict?

Isn’t it the responsibility of the President of the United States to become directly involved when the senior leadership of the military fails to carry out his directives and orders regarding good order and discipline and the prosecution of the foreign affairs of the nation (and that includes the wars of the nation)? And yes, the conflict in Afghanistan was sanctioned by an overwhelming majority vote of the Congress when President Bush requested it