What does the forum think about the pardons and reinstatement of rank that President Trump issued last week?

SGT Kenneth Partyka — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:24:03 -0500

Personally, I think President Trump did the right thing. It frustrates the hell out of me that some pencil pushing bureaucrats tried to ruin these guys lives. While I support the UCMJ, I highly doubt any of the JAG guys or Pentagon Brass that prosecuted these guys ever spent one second in combat. Chief Petty Officer was acquitted and yet they reduced his rank for a photo? LT Lorance ordered his troops to fire on a motorcyclist who refused orders to stop just days after another suicide bomber used a motorcycle and MAJ Golsteyn killed a known bomb-maker! in my opinion, none of these guys did anything wrong. They were sent to win a war, not a game or checkers! Let JAG walk a mile in these guys' shoes and see what they do under the pressures of being shot at, buddies killed, IEDs and Suicide bombers... Chief Gallagher said this morning on the news that he expects his Chain of Command to give him hell when he goes back to his unit. Thats BS. They were given a job and they did it to the best of their ability.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2019 4:41 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:41:55 -0500

I know others will disagree, but I think it sets a bad precedent for any politicians to overrule UCMJ. These service members were convicted by a jury of their own peers. To make it worse, I believe the reason was purely to gain favor with the military community. But, whatever the reason, I think it is always a bad idea. I thought it was a bad idea when President Obama commuted the sentence of Manning because that was overruling the military judge's sentence. I thought it was a bad idea for President Trump to make remarks on the Berghdal case before it began. I think any time any President overrides the UCMJ it automatically creates an appearance of being politically motivated and undermines the military Commanders.

Response by SP5 Dennis Dorsey made Nov 18 at 2019 5:27 PM

SP5 Dennis Dorsey — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:27:21 -0500

When a president goes against a verdict that was issued by the UCMJ, what does that say about the rules of law. These men had a fair trial, evidence was brought forward and they were convicted. The president should have stayed out of the military affairs and let justice prevail.
What does this say to the others in service? That you can get out of a conviction through the president.

Response by MSG Danny Mathers made Nov 18 at 2019 6:18 PM

MSG Danny Mathers — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:18:29 -0500

I agree with the President which he didn't just pull three names out of a hat. The BHO Rules of Engagements bordered on the side of the terrorist which a Soldier or a PSD had just seconds to go through a by the number steps of force continuum including throwing a water bottle. The 1LT that was pardoned said something profound about Generals becoming political after appointment by the Senate. He stated he was thrown under the buss by his COC. The Seal and the SF Major were also done wrong. I heard a word to describe most general officers during the Cold War; OD Politicians. It has gotten to the point that lawyers are recommending decisions to flag officers on how to run an operation. The only way you can fight a terrorist war is to kill them all and let God sort it out; not a prosecutor. Opinions vary. and easy to make from afar.

Response by SPC Stewart Smith made Nov 18 at 2019 8:21 PM

SPC Stewart Smith — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:21:26 -0500

They were convicted of war crimes by a 'jury of their peers'. 99% of us made it through without committing war crimes.
I think the president pardoning them completely undermines the UCMJ process.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Nov 18 at 2019 9:51 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:51:44 -0500

"While I support the UCMJ, I highly doubt any of the JAG guys or Pentagon Brass that prosecuted these guys ever spent one second in combat". This was not something churched up by "Pentagon Brass". These charges were preferred by immediate chain of command at company or Battalion level based on concerns from people on the ground with them.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 18 at 2019 10:22 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:22:39 -0500

I think there's a larger issue than right/wrong. Should the President have that authority? The Founders sure thought so. We see UCMJ actions get overturned all the time within the DoD. We just saw a MIL judge slam the Marines for arresting a bunch during quarters at CAMPEN. What we have here is essentially a political safety valve. Perhaps it's a perceived justice safety valve. If it gets used, some people will bitch. If it's never used, we're missing the point why the authority is there in the first place. Can we all say "Civilian oversight of the Military?" We may or may not like the decision, but we'd better respect the authority that it's there. That's what we raised our right hand over way back when. In the grand scheme, this authority probably has been used too little. Why? Few Presidents actually care about the military or let the Pentagon bullies push them around. The signal that was sent is: "You MIL brass desk flyers had better pay attention to your own pudding so your failings don't float up my way to fix!" I read an article about "We have a problem". Who's we Kemosabe? Things get to a point because it was lead to that point. Then someone doesn't like it and punishes the deckplates. Who's slapping the so called leaders over the past 15 years over this. There is no perfection, no absolute right way every time, but more importantly, no going back. There will always be collateral damage, muckups, etc. because we're human and very imperfect. Time to move on and individually remind ourselves to pay attention to the stuff that matters. That'll make things better, but not perfect.

Response by CPO Paul Klein made Nov 19 at 2019 9:26 AM

CPO Paul Klein — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:26:10 -0500

I personally feel that the President did the right thing. We train our men to be fighters, and to protect their men at the same time. Taking out enemy combatants is our job. Chief Gallagher was found innocent, but because the prosecution lost, they went after him on a ridiculous charge. LT Lorence was being charged for ordering the killing of an incoming potentially dangerous person who refused to stop. MAJ Golsteyn took out a previously identified bomb maker. People who have never seen combat have no idea of the stress these men are under, but like most armchair quarterbacks, make decisions based on their feelings while safe in their offices.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Nov 19 at 2019 10:35 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:35:30 -0500

I think that anything that this President does is completely motivated by politics and trying to shore up votes.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Nov 19 at 2019 12:13 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:13:54 -0500

I have yet to deploy without JAG personnel. I have met a couple JAGOFFs with purple hearts, one with a bronze star with V. JAG goes to combat, even if they are very rarely in direct fire. But hell, neither was I, and I would not feel disqualified to he on any of those juries. A very very small percentage of the military is engaged in direct fire combat. The percentage is much higher in 11 and 18 series MOSs, but is STILL not 100%. I would wager it is below 50%, even for those MOSs (but I do not have actual statistics).

Pentagon Brass doesn't get to BE Pentagon Brass without putting in their combat time going up through the ranks. Show me a General with no Combat time. He'll show me a General without any time Commanding troops responsible for carrying out qartime missions while complying with ROE.

Your stance on the subject seems to be exceptionally biased, and I think you may have a problem with authority. You may want to fix that if you plan to do the Army thing for any serious length of time. I do not say this to be insulting or derogatory, I say it in a sincere hope to help you before you damage your career. If I have mischaracterized your attitude or sentiment based on your post, I apologize, but would then recommend you work on how you express your thoughts so as to remove charged words (such as pencil-pushing bureaucrats) and remain more neutral in your observations or inquiries.

Response by SGT David Petree made Nov 19 at 2019 1:27 PM

SGT David Petree — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:27:13 -0500

there is a lot of info that we will never see . before and after the court martial , that President Trump did get . he is the boss !!! it is his decision he decided !! like other presidents before him he pardoned someone . that we may or may not agree on . it`s his call not ours we were not there .

Response by SPC Burt Epps made Nov 19 at 2019 4:01 PM

SPC Burt Epps — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:01:35 -0500

Bergdahl walked. To me, his crimes were more of a blight on the military than these warriors. Trying to chain the dogs of war is akin to having weapons loaded with blanks. To reason that President Trump undermined the UCMJ, well, POTUS is the Commander in Chief and the top of the CoC. Sometimes the civilian justice system gets it wrong, sometimes the UCMJ proceedings get it wrong. Ultimately the choice fell to POTUS and I'm o.k. with his decisions for these warriors.

Response by SPC Todd Fitzgerald made Sep 26 at 2021 11:02 AM

SPC Todd Fitzgerald — Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:02:43 -0400

Clint Lorance was charged and convicted of a number of crimes over a three day period ranging from ordering harassment fire into an occupied village and threatening locals to the actual murder of two innocent men and obstruction of justice in attempting to lie about and covering up what happened. There was no threat indicated whatsoever to justify his actions, they were not driving towards any US positions, and they did not refuse orders to stop. They did, in fact, stop their vehicle (which was on a separate road) upon being initially fired on and were standing still when Lorance ordered the gun truck to open fire. That is murder. Also, there were no suicide bombers in that AO during that period of time. The charges weren't brought up by "some pencil pushing bureaucrats" trying "to ruin these guys lives", rather the crimes were immediately reported by the SOLDIERS PRESENT who all wrote sworn statements, none of which favored Clint or his version of events. Not only were all of the main witnesses the actual soldiers involved, but the panel of officers was decorated and included combat veterans and the JAG prosecutors including combat veterans (including one who deployed with Ranger battalion). Next time maybe do a smidge of research before coming out with an exceptionally bad take.