And when people scratch their heads and ask what drives terrorism, we can recall the voice of GWB: They hate us because of our freedom. Our freedom to murder little girls.
Yes. Trump’s decision will put members of the US military in danger. That’s a given.
But, hey, as long as it provides a distraction from all that bad news about his dealings with Deutsche Bank and about that GOP Congressman denouncing him, that’s all that matters, right?
Pardon also carries with it implicit guilt. To accept a pardon, one must first be guilty of something that requires a pardon.
I think the deeper purpose is to create hyper-partisan polarization. He assumes that pardoning war criminals will excite the more blood-lusting among his base, and maybe he’s right. Most veterans I know differentiate between “shit that happens” on the battlefield and cold-blooded murderers, wanting civilians to understand the first type but having contempt for the latter.
I’ve never been able to take that seriously.
Let’s say I’m accused of a crime; and, being innocent, I of course plead not guilty. Possibly I testify, under oath, that I am not guilty. If, while still correctly pointing out that I’m not guilty, I wind up sentenced to death, then — what?
I figure I’d keep noting, each day, that I’m innocent; and, were I offered a pardon, I figure I’d have a choice: accept it, honestly and explicitly proclaiming my innocence that day just like I’d been saying and just like I’d keep saying for the rest of my life; or, uh, turn down that pardon, and remain behind bars (like various guilty folks do) until I get executed (like various guilty folks do)?
If I’m wrong, then provide me with another option; but if I’m correctly summing up your position, then which of those choices would you advise me to go with?
Speaking strictly in legal terms, I would accept implicit guilt and then get my ass out of jail, if that’s what it took. You can always maintain your innocence later.
I’m talking about the specific situation that was mentioned in the thread. D’Anconia mentioned that they were merely accused of war crimes, as if that lessens the impact of the pardons. In reality I think it’s mostly a bullshit exercise. There probably is at least some evidence of war crimes having been committed.
All apologies, but you’re sidestepping what strikes me as the whole point: I’m not just talking about maintaining one’s innocence later, but about explicitly stating it when accepting the pardon. (Heck, make it explicit on both sides, if you like: since I’m the one writing this story, let me now cast myself as Governor or even President; and let me now say that I’m explicitly saying I’m offering the guy a pardon because I’ve come to believe that he’s innocent — and that said guy explicitly maintains his innocence right as he accepts. What’s left implicit if that’s all explicit?)
That said, you just suggested something that I don’t recall thinking of before: that, in the death-penalty scenario I’m proposing, the following seems ‘implicit’: “we’re going to kill you unless you accept this pardon.” If a guy accepts that pardon while, again, explicitly stating that he’s innocent, then — well, okay, sure, add something implicit to what just got made explicit; but it doesn’t strike me as implicit guilt.
The defense that they are merely accused is absurd. A pardon is given when you believe a convicted person is innocent, or the punishment is disproportionate to the crime, or that you believe the person did nothing wrong. This is obviously the latter.
This is in keeping with the theme of the administration. Caucasian Christian Americans are the only people whose rights have any meaning. It’s perfectly okay to rip a nursing child from his mother and throw him in a cage because, hey they’re from Central America and not quite human. It’s okay to shoot Muslim children for no reason because after all Muslims have no rights. It’s what he believes to the core of his being and it’s what makes his supporters giddy with delight. They all love to see “other” people suffer and die and they love this monster because he hates the same people they do.
He may use his authority to void the proceedings, effectively “pardoning” the alleged monster. He would have the helpfui expertise of Sen. Graham, who has an extensive background in military law procedures, if Sen Graham wishes to surrender the last scrap of his dignity and integrity.
He has any left?
So why should Trump pardon them before the trial? Like, if they aren’t war criminals, then they could have a trial and be found not guilty? You’ve heard of trials before, right?
Good lord, that guy is an out and out pscho! I had only heard about the incident with the POW, not the rest of this shit. That guy single-handed did more harm to our anti-terrorism effort that any 10 random ISIS fighters. Don’t they have psychological screening for Seals? I’m starting to think that Alice’s restaurant wasn’t an exaggeration.
I thought SEALs were supposed to be smart, not just KILL KILL KILL machines? Why didn’t some other SEAL frag this guy, for the good of the service?
And don’t say because they are honorable. Letting this guy get away with what he did is already dishonorable.
Which is why they’re not letting him get away with it, and testifying against him.
Or at least, trying to not let him get away with it.
Yes, but now that Michael Cohen is in prison it’ll be tougher to organize the payments afterwards.
In the words of Generation Kill (which if you haven’t watched, you should absolutely watch), about a guy who shot civilians and camels during an op :
- You know what’s even more fucked up ? Trombley only fired two bursts, maybe seven rounds. I mean, we’re bumpind down a dirt road, his targets are like, two hundred meters out and he hits **exactly **what the fuck he’s shooting at ?! I mean, fuck, man. The boy is a cold-hearted, deadeye killer.
- Yeah no shit. That’s 'cause he’s a psycho. But at least he’s our psycho.
Yes. That would be the least.
From Hechinger’s Twitter thread:
He is spot on.
This is exactly what Trump is doing. Whether he is consciously aware of the implications or not, I don’t know, as he tends to operate impulsively. It’s probably just his instincts. Trump’s instincts gravitate toward the psychological quandrant of dominance over his enemies.
Trump’s pardoning of this vicious and ruthless killer is a signal to his political enemies, that he has it in him to be nasty as hell, that he sides with people who lack humanity. This is also something that can undermine and disrupt the professional culture of the military. It encourages lawlessness and hyper-polarization in the military, which is extraordinarily dangerous. Because it also fits into Trump’s pattern of authoritarian behavior, rewarding vicious people in exchange for their loyalty.
This is why he is loved by his deplorables. Trump is useful to them. Trump liberates them from having to have any sense of humanity and respect for dignity. Trump gives them the liberty to be awful. Expect this to continue, and expect it to get worse.
I’d say, “Surely, this is the kind of thing even the most insane Trump supporter can’t defend”… And, I’ve mostly been right. The closest we’ve been getting are lukewarm takes like this:
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1130215675979599873
And let’s be clear - this is a shit take, from a shit human being (general rule of thumb: if you write for The Federalist, you’re the kind of person who deserves less to be working in journalism and more to be a victim of a workplace massacre); the people who turned Gallagher in were his own squadmates. But it’s hardly a full-throated “MAGA!” defense. They at least have the self-awareness to realize that pardoning a guy known primarily for being a racist serial killer might be a bad look, and to throw out excuses for why the criticisms might not count. Pathetic, stupid excuses, but they’re not exactly saying “Trump is totally right”, which is a step up in self-awareness from these assholes.
But wait, lest the tone of the national conversation waver, there’s Fox News, showing the self-awareness of a particularly dim sack of frog spawn. Speaking of a group of people who really ought to quit their current jobs and start a shotgun-tasting company for the good of mankind, Fox News demonstrably has the ear of our president, and they’ve been arguing that Gallagher was treated unfairly. One Fox & Friends host has been privately lobbying Trump to pardon this monster. Seems a waste of time, honestly - he could do it publicly and Trump would get the memo. The actual case being made? I dunno, what do you think - are these people utterly ignorant of what Gallagher did and chose to take to the air to defend him before bothering to find out (for four fucking months)? Or do they really not have a problem with soldiers gutting prisoners of war and sniping indiscriminately at non-combatant children? They work at fox news (and thus are inherently fucking terrible people), so it wouldn’t surprise me either way.
If you’re a human being, this man’s actions should shock and disturb you.
If they don’t… well, congrats on being outed as a fucking body snatcher.
So there is a silver lining.