OK, I’ll bite. How is any of that in any way a good thing?
He doesn’t like American military adventurism so less convenient foreign bases to launch those adventures is a good thing.
Non-Americans may share that opinion.
One prominent candidate is set to stand trial and is, therefore, “accused”. Others have already been convicted of heinous crimes. They are war criminals.
I think his final pardon is going to be more controversial.
If I were in Trump’s position, this wouldn’t be the last psychopath I would pardon, but the first. Think about it: he could create his own army of warriors who don’t respect the rule of law. They would owe him their allegiance for setting them free, and he would need them to do dirty work to crush his enemies, with knowledge in advance that they’d probably be pardoned. Trump can (and probably will) weaponize his pardon powers. He could even use them to assassinate his enemies, because…pardon.
This is a warning for stating that an individual or group is deserving of harm. This isn’t even close to the line.
[/moderating]
It doesn’t make sense to pardon someone who has yet to be convicted. I reserve my moral judgements about pardoning war criminals until after they are convicted as war criminals.
I haven’t looked at the details for Mr. Behenna, but the moral outrage just can’t be there as he had already served ten out of fifteen years, with the latest five years out on parole.
~Max
That didn’t stop Ford.
That’s a good point. I will have to think about that.
~Max
This thread reminds me that something very similar is going on in the UK right now. In particular, the government is promising a general amnesty for British soldiers accused of any war crimes committed abroad more than ten years ago. As in the US, this announcement has prompted public outrage, at least from some quarters. Now both May (or Johnson, or whoever her successor will be) and Trump will be able to excuse their actions by pointing fingers at each other and saying, “Well look, they’re doing it too so it much be OK!”