Hopefully this will generate educational debate. Sure seems like a pardon is a good thing on the surface. What piqued my curiosity on this was how were these two guys convicted of murder in the first place? I have no idea how the military trial system works, etc. In the case where the guy killed a Afghan bomb maker that sure seems like the right call to prevent future American and ally deaths. Why did the military consider that murder? Simply because he was unarmed? I just don't get it unless the military is extremely black and white on rules of engagement. But, is there no common sense and logic involved? Mitigating factors? Somebody who knows the military mindset and background on cases such as these please chime in.
Sometimes the military goes overboard (My Lai). sometimes politically driven attempts to make war seem civil ends up with absurd situations. IMHO, don't send in the military unless you send them gloves off with the highest probability that our troops will come home.
Perhaps I am confusing the cases, but from my understanding the bomb maker was attempting to grab the soldiers weapon during an interrogation. Clear case of self defense that was backed up by the translator. The entire case was more than likely politically driven but to what ends I do not know. To echo what Acree said, outside of the Geneva Conventions, there should be no rules attached. You don't win a war by being a police state, you win a war by sending in the hardest hitting bitches on the planet and let them go to work. Anything less, what's the point?
The fact that there’s such a thing as the Geneva Convention has always been something I shake my head at. War is war, period.
To an extent, maybe. But the treatment that the Japanese gave POWs during WWII is reason enough for me to support the concept. Their, and German treatment of some civilian populations is yet another.
Like everyone else has said. Politics. Optics. Unleash hell's fury on your enemy and let the crows have what's left. War isn't for the faint of heart and not to be engaged in capriciously. Sadly the mealy-mouthed maroon who put our boots on the ground in the sandbox of shit and his big eared follow-up act were hard pressed to strategize a game of checkers...
It's politics. There has been a push to charge our spec-ops guys with warcrimes at every hint of an opportunity. It's pretty disgusting really. Plenty of people in the know have written about the agenda, just google search it and you should find all the info.
And in Afgani the Geneva Conventions have a section on irregulars and those who are not participants. No protection I think is a good summation.
I think the Golsteyn pardon is warranted - he saved lives by killing the bomb maker. The Gallagher one on the other hand, if the stories are true that guy might have snapped.
I hear what you all are saying. But, besides simply saying it's politics or optics how can the military legally justify charging the soldier who took out the Afghan bomber with murder? I guess I was hoping somebody in here who is closer to the issue weigh in. Seems like the soldier should get a medal versus being locked up. Makes zero sense.
IDK. There's got to be some pretty smart people high up. I'm sure not all, but some. Same thing in corporate America.