Link 1
Link 2
Over the past week, there has been controversy within the Pentagon, the Navy, and between them. President Trump decided to intervene with a handful of war-crime cases this week, including the case involving Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs. Gallagher was accused of killing civilians, killing a captive Islamic State fighter with a hunting knife while threatening to kill other SEALs who reported him. He was only convicted of bringing discredit to the armed forces by posing with a teenage captive's body. His punishment for this was that he was to be stripped of a "trident pin" which symbolizes status and therefore a demotion. President Trump decided to defend this SEAL and try to reverse this demotion. This action angered many Navy Officials, which included the commander of the SEALs. Mr. Trump defended himself by comparing his actions to be "less" than the actions of President Obama in defending "war criminals".
In order to strike a deal, a Navy Official who worked closely with the commander named Mr. Spencer held an unofficial meeting with White House officials. This caused the Defense Secretary, Mark Esper to lose confidence in Mr. Spenser which led to his firing as suggested by President Trump.
This case is set to be reviewed on December 2nd to determine if Mr. Gallagher can continue to hold his elite position.
10 comments:
Trump absolutely should not have intervened, as Gallagher is a clear-cut war criminal. Members of his own team testified against him, clearly illustrating how out of line his behavior was. Some members of his team even went so far as to tamper with the scope of his sniper rifle to prevent him from murdering more citizens. This kind of degeneracy has no place in any civil society, and it's an insult to the members of Gallagher's team that testified against him for the President to attempt to intervene.
While Trump clearly treats members of the U.S. military with reverence, I agree with Ryan in that certain cases, such as Gallagher, should not be defended. Gallagher is clearly not conducting himself in a way that should be endorsed. He should not be allowed to commit war crimes and suffer no consequences. As commander in chief, Trump has formal power over the military, but he should not have control over how its members are disciplined for infractions. As for the examples Trump gave under the Obama administration, such as Chelsea Manning (who served 7 years before she was commuted, not pardoned), and Bowe Bergdahl (who deserted but had already lived for 5 years as a Taliban prisoner before returning to the army), both people had much more severe punishment than Gallagher.
I agree with Ryan and Nick because the President should not have defended a war criminal like that. If there are multiple witnesses and reports of the incident, it should be clear to everyone that her was not being wrongly accused. The President is someone whom people in the US look up to and to defend a criminal like this, even it is trying to show patriotism is wrong. People will start to believe it is ok to stick up for and defend criminals and this type of behavior may cascade onto the public. For the Obama issue, it is incorrect to justify what you did with a wrong someone else committed. They both are wrong and neither one is justifiable.
I agree that Trump should not have defended Gallagher, as his actions were inexcusable. There should be no reason why Gallagher does not receive punishment, as the accounts from his team illustrate the various crimes he committed. I think that Trump should also take responsibility for his decision, instead of using Obama's wrongdoings as an excuse. As the president of the United States, Trump is supposed to set an example of a leader, and therefore should have valid reasoning behind his decisions.
I think that it is very irresponsible of Trump to stick up for someone who is clearly a war criminal and it is unfair that Secretary Spencer was fired over his belief that Gallagher should be punished for his crimes. Although Trump is technically Commander in Chief which gives him power over the Navy, his actions are disrespectful towards Navy officials as he is demonstrating that he has no regard for their rules. Gallagher shouldn’t be let off without punishment, as Trump is insisting, because it is important that Navy SEALs be held responsible for their actions. By not punishing Gallagher, it would send a message to others in the armed forces that they can get away with unacceptable behavior without receiving any consequences. I also agree that Obama’s instances of leniency in the past should not be used as an excuse to justify Trump’s current actions.
I believe that Trump should not have intervene with such a war criminal. Gallagher's punishment to be stripped from his status also worries me because killing civilians should result in much more serious consequences. I see no justifiable reason for Gallagher to not receive any punishment as his actions illustrates a serious war crime. I agree with Ava in the sense that Trump should not have used Obama has an excuse. Since Trump is the President of the United States, he is supposed to demonstrate what the correct thing to do in this situation is and to own up for the mistake he made in his decision.
Unlike most of those pardoned by president Obama, Eddie Gallagher has committed gross violations of (non-military) criminal law. Gallagher's murder of noncombatants is a punishable offense under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits violence against noncombatants in non-international armed conflicts (it's worth noting that the United States is, surprisingly, not a signatory to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, but the weight of murder as a crime is effectively the same under our Uniform Code of Military Justice). Pardoning a war criminal like Gallagher is a desecration of the rules of war and of the image of our armed forces, and I believe that the president's power to pardon as commander-in-chief shouldn't apply here, as Gallagher's crimes are a matter of justice, rather than the administration of the armed forces.
It pretty frustrating to hear that our president is trying to defend these immoral actions. Officer Edward Gallagher was also given a very lenient punishment and should have investigated for his other reports like the reports. He does not possess the qualities of a SEAL if he is causing this much trouble and should be given a more significant punishment. President Trump should also not defend his actions because it reflects on him as well and he should know that these actions are unacceptable especially when it is someone with a high position like Gallagher.
I think this is another example of abuse of executive power. In agreement with other comments, Officer Gallagher is a war-criminal. Trump simply should not be intervening and pardoning and bargaining about his punishment. This situation should be out of his jurisdiction and his involvement in it, including the authority to decide the officers punishment. This isn't a presidential power and therefore, Trump should have no say over it. It's misuse of presidential power. As simple as that. In addition, even if this kind of intimate authority over the military was under the umbrella of presidential power, Trump should not have had such a light punishment for Officer Gallagher. Officer Gallagher is not the kind of person we want representing our country, considering his lewd acts, and seeing our president defend him doesn't send out a good message.
I don't think that Trump should have intervened in this case. While the President holds the power over the military and to pardon, Gallagher is an obvious war criminal and does not deserve to be pardoned. His punishment was already not as severe as it maybe should have been and by intervening in order to support him, Trump sends a message that supports such immoral behavior. Trying to intervene with how the military should rightly discipline its officers is a misuse of power and shows how the presidency is just too powerful at times.
Post a Comment