Posted on May 19, 2019
Should Trump pardon those accused of war crimes and murders?
3.19K
62
22
7
7
0
According to this story, Trump is planning to pardon servicemembers and a Blackwater guy accused or convicted of murdering civilians. Should he do this, or is it subversive to military and civilian justice and training on laws of war and common morality?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
The missing third option to review these cases on a case by case basis and in those situations where the service members were trying to protect the lives of their troops, I think we need to reassess whether the Justice System failed the service members. And in some cases, it's pretty obvious it did. There were a lot of things that didn't go as they should during the Obama Administration where people did things and literally got away with murder, and people were accused of murder and wrongdoing that were doing what was necessary to save the lives of their troops. I would like to see justice served for what went down at Benghazi and the Obama Administration officials responsible for making the decision to ruin the career of General Ham for putting together a rescue mission be held to account.
(6)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
I agree that anything on the level of a Presidential Pardon, essentially the most powerful and unilateral method of relief in the land needs to be used carefully and on a case by case basis.
(2)
(0)
No pardon if military members are found guilty. Not the Blackwater guys, they were trigger happy.
(4)
(0)
This is one of those tricky "no right answer" questions. A blanket pardon for all? No. That is just outrageously stupid. A pardon for some? Perhaps. A pardon is a powerful thing and should not be used like a politician handing out 'vote for me' flyers. It should be used judiciously and after careful review and thought.
Each case needs to be reviewed and weighed and circumstances looked at carefully. A fair amount of times things that are important cannot be admitted into a trial that might have had an impact on the outcome. At the same time one has to look at the process. What does this say to everyone that views it and comes after and sees a President that pardons a person convicted by a jury of their peers, based on evidence?
The rule of law must mean something or it means nothing and all and we may as well just do away with it altogether as it just takes up space on lawyers bookshelves and we could better use those bodies elsewhere. We are a society of laws and accountability. A person murders someone, should a president really commute or pardon them? He has the power to do so but having the power and using it are different things.
Each case needs to be reviewed and weighed and circumstances looked at carefully. A fair amount of times things that are important cannot be admitted into a trial that might have had an impact on the outcome. At the same time one has to look at the process. What does this say to everyone that views it and comes after and sees a President that pardons a person convicted by a jury of their peers, based on evidence?
The rule of law must mean something or it means nothing and all and we may as well just do away with it altogether as it just takes up space on lawyers bookshelves and we could better use those bodies elsewhere. We are a society of laws and accountability. A person murders someone, should a president really commute or pardon them? He has the power to do so but having the power and using it are different things.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next