Posted on Nov 4, 2019
Fox News: Trump to take 'imminent action' in cases of Army officers Matt Golsteyn and Clint...
2.39K
90
29
9
9
0
Justice
UCMJ
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 14
8
8
0
We have a UCMJ for a reason with good order and discipline being maintained by the thought that it is evenly being applied to everyone. The facts are applied to law and a verdict is rendered by the appropriate panel. When someone reaches in and decides guilt or innocence outside of that panel applying facts to the law it brings into question the integrity of the whole system. Like any legal system, why should anyone respect it when it isn't evenly applied in a very obvious and public way?
(8)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Agreed. The last thing needed is civilian politics getting involved. UCMJ applies to everyone, regardless of their politics. Once that gets called into question...
(4)
(0)
6
6
0
"Lorance was sentenced to 20 years in prison for giving an order to kill two suspected Taliban militants while in Afghanistan in July 2012. Lorance believed the two militants to be scouts that were previously identified by a military pilot.
Golsteyn has been charged with premeditated murder and faces a court-martial in December for his admitted killing of a Taliban militant while in Afghanistan in February 2010. Golsteyn believed the militant to be a bomb maker responsible for killing several men in his unit."
So they executed enemy POWs? People who had either surrendered or been captured? Are we just supposed to be okay with that?
Golsteyn has been charged with premeditated murder and faces a court-martial in December for his admitted killing of a Taliban militant while in Afghanistan in February 2010. Golsteyn believed the militant to be a bomb maker responsible for killing several men in his unit."
So they executed enemy POWs? People who had either surrendered or been captured? Are we just supposed to be okay with that?
(6)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG Brian G. - Re: Lorance - So, going back through the news stories and information that came out in a Court Martial trial it looks like he ordered his men to engage a motorcycle with three Afghans on it. It was 600 feet away and would have been unable to get to him or his team, and there is no record that the men were armed. He was convicted in that Court Martial. Nine of his Soldiers testified against him. His convicted was reviewed and upheld by the 82nd Airborne Division CG. I'd be hard pressed to see what new info POTUS has that the CM and CG didn't.
Under what circumstances would you consider a Presidential pardon justified in his case (if any)?
Golsteyn is still being adjudicated.
Under what circumstances would you consider a Presidential pardon justified in his case (if any)?
Golsteyn is still being adjudicated.
(0)
(0)
SSG Brian G.
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Without reviewing the specifics of the case, it's hard to really say. 600 feet is not that great of a distance when talking about a moving vehicle. If Lorance somehow believed that the 3 were militant suicide bombers, I could see it, given that they are in an active war zone, it is a favored tactic and if the driver failed to stop when challenged.
Beyond that, there really is no reason that I would consider a pardon justified. In my mind there HAS to be some belief of imminent threat to life to warrant lethal force.
Beyond that, there really is no reason that I would consider a pardon justified. In my mind there HAS to be some belief of imminent threat to life to warrant lethal force.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG Brian G. I would consider a benefit of the doubt... If multiple Soldiers didn't testify that there wasn't any way for the motorcycle to get to them.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I'm less worried about a pardon for Lorance, I'd disagree with it, but at least a pardon is a normal presidential power and the integrity of the UCMJ will be preserved. Golsteyn is a whole different matter. If the POTUS reches in a stops the trial of Golsteyn and the UCMJ is usurped then that does damage to the integrity of UCMJ itself.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google