Former Navy SEAL Rep. Dan Crenshaw Calls for War Crimes Trial Before Any Trump Pardon

[highplainsdem]

Source: Mediaite

Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) — a former Navy SEAL — told National Review in a statement that he would oppose President Donald Trump issuing a pardon to a Navy SEAL charged with murdering an Iraqi prisoner war before the accused’s war crimes trial could take place.

“These cases should be decided by the courts, where the entirety of the evidence can be viewed. Only after that should a pardon be considered,” Crenshaw told the conservative magazine in a written statement. The war crimes trial of Chief Edward Gallagher is set to begin on May 28, but a recent report in the New York Times suggested that Trump was eager to pardon Gallagher, and other military members either already convicted of or facing charges of war crimes, on this Memorial Day, May 27.

Gallagher was turned in by seven other member of his SEAL team for the alleged murder of a Iraqi who was a suspected member of Al Qaeda. Gallagher has admitted to shooting and killing the man, but says it was in self-defense after the man grabbed his weapon during an interrogation. His fellow SEAL members have also testified that Gallagher gunned down a random Iraqi girl and killed another suspected terrorist in custody by stabbing him with a knife.

-snip-

Marine veteran and Democratic presidential hopeful Seth Moulton also weighed in against the pardon at a campaign event, saying: “Through all the tragedies of that war, for all the hard days that we had, we never lost our values,” Moulton said. “[Trump] doesn’t get that because he never had to uphold American values when he was being shot at. But a lot of veterans have.”

-snip-

Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/former-navy-seal-rep-dan-crenshaw-calls-for-war-crimes-trial-before-any-trump-pardon/

[JI7]

1. usually can't stand Crenshaw. but im glad he is speaking out in this

maybe those who actually served will be more opposed to this since it would taint their own service and honor.

[Leghorn21]

2. Well well. Thanks Rep Crenshaw.

Seriously.

[irisblue]

3. Crenshaw is right.

[Siwsan]

4. First Amash. Now Crenshaw. Is this the beginning of a drip, drip, drip situation?

Because, again, just as I hope for a GOP cannibalistic feeding frenzy, I'd equally love a drip, drip, drip type of erosion of support.

[Calista241]

25. I doubt it, Crenshaw lips are permanently affixed to Trump's ass on 99% of issues.

The fact that Crenshaw probably knows Edward Gallagher, and is fully aware of the specifics of the case, probably colors his opinion on this subject.

[rpannier]

5. They need amend the ability to pardon to after sentencing

Not before trial, or during trial, or after a conviction.
After sentence has been handed down only

[saidsimplesimon]

6. My favourite brother was a Marine.

May he rest in peace.

[madashelltoo]

7. Dirty Don thinks he's

Seducing the military. He wants them to think he has their backs even when they are wrong. What he’s too stupid to grasp is that what they get away with doing to our adversary prisoners of war will inspire our adversaries to do likewise or worse to our service men and women when they’re captured. Only an idiot who has never served would not consider that.

[dchill]

26. Mostly, but also he's a really cruel asshole.

[calguy]

8. Pardoning war criminals will not sit well with the military

[TomSlick]

9. No, it will not.

The military will not be pleased with Cadet Bonespurs interfering with good order and discipline.

The difference between a military and an armed mob is discipline and obedience to legal norms. We can debate later whether a pardon or other clemency should issue after the court-martial process runs its course. For Trump to interfere now and snatch the case away from the system is a slap at the commander who referred the case to court-martial.

The role of the commander is the most fundamental difference between the court-martial and civilian court systems. A case can go to a general court-martial only if referred by a general court-martial convening authority - usually the first flag officer (general or admiral) in the chain of command. For any President to take a case away from the convening authority is an insult to his or her position.

[RHMerriman]

10. It's the difference between Hugh Thompson and Rusty Calley...

It's the difference between Hugh Thompson and Rusty Calley...

Thompson and his crew were recognized with the Soldier's Medal, and are cited to this day as exemplary soldiers and men; Calley was court-martialled, convicted, dismissed from the Army, and sentenced to life imprisonment ...

[susanna]

17. What is important about the military justice system

is that the jurors are members of the armed forces, if I understand it correctly (please correct me if I am wrong).

This simple fact lends weight to the verdict, in that they are being judged by their own military peers. They are being judged by people who have also been placed in horrific situations and have an insight to the mindset of combat.

A pardon before trial is a slap in the face to those who have served honorably in the toughest situations imaginable. More so, because this particular SEAL was recommended for censure and trial by his own fellow SEALs. Seven of them, in fact.

I do agree that the idea of a pardon is an absolute insult to the military justice system; the military are not always perfect, but I believe they understand best the circumstances which bring such service members to trial. I also believe they are best suited to adjudicate these cases because of that understanding.

[TomSlick]

22. I think we agree on all points.

Let me start by giving the basis of my opinions. I have been a lawyer for thirty-five years - twenty-seven of which as an Army Judge Advocate. I have prosecuted in courts-martial and represented soldiers on appeal from courts-martial. I have advised commanders on their roll under the UCMJ. I have also taught numerous classes on the law of war and promised soldiers that if they killed a civilian without cause, they would be tried for murder.

Now your points:

The court - the people sitting in the jury box - are all service members. They are all at least equal in rank to the accused. An accused who is enlisted can demand enlisted members on the court.

I agree that the members of the court being military adds weight to the verdict. They are all familiar with the military environment.

I agree that a pardon before trial dishonors the military justice system. It is also a personal insult to the convening authority - usually, the first flag officer in the chain of command - who orders the case to be tried.

I agree that a pardon, especially one before trial, is a slap at all who have honorably served. It is, moreover, a slap at the very foundation of military good order and discipline. I would expect that Seals would take umbrage at any of their peers who murdered civilians as fouling the reputation of special operators in particular and all service members in general.

I agree that the military justice system is not without fault - all systems have their faults. If I was a member of Congress, there are some tweaks around the edges that I would make to the UCMJ. That said, I have a much higher level of confidence in the fairness of a trial by court-martial than I do in the civilian trials in which I have participated.

I also agree that these charges can be best tried by court-martial.

Come to think of it, I'm sure we agree on all points.

[susanna]

23. Thank you very much for your response, TomSlick.

I am a police brat in real life (my father was a former MP, Army, Vietnam). So I am older, not sure if that matters.

My Dad went on to be a civilian police officer and homicide detective. He made clear to me about the rights of the accused, civilian or military.

I will admit I was worried I was wrong about my assessments in my post because I have always been a civilian.

It was kind of you to respond and to assess my reasoning real time; I want to understand what is happening here. I am glad I am not too far off the mark.

[TomSlick]

24. No problem.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my long ago experience. Old soldiers and all.

[True Blue American]

28. Thank you!

You stated what I was thinking. The average Military are very Honorable about their actions. Have a strict code of Law. This will not please them with this disgraceful action.

Honestly at this point Trump needs to worry about his own pardon. The walls are cosing in after his,” I am not a crook moment. It still took another year to get rid of Nixon.

[bitterross]

11. SEVEN members do not report you for NO reason.

I object to the phrase "turned on." It implies some sort of conspiracy to do harm on the part of the team members who simply decided to uphold the law.

But, I also see why a person from that sort of military background used that phrasing. Any lack of complete obedience is "turning on" a superior rank I guess.

[hedda_foil]

15. It says "turned him in," NOT "turned on him."

[Tiggeroshii]

12. They are falling like slow moving dominoes in opposition to this idiot.

I sense Dan Crenshaw is next in line after Justin Amash.

[YOHABLO]

13. I would suspect this move to pardon is playing well to his (T's) base. The freaks.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

14. SUBPOENA HIM THEN

Congress can hold hearings. They can bring the war criminal and his team members (who accused the criminal and testified against him) in to testify.

[susanna]

16. Not a fan of Rep. Crenshaw in general, but recognize and applaud

his willingness to speak up here.

Pardons without USMJ trials will destroy the military's long-standing understanding of rules of engagement. On one side will be the honorable servicepersons, on the other, the "anything goes" types; and it will devolve the institution beyond recognition and set them against one another, leading to a less stable and reactive fighting force.

On this rare occasion, I will agree with Representative Crenshaw. He is right about this.

[JohnnyRingo]

18. Pardons before a trial takes place sets a bad precedent.

Imagine if Kushner gets arrested for laundering money, or if someone gets locked up for contempt of Congress. Would Trump just raise his almighty presidential hand and declare: "Pardoned! Call off the trial."?

I didn't think it worked that way.

[Paladin]

19. Good. (nt)

[Rambling Man]

20. what's the saying about broken clocks?

apply that here.

[susanr516]

27. I was just about to say that

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Bayard]

21. That's just stupid

For all of tRump's omnipotent powers, he can't tell what the outcome of a trial would be. Not likely, but if this man were not convicted, 45 looks more like a fool than ever.

Couple of generals interviewed on MSNBC the past few days are just aghast and pissed off about this.

[Achilleaze]

29. Should a five-time republican draft dodger be able to pardon a war criminal?

republicans show no honor in these serious matters, or any other matters. A party without honor. Sad.