Executive Grant of Clemency (Full Pardon) for Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance

[Peter1469]

I don't care about him posing for a picture. It is stupid and classless, but in reality, pretty much harmless.

I care about him murdering a wounded prisoner and getting away with it. That is exactly what he did. The Navy and now the President, let themselves be played by that disgusting subhuman pile of dung.

When he did what he did, The other Americans present should have just gut shot him and left him for the locals.

I don't care about terrorist scum.

Why do you?

[Peter1469]

I didn't knw that was illegal. How long has that been the case?

Part of the Geneva Conventions.

[Mister D]

Part of the Geneva Conventions.

Oh, wow. It's relatively old.

[Peter1469]

Oh, wow. It's relatively old.

Yes. I did countless law of war briefings. I told everyone to never post anything on the net. But they paid as much attention as I did to law of war briefs prior to our ground assault into Iraq in 1992.

[Mister D]

Yes. I did countless law of war briefings. I told everyone to never post anything on the net. But they paid as much attention as I did to law of war briefs prior to our ground assault into Iraq in 1992.

I can see taking a pic and smuggling it home. Not to be morbid but I can understand that. Posting it on the net means you're a $#@!ing idiot.

[Cletus]

I don't care about terrorist scum.

Why do you?

I find it difficult to believe you actually asked me that question.

Let me break this down for you. I don't care about "terrorist scum". I do however care about the integrity and the honor of the United States and her military. We have laws regarding the conduct of US personnel in combat. One of those laws says you don't murder "out of combat" prisoners. We don't shoot them. We don't stab them in the neck (Gallagher). We don't beat them and we don't starve them. When we take custody of them, their safety becomes OUR responsibility.

I am sure you know why those laws exist. Hint... It has nothing to do with "caring about terrorist scum". It actually has a lot to do with not becoming terrorist scum.

Gallagher violated his oath. He murdered a wounded, out of combat prisoner. It doesn't matter what that prisoner had done. It doesn't matter what the conditions were of his capture. It wouldn't matter if he had killed Gallagher's wife and raped his dog. Once he became a prisoner Gallagher had a sacred duty to safeguard him. He didn't just not safeguard him. He murdered him.

There is no excuse for that. There is no defense. Gallagher is a disgrace to the Navy, the Special Operations Community, and the United States of America.

He should have been hanged in country, right where the incident occurred, as an example.

[Peter1469]

I find it difficult to believe you actually asked me that question.

Let me break this down for you. I don't care about "terrorist scum". I do however care about the integrity and the honor of the United States and her military. We have laws regarding the conduct of US personnel in combat. One of those laws says you don't murder "out of combat" prisoners. We don't shoot them. We don't stab them in the neck (Gallagher). We don't beat them and we don't starve them. When we take custody of them, their safety becomes OUR responsibility.

I am sure you know why those laws exist. Hint... It has nothing to do with "caring about terrorist scum". It actually has a lot to do with not becoming terrorist scum.

Gallagher violated his oath. He murdered a wounded, out of combat prisoner. It doesn't matter what that prisoner had done. It doesn't matter what the conditions were of his capture. It wouldn't matter if he had killed Gallagher's wife and raped his dog. Once he became a prisoner Gallagher had a sacred duty to safeguard him. He didn't just not safeguard him. He murdered him.

There is no excuse for that. There is no defense. Gallagher is a disgrace to the Navy, the Special Operations Community, and the United States of America.

He should have been hanged in country, right where the incident occurred, as an example.

It does not appear that he did. The trial transcript disagrees with you. Two witnesses verify that. A team member, and an Iraqi General. Why do you insist to ignore them?

And when we fight animals, our men are going to respond in kind.

It is the young Seals who skated through Buds and tried to frame their chief who shame the Seal community.

[Cletus]

It does not appear that he did. The trial transcript disagrees with you. Two witnesses verify that. A team member, and an Iraqi General. Why do you insist to ignore them?

The transcript does not disagree with me, Pete. Your selective reading of it disagrees with me.

The transcript says that Scott, the medic who "confessed" to killing the prisoner (after being granted immunity) testified that Gallagher stabbed the prisoner in the neck. He said the prisoner however, did not die directly as a result of the neck wound, but because Scott pinched off his air as an "act of mercy".

The Iraqi General's testimony isn't worth $#@!. The medic who was working on the prisoner testified the prisoner had a neck wound inflicted by Scott with a knife AFTER he was taken into custody and was being treated for other wounds.

Nobody "skates" through BUDS. Gallagher's fellow SEALs testified that Gallagher was out of control and on more than one occasion had opened fire on civilians. They had nothing to gain by that testimony. In fact, they had a great deal to lose.

Gallagher murdered an out of combat, wounded prisoner. He got away with it, much to the shame of this nation.