User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

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

  1. #11
    Original Ranter
    Points: 538,689, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 71.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428751
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    161,309
    Points
    538,689
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    95,067
    Thanked 79,731x in 53,786 Posts
    Mentioned
    2236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    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?
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  2. #12
    Original Ranter
    Points: 538,689, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 71.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428751
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    161,309
    Points
    538,689
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    95,067
    Thanked 79,731x in 53,786 Posts
    Mentioned
    2236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    I didn't knw that was illegal. How long has that been the case?
    Part of the Geneva Conventions.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Mister D (11-16-2019)

  4. #13
    Original Ranter
    Points: 228,675, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 64.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397464
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    91,637
    Points
    228,675
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    18,224
    Thanked 34,407x in 24,395 Posts
    Mentioned
    924 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Part of the Geneva Conventions.
    Oh, wow. It's relatively old.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  5. #14
    Original Ranter
    Points: 538,689, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 71.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428751
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    161,309
    Points
    538,689
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    95,067
    Thanked 79,731x in 53,786 Posts
    Mentioned
    2236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    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.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  6. #15
    Original Ranter
    Points: 228,675, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 64.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397464
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    91,637
    Points
    228,675
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    18,224
    Thanked 34,407x in 24,395 Posts
    Mentioned
    924 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    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.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mister D For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-16-2019),Toober (11-16-2019)

  8. #16
    Points: 41,265, Level: 49
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 585
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181213
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18,189
    Points
    41,265
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    16
    Thanked 12,898x in 8,029 Posts
    Mentioned
    191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    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.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    BenjaminO (11-17-2019),Green Arrow (11-16-2019),Standing Wolf (11-16-2019)

  10. #17
    Original Ranter
    Points: 538,689, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 71.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428751
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    161,309
    Points
    538,689
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    95,067
    Thanked 79,731x in 53,786 Posts
    Mentioned
    2236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    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.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  11. #18
    Points: 41,265, Level: 49
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 585
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181213
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18,189
    Points
    41,265
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    16
    Thanked 12,898x in 8,029 Posts
    Mentioned
    191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    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.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    BenjaminO (11-17-2019)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO