Then-National Security Council Director for European Affairs Alexander Vindman arrives for a closed-door deposition at the US Capitol on October 29, 2019. (Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

The progressive socialist left, along with their media accomplices, have gone into another apoplectic unhinged rage. I know, what else is new?

This time it is all about the dismissal of one US Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. LTC Vindman has now risen to the dubious acclaim of being referred to as a hero.

In the fall of 2018, here in Texas, there had to be an emergency session of the Texas State Board of Education because some leftists wanted to remove the term heroic from Texas state history curriculum in reference to the defenders of the Alamo. The left in America is well known for their hypocrisy, and it becomes very evident when it comes to their definition of hero.

It was not too long ago when the Obama administration National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, referred to one Bowe Bergdahl as someone who had served with honor and distinction. We were supposed to believe that Army SPC Bergdahl was some heroic figure who had been captured by the Talban and held captive for some years.

Any of us who have been in the engaged in combat operations with Islamic jihadists know one thingthey do not keep our troops captive. As the truth about Bergdahl began to emerge, it turned out he had committed the ultimate crime in a combat zone -- he deserted his post. Yes, Bowe Bergdahl decided to leave his gear and abandoned his unit.

As standard operating procedure dictates, there was a rescue operation commenced. Other soldiers put their lives on the line because we live by a simple code, creed, leave no man behind. Except in this case, the man wanted to be left.

Watch:

In a very questionable action, President Barack Obama made the unilateral decision to release five senior Taliban leaders in exchange for Bergdahl. And Bergdahl did not look the worse for wear when released after his so-called captivity. The Taliban got senior leaders back, and we got a deserter.

Bergdahl was never punished for committing that despicable crime, to which he plead guilty. An Army judge ruled that his captivity with the Taliban had been punishment enough, and he was released. A sad day, when you consider the soldiers who were killed and wounded searching for Bergdahl.

However, since the Obama administration has wrongly characterized him a hero, they could not suffer the egg upon their faces. I am quite sure there was some undue command influence in the case of Bergdahl, who is a free mana hero to the progressive socialist left.

Likewise, US Army Private Bradley Manning also committed one of the most heinous crimes, divulging classified information from a combat zone. Manning was charged, tried, convicted, sentencedand then released.

Yes, Manning was released because he became a hero to the progressive socialist left, all because he suffered from gender dysphoria. Just so everyone is clear, the crimes of Bergdahl, desertion, and Manning, treason, are, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), punishable by death.

Bradley Manning instead was featured on magazine covers and even ran for US Senate, yes, as a Democrat. These are the types of heroes that the left likes to celebrate, which brings us to the case of LTC Alexander Vindman.

LTC Vindman is still an active duty soldier, meaning he is held to a higher standard of justice, the UCMJ. The actions of LTC Vindman are not in keeping with the good order and discipline expected of our men and women serving in uniform. It is well known that LTC Vindman acted outside of his chain of command and truthfully, displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer.

And yes, that is a charge that could be levied against him under the UCMJ. Of course, the progressive socialist left sees LTC Vindman as a hero because he did their bidding. If any military officer had conducted themselves as LTC Vindman did during the reign of Barack Obama as commander in chief, he would have been declared treacherous, traitorous, and treasonous.

It is widely known that Obama fired quite a few senior military officers that did not tow his line. And there was not a peep from the left or the liberal progressive media. The actions of LTC Vindman, if done under the Obama administration would have been termed rogue and the demands would have been for his firing.

LTC Vindman may have served admirably on the battlefield and even earned a Purple Heart. Then again, Benedict Arnold was a revered military leader until he was angered and turned against the cause for which he had fought.

LTC Vindman served in the National Security Council at the behest of the President. LTC Vindman has proven that he no longer has the trust and confidence of the commander in chief, and therefore was released from his duties at the NSC. LTC Vindman has not been kicked out of the Army. He has not been charged with anything. He has simply been removed from his assignment.

So, why all of this hoopla? Simple, the left wants to keep their moles, their leakers in place, even one who is an officer in the US Army. That is not how it works. Now, I am quite sure that LTC Vindman can decide to retire, write a book, and the left will certainly promote him as a candidate for elected office. But, being a member of the NSC is not a rightit is a privilege, and LTC Vindman has lost that privilege.

How interesting that the left is all up in arms over LTC Vindman, yet they could not celebrate a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman who flew combat missions in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. The left celebrates a deserter like Bowe Bergdahl yet criticizes the release of Army 1LT Clint Lorance who was imprisoned for six years because he killed the enemy in Afghanistaneven the Army withheld exculpatory evidence in his case. The left embraces Bradley Manning yet becomes unglued over the pardon of a US Army Special Forces Major who kills a Taliban bomb maker.

The left disparages, demeans, and denigrates an Army LTC who took an action to save the lives of his men in combatbut they adore a President who abandoned Americans to die during an Islamic terrorist attack, and lied about it.

The progressive socialist left labels anyone a hero who advances their ideological agenda, cause, while dismissing those who actually are.

Link:
Bergdahl, Manning, Vindman: Heroes of the Progressive Socialist Left - CNSNews.com

Aug. 21, 2013 -- FT. MEADE, Md. -- Bradley Manning, the Army private convicted of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the website WikiLeaks, was sentenced to 35 years in a military prison today.

Pfc. Manning will also be reduced in rank to private, forfeit all pay and allowances and receive a dishonorable discharge. He will serve his prison sentence at the military's detention facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Manning, 25, expressed no emotion as a military judge announced the sentence. His defense attorney, David Coombs, later called Manning a "resilient young man" who comforted the weeping members of his defense team after the sentencing.

"You get this guy and he looks to me and he says, "It's OK. It's all right. Don't worry about it. I know you did your best. It's going to be OK. I'm going to be OK. I'm going to get through this,'" he said.

Bradley Manning Guilty on Most Charges, but Not Aiding Enemy

As is customary in the military justice system for prison sentences longer than 30 years, Manning will be eligible for his first parole review after serving 10 years of his sentence. But Coombs believes he could be eligible for parole after seven years because of the 1,294 days credited by the judge toward his sentence.

Manning has served 1,182 days during pre-trial confinement and was also credited with 112 days for the treatment he received at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va.

Coombs said he will ask the convening authority in the case to reduce the sentence. He also intends to submit a request to the secretary of the Army next week asking President Obama to pardon Manning or at least commute his sentence to the time he has already served.

"The time to end Brad's suffering is now," Coombs said at a news conference in Hanover, Md. "The time for the president to focus on protecting whistleblowers instead of punishing them is now. The time for the president to pardon PFC Manning is now."

Coombs read a statement from Manning that will be included in the request to the president.

"I understand that my actions violate the law. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty for others," Manning said in the statement.

Manning also said that if he is denied a pardon, "I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society."

Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst, was convicted July 30.

He was found guilty of 20 of the 22 charges he faced, mostly for espionage, theft and fraud. But the judge found him not guilty of the most serious charge of aiding the enemy, which carries a life sentence.

The 20 charges originally carried the possibility of 136 years in prison, but judge Col. Denise Lind later granted a defense motion that reduced the potential maximum sentence to 90 years.

At the end of the sentencing phase of the trial, Army prosecutors said Manning should serve at least 60 years in prison. But Manning's defense attorney argued that he should not serve more than 25 years.

In his closing arguments during the two-week sentencing phase, Manning's defense attorney, David Coombs, continued to portray Manning as a nave young soldier who believed he could change the world.

Coombs said Manning had "pure intentions" in releasing the documents to WikiLeaks. "At that time, Pfc. Manning really, truly, genuinely believed that this information could make a difference."

But in court documents released earlier this week that explained her verdicts, Lind said Manning's conduct "was both wanton and reckless." She added that it "was of a heedless nature that made it actually and imminently dangerous to others."

Manning last week apologized for his actions in a short statement he read during the trial's sentencing phase. "I'm sorry that my actions hurt people," Manning said. "I'm sorry that they hurt the United States.

"When I made these decisions, I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people."

He said he was sorry for the "unintended consequences" of his actions and offered that with hindsight, "I should have worked more aggressively inside the system."

Although he acknowledged that "I must pay a price for my decisions and actions" he also expressed the hope to "return to a productive place in society."

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, said Manning's apology was a "forced decision" aimed at reducing his potential jail sentence. In a statement, he said the apology had been "extorted from him under the overbearing weight of the United States military justice system."

The court-martial began three years after Manning was first detained in Iraq for suspicion of having leaked the video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that killed several Iraqi civilians. He was subsequently charged with the leak of 750,000 documents that were a mix of U.S. military battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic cables.

The release of the documents has been described as the most extensive leak of classified information in U.S. history.

During the nearly two-month court martial, prosecutors presented detailed computer forensics of Manning's computer activity during his deployment to Iraq in late-2009 to mid-2010. They said the evidence showed that within weeks of his arrival in Baghdad, Manning had begun searching classified military computer networks for materials that were of interest to WikiLeaks.

In their unsuccessful bid to show that Manning had aided the enemy, they said some of the battlefield reports were found on computers belonging to Osama bin Laden. The computers had been seized during the U.S. military raid that killed the al Qaeda leader.

Manning's initial detention at the Marine brig at Quantico, Va., became the subject of controversy after jailers deemed him a suicide risk.

Now being held at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., Manning was forced to remain in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day and on a few occasions he was required to remain naked. His attorneys said the treatment merited dismissing the case against him because it amounted to cruel-and-unlawful punishment.

After a lengthy pre-trial hearing late last year, judge Lind found there was validity to some of the allegations and reduced any potential prison sentence by 112 days.

Read more:
Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years for Leaking Secrets ...

Not really either, but if you put those two at the opposite ends of the spectrum that they belong at he is closer to the traitor end. He could not have known the content and the second, third, etc level impact of the content being released. He had the opinion that he didn't like what he saw from his vantage point of the world, but what he took and released far exceeded the world he understood.

If he had only released content that spoke of a specific known (by him) illegality then he would be maybe a little closer to the whistleblower side, but not at the extreme. But he didn't do anything close to that.

BTW is he being charged with any "traitor-like" charge? Or is that just what the politicians on both sides are saying? I thought it was just release of classified material - a different UCMJ violation.

Original post:
Is Bradley Manning a Traitor or a Whistleblower? I want ...

NEW YORK How you respond to an attack defines you. Keep your cool, remain civil and others will respect the way you handle yourself, even if they disagree with you. Lower yourself to your assailants level and at best spectators will dismiss your dispute as a he-said-she-said between two jerks.

So much has been written about U.S. President Donald Trumps debasement of rhetorical norms and his gleeful contempt for truth that there is no need to cite examples or quote studies that count the prolificacy of his lies. Trumps attacks on journalists fake news, mocking a disabled reporters body movements are contemptible. They undermine citizens trust in news media a serious menace to democracy and civil society.

Less noticed is how major news organizations, incensed by the presidents trolling, have debased themselves to Trumps moral level.

American journalism used to adhere to strict standards. Though impossible to achieve, objectivity was paramount. At bare minimum, reporters were expected to project an appearance of political neutrality.

Truth only derived from facts verifiable facts. Not conjecture and never wishful thinking. Sources who wanted to be quoted had to go on the record. Anonymous sources could flesh out background but could not be the entire basis for a story.

From the start of Trumps run for president before the start Democratic-leaning media outlets abandoned their own long-cherished standards to declare war on him. Every day during the 2016 campaign The New York Times led its coverage with its forecast of Hillary Clintons supposed odds of defeating Trump. Setting aside the fact of the Times embarrassing wrongness the day before Election Day they gave Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning it cited odds rather than polls. Maximizing a sense of Clintonian inevitability was intended to demoralize Republicans so they wouldnt turn out to vote. The two figures might mean the same thing. But 85-15 odds look worse than a 51-49 poll.

Its downright truthy. And when truthiness goes sideways it makes you look really, really dumb. 51-49 could go either way. 85-15, not so much.

The impeachment battle marks a new low in partisanship among media outlets.

After Trumps surprise-to-those-whod-never-been-to-the-Rust-Belt win, outlets like the Times declared themselves members of a so-called resistance. Opinion columnists like Charles M. Blow pledged never to normalize Trumpism; what this has meant, ironically, is that Blows essays amount to rote recitations on the same topic: Normally, about the argument that Trump sucks. Which he does. There are, however, other issues to write about, such as the fact that we are all doomed. It would be nice to hear Blows opinions about taxes, militarism and abortion.

Next came years years! of Robert Muellerpalooza. Russia, corporate media outlets said repeatedly, had meddled in the 2016 election. Russian President Vladimir Putin installed Trump; Hillary Clintons snubbing of her partys 72 percent-progressive base had nothing to do with the loss of the most qualified person blah blah blah to an inductee in the WWE Hall of Fame.

Whatever happened to the journalistic chestnut: If your mother says she loves you, check it out? Russiagate wasnt a news report. It was religious faith. Russia fixed the election because we, the media, say so, we say so because we were told to say so by politicians, who were told to say so by CIA people, whose job is to lie and keep secrets. No one checked out anything.

What we knew and still know is that a Russia-based troll farm spent either $100,000 or $200,000 on Facebook ads to generate clickbait. Most of those ads were apolitical. Many were pro-Clinton. The company has no ties to the Russian government. It was a $6.8 billion election; $200,000 couldnt have and didnt move the needle.

Anonymous congressional sources told reporters that anonymous intelligence agents told them that there was more. The Mueller report implies as much. But no one went on the record. No original or verifiable copies of documentary evidence has been leaked. The reports numerous citations are devoid of supporting material. By pre-Trump journalistic standards Russiagate wasnt a story any experienced editor would print.

It was barely an idea for a story.

Russiagate fell apart so decisively that Democratic impeachers now act like the Mueller report a media obsession for three years never even happened.

Speaking of impeachment, mainstream media gatekeepers are so eager to see Trump removed from office that theyre violating another cardinal rule of journalism: If its news, print it. The identity of the CIA whistleblower (scare quotes because actual whistleblowers reveal truths that hurt their bosses) who triggered impeachment over Trumps menacing phone call to the president of Ukraine has been known in Washington, and elsewhere if you know where to look, for months.

Federal law prohibits the government from revealing his identity, and rightly so. But it has leaked. Its out. Its news. Nothing in the law or journalistic custom prevents a media organization from publishing it. News outlets felt no compulsion to similarly protect the identity of Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden. So why arent newspapers and broadcast networks talking about it?

Im not convinced his identity is important at this point, or at least important enough to put him at any risk, or to unmask someone who doesnt want to be identified, New York Times editor Dean Baquet said. So much for the peoples right to know. Why should subscribers buy a newspaper that doesnt print the news?

There is a because Trump change in media ethics that I welcome. Whats suspect is the timing.

Trump is the first president to get called out for his lies right in the news section. Great! Imagine how many lives could have been saved by a headline like Bush Repeats Debunked Falsehood That Iraq Has WMDs. A headline like Slurring Sanders Numerous Female Supporters as Bros, Hillary Clinton Lies About Medicare-for-All could have nominated and elected Bernie and saved many Americans from medical bankruptcy.

But all presidents lie. Why pick on Trump? His lies are (perhaps) more numerous. But theyre no more bigger than his predecessors (see Iraq WMDs, above). Yet discussion of former presidents remains respectful and slavish as ever.

I say, give coverage of Obama and other ex-presidents the same tone and treatment as the current occupant of the White House gets from the news media:

Wallowing in Corrupt Wall Street Cash, Obama Drops $11.75 Million on Gaudy Marthas Vineyard Mansion Estate

Ellen DeGeneres Sucks Up to Mass Murderer George W. Bush

Jimmy Carter, First Democratic President to Not Even Bother to Propose an Anti-Poverty Program, Dead at TK

Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), a political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of Francis: The Peoples Pope.

Link:
The US media is in the gutter with Trump - The Japan Times

Last week, President Trump granted full pardons for Army First Lt. Clint Lorance and Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, whod been accused of war crimes. Lorance had served six years of a 19-year sentence, and Golsteyn was facing trial for killing an alleged Taliban bombmaker. Navy SEAL Edward R. Gallagher, who was found not guilty of war crimes, but still had his rank reduced, was granted clemency and restoration of rank.

Lawmakers had been pushing for pardons for Lorance and Golsteyn because theyd taken actions to defend themselves on the battlefield and were charged with war crimes for it. Yet, when President Trump pardoned them, it immediately sparked controversy and outrage. Pete Buttigieg joined in the outrage chorus, claiming Trump dishonored our armed services.

American soldiers join the military knowing they can be sent away from their families for long periods of time into unsafe conditions with the possibility they might never come backor come back severely injured. For Trump to give various members of our military a second chance is infinitely less outrageous than acts of clemency made by his predecessor.

Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning (you may also know him as Chelsea), who leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks. A traitor in every sense, in 2013 Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. But, Bradley Manning became a hero of the political left for declaring himself to be transgender, and Obama made his controversial commutation days before leaving office.

Obama also commuted the sentence of convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera. Lopez Rivera was a leader of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacin Nacional Puertorriquea (FALN), a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 attacks in the United States, and at least six deaths. An unrepentant Lopez-Rivera was serving a 70-year sentence when Obama set him free.

Obama also granted clemency to hundreds of drug offenders he claimed were non-violent offenders who deserved a second chance, because of racism or something. It later came out that many of the people he released were actually violent offenders guilty of gun crimes. Obama granted more acts of clemency than any president since Truman, though he saved much of that executive use of power for the latter months and days of his presidency.

While Obama may have granted clemency to plenty who deserved it, granting clemency to an unrepentant terrorist was nonsensical. Doing the same for a traitor responsible for the biggest national security breach in history sends the worst possible message. I think its clear that Trump has shown far better judgment so far than his predecessor.

_____

Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama's Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

View original post here:
Obama Granted Clemency to Terrorists and Traitors, But Were Supposed to Be Angry at Trump's Pardons | News and Politics - PJ Media

Last week, President Trump granted full pardons for Army First Lt. Clint Lorance and Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, whod been accused of war crimes. Lorance had served six years of a 19-year sentence, and Golsteyn was facing trial for killing an alleged Taliban bombmaker. Navy SEAL Edward R. Gallagher, who was found not guilty of war crimes, but still had his rank reduced, was granted clemency and restoration of rank.

Lawmakers had been pushing for pardons for Lorance and Golsteyn because theyd taken actions to defend themselves on the battlefield and were charged with war crimes for it. Yet, when President Trump pardoned them, it immediately sparked controversy and outrage. Pete Buttigieg joined in the outrage chorus, claiming Trump dishonored our armed services.

For Trump to give various members of our military a second chance is infinitely less outrageous than acts of clemency made by his predecessor.

Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning (you may also know him as Chelsea), who leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks. A traitor in every sense, in 2013 Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. But, Bradley Manning became a hero of the political left for declaring himself to be transgender, and Obama made his controversial commutation days before leaving office.

Obama also commuted the sentence of convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera. Lopez Rivera was a leader of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacin Nacional Puertorriquea (FALN), a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 attacks in the United States, and at least six deaths. An unrepentant Lopez-Rivera was serving a 70-year sentence when Obama set him free.

Obama also granted clemency to hundreds of drug offenders he claimed were non-violent offenders who deserved a second chance, because of racism or something.

View post:
World News, Economics and Analysis Based on Bible Prophecy - theTrumpet.com

On Friday, President Donald Trump intervened in the cases of three U.S. service members accused of war crimes, granting pardons to two Army soldiers accused of murder in Afghanistan and restoring the rank of a Navy SEAL found guilty of wrongdoing in Iraq.

While the statements coming out of the Pentagon regarding Trump's actions have been understandably measured, comments from former military leaders and other knowledgable veterans help paint a picture as to why the president's Friday actions are so controversial.

The Army, Navy, and Pentagon all took similar approaches in their official responses to the commander-in-chief's orders: The President of the United States has the power to do this under the Constitution, and we will follow his orders.

The Army's statement which was not attributed to any senior official stated simply that the service would implement pardons of Maj. Matthew Golsteyn and 1st Lt. Clint Lorance.

"The Army has full confidence in our system of justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice ensures good order and discipline for uniformed service members while holding accountable those who violate its provisions," the statement reads. "The foundation of military law is the Constitution, and the Constitution establishes the President's power to grand pardons."

Navy Rear Adm. Charlie Brown, the Navy's Chief of Information, tweeted that as Commander in Chief, "the President has the authority to restore Special Warfare Operator First Class [Eddie] Gallagher to the pay grade of E-7. We acknowledge his order and are implementing it."

Jonathan Hoffman, chief pentagon spokesperson, told CNN's Ryan Browne that the Department of Defense "has confidence in the military justice system. The President is part of the military justice system as the Commander-in-Chief & has the authority to weigh in on matters of this nature."

But a U.S. defense official also told CNN that there's concern among the department's leadership that Trump's pardons could undermine the military's justice system. CNN and the New York Times also reported that senior Pentagon leadership, including Defense Secretary Mark Esper, urged Trump not to intervene in the three cases.

Several former military leaders echoed the same concerns.

"As President Trump intervenes in war crimes cases on behalf of individuals accused or convicted of war crimes, he ... undermines decades of precedent in American military justice that has contributed to making our country's fighting forces the envy of the world," Gen. Charles Krulak, former commandant of the Marine Corps, said in a statement.

"Disregard for the law undermines our national security by reducing combat effectiveness, increasing the risks to our troops, hindering cooperation with allies, alienating populations whose support the United States needs in the struggle against terrorism, and providing a propaganda tool for extremists who wish to do us harm," he added.

Retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis offered a similar sentiment on Twitter:

While retired Gen. Martin Dempsey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was previously critical of the prospect of Trump's war crimes pardons back in May, he said in a Friday statement that he doesn't know if Trump's intervention truly sends a negative message to current U.S. troops.

"The President has the authority to pardon and provide clemency, but as far as I can tell he hasn't shared his rationale for this particular action," Dempsey said in a statement. "Our military leaders continue to train their men and women on the importance of legal and ethical conduct both in peace and in war. I'm confident those same leaders will hold soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines accountable. What happens after that is out of their control."

When reached for additional comment by Task & Purpose, Dempsey added that the message Trump's pardons send to allies, partners and adversaries "is another question."

"Again, the President hasn't made it clear why he acted as he did. It can't be that combat is simply too hard for the common man," he added. "Our servicemen and women have demonstrated with very few exceptions that they can act with uncommon honor and valor."

While Dempsey was measured in his assessment, former military lawyers took a more dire view of the precedent set by the commander-in-chief's sudden pardons.

"It's just institutionally harmful," Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force JAG and professor of law at Southwestern Law School, told the New York Times. "This isn't about these three individuals, it's about the whole military justice system and whether that system itself is something of value to the operations of the military."

"Trump's pardons put our soldiers in harm's way," Glenn Kirschner, a former Army JAG and NBC/MSNBC legal analyst, wrote on Twitter. "Other countries will assume our soldiers are permitted by the president to commit war crimes w/impunity. It also disregards the victims & insults all law-abiding US troops.

"Mr. Trump's intervention on behalf of those convicted or accused of conduct falling short of the military's crucial legal requirements and moral expectations undermines the training in which the military rightly invests so much effort," Benjamin Haas, combat veteran and former Army intelligence officer, wrote in the New York Times. "It trivializes the values the military spends so much time fostering."

"I can honestly say I have not talked to a single military officer who would be in favor of pardoning any one of these three," Gary Solis, a combat veteran and former military attorney who now teaches the laws of war at the Georgetown University Law Center and the George Washington University Law School, told Military.com. "[Trump[ had a war crime and [Lorance] was convicted, his appeal was rejected and he was serving his time. And the president stepped in and set him free, in essence ratifying his actions."

"Now, those enlisted kids, those Marines, soldiers, SEALs who see a war crime committed are going to think twice about reporting it," Solis added. "You are always going to have somebody who says, 'You dimed on us and put a good friend of mine in the brig,' or something like that ... it's made it much more difficult for those who witness war crimes to report those war crimes."

Despite the appearance of overwhelming disapproval of Trump's Friday interventions, not everyone is upset with the move including Fox & Friends co-host and former reserve military officer Pete Hegseth, who forcefully advocated for Trump to intervene in the Gallagher case. Indeed, Hegseth told Fox News that Lorance's claim that he'd been thrown under the bus by senior Pentagon leaders for political reasons was a "widespread belief" within the enlisted ranks.

"I know this is a feeling that after the Obama administration decided to promote certain people in certain ways, there became no incentive for commanders to ruffle feathers," Hegseth said. "They were incentivized to play the game, the social justice and p.c. games. So you were not getting the military leaders who are willing to take risks for the guys who are doing the heavy lifting."

"President Trump has emboldened the people out there making the impossible calls at impossible moments," he added. "If you look at each of these cases, there's plenty of reasons to question the veracity of these prosecutors. These are not cases where people went into villages with the intention of killing innocent people. These are split-second decisions."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, the Marine Corps veteran and California congressman who also advocated for Gallagher's release, shared this sentiment in his own statement on Friday.

"For years, rampant prosecutorial misconduct, political correctness, and procedures that weight the scales of justice against the accused have personified our military justice system," he said. "Self-serving military bureaucrats have felt empowered in instituting policies that have been damning to our warriors on the front lines."

"Today, thanks to the leadership of President Trump, these Pentagon armchair lawyers are being put on notice,' he added. "The President recognizes that our combat warriors are to be supported in meeting the incredible responsibilities we place on them and I very much appreciate his advocacy for America's warfighters."

Retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West, the former Florida congressman who was himself relieved of command over the improper treatment of a detainee in Iraq, echoed Hegseth and Hunter's statements.

"The travesty of injustice for these men is over ... These men aren't guilty of war crimes, they simply did what combat leaders are supposed to do, engage and kill the enemy," said West. "If our Army could set Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning free, who were guilty of desertion and treason, then no one should raise a contrarian voice in the matter of these pardons. Now, the military JAG officers responsible for withholding exculpatory evidence should be disciplined.

"Islamic jihadists terrorists are non-state, non-uniform belligerents on the battlefield. They seek to blend in with civilian populations and take cover in the midst of non-combatants," West added in a follow-up statement. "These are not 'enemy soldiers.' They are unlawful enemy combatants, and should not be accorded any Geneva Convention rights, certainly not constitutional rights"

According to a poll from the Clarion Project, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit devoted to "exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism," some 77 percent of respondents believed U.S. service members should not be prosecuted for war crimes committed overseas.

Continued here:
'What happens after that is out of their control' Former military leaders and lawyers react to Trump's war crimes pardons - Task & Purpose

DALLAS, Nov. 15, 2019 /PRNewswire/ --Lt. Col. Allen West is elated that President Trump has brought justice to Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorence, Army Major Matthew Golsteyn, and Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward R. Gallagher.

Since 2013, Allen West has lobbied for the release of First Lieutenant Clint Lorance and has been a committed supporter of both Major Golsteyn and Operator Gallagher.

Lt. Col. West is thrilled that, "The travesty of injustice for these men is over, especially Texan First Lieutenant Clint Lorance. These men aren't guilty of war crimes, they simply did what combat leaders are supposed to do, engage and kill the enemy. If our Army could set Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning free, who were guilty of desertion and treason, then no one should raise a contrarian voice in the matter of these pardons. Now, the military JAG officers responsible for withholding exculpatory evidence should be disciplined. God's blessings to the families and to all who never lost faith and kept speaking up and out. Thanks, President Trump, for doing the right thing and standing up for our combat warriors."

This is just another clarion example of how Republican and Democrat leadership diverges. Democrats pardon and release traitors, Republicans protect heroes.

Colonel West's full statement and other releases can be found here:https://west4texas.com/news/?md_post_type=nooz_release

Learn more about Allen West, his campaign, and how to keep Texas Red by visitingwww.west4texas.com.

SOURCE West4Texas

https://west4texas.com

More here:
Lt. Col. Allen West Commends President Trump for His Clemency and Restoration of Rank to Three Service Members - Released by West4Texas - PRNewswire

Issued on: 31/10/2019 - 21:10Modified: 31/10/2019 - 21:38

A look at the rise and fall of the Islamic Stategroups leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, British fishermen are fed up with the Brexit delay, France struggles with its secularist ideals andFRANCE 24 takes a look inside Miss Maggies kitchen.

ARTICLES

Baghdadis rise: From football-obsessed student to self-styled caliph

The man the world came to know as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi seized on the conflict, chaos and mismanagement in his native Iraq to propel himself from a low-level prisoner in US detention to one of the worlds most dangerous terror chiefs.

Secrecy surrounding Baghdadi raid betrays US distrust of NATO ally Turkey

Islamic State (IS) group chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was found and killed over the weekend in northern Syria just a few miles from the Turkish border in a US raid that evaded the Turkeys Incirlik base, in a sign of the increasing distrust between US and Turkish militaries.

British fishermen battle codfathers, quotas - and Brexit delay

More than three years after Britain voted to leave the EU, the fishermen of Ilfracombe are thoroughly fed up. They were promiseda greater share of fishing quotas, that Britain would take back control of its waters and become an independent coastal state. But theyve seen little of the change they voted for. FRANCE 24 reports.

French move to extend ban on religious symbols sparks fears of 'radical' secularism

Weeks after a far-right politician unleashed controversy by asking a woman accompanying children to remove her veil, the Senate on Tuesday approved an amendment that wouldextend a ban on wearing religious symbols to those supervising school trips. Some say French secularism is becoming too extreme, while others believe it is being used to shroud Islamophobia.

TV SHOWS ONLINE

THE 51 PERCENT

Ethiopia's gender revolution: The road towards equality

Reporting from Ethiopia, we meet Sehin Teferra, co-founder of the feminist group Setaweet, and also speak to the countrys first female President Sahle-Work Zewde, asking them both about the challenges that lie ahead.

ENCORE!

Filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins gets up close and personal with Chelsea Manning

She's one of the most enigmatic individuals to feature in recent news headlines: Soldier Bradley Manning came to global attention after leaking classified military documents and, in doing so, became a key figure in the WikiLeaks operation. While serving a 35-year sentence for those actions, Manning was contacted by filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins, who wanted to tell her story. His documentary, "XY Chelsea",deals with Mannings gender transition but also with her shift from prison life to the media spotlight after her sentence was commuted by Barack Obama in 2017.

Film show: Vampire retrospective, 'The Traitor' and 'The Specials'

Film critic Lisa Nesselson tells us about an exhibition at the Cinmathque Franaise that draws the undead out of the shadows to celebrate cinema's most iconic vampires. Classics like "Nosferatu", "The Addiction" and "The Hunger" are also part of the spooky seasonal programming. Next, we check out director Marco Bellochios adaptation of the true story of a key Mafia informant in 1980s Italy. And we learn more about the French heartfelt drama "The Specials", which has drawn crowds here in its home country, with Vincent Cassel and Reda Kateb in the main roles.

FOCUS

Risking their lives: Why taxi rides in Mexico can be dangerous for women

In Mexico, it's not uncommon to hear of women being abducted, raped or even killed after getting into taxis. Every day, there are new victims of drivers and their accomplices in organised crime. So far this year, there have been more than 200 reports of attacks inside taxi cabs in Mexico City alone.

Indonesia's sinking capital Jakarta to be relocated

With 11 million inhabitants, the Indonesian capital Jakarta is one of the most densely populated cities on the planet. It's also one of thosemost threatened by rising sea levels.As a result, authorities recently announced that they will move the capital to a new location over 1,000 kilometres away.

INSIDE THE AMERICAS

Argentina: Alberto Fernandez elected president amid economic crisis

We take a look at leftistAlberto Fernandez's victory in the Argentinian presidential race. In a country facing the worst economic crisis in two decades, voters delivered a stunning rebuke to incumbent conservative Mauricio Macri's austerity measures.

PERSPECTIVE

The art of eating well: A peek inside Miss Maggies kitchen

What exactly is "l'art de vivre"? Why do some of us photograph our food more as much as we eat it? And have we all become so obsessed by what we eat that we've forgotten how to simply enjoy food? We talk recipes and foodie culture with home-cooking guru Helose Brion, author of "Chez Miss Maggie's Kitchen".

FRANCE IN FOCUS

Counterfeit goods in France: Big business off- and online

Last year, more than 5million counterfeit goodswere seized by the authoritiesin France. Theft of intellectual property isnt just a French problem: After US products, French goods are the most faked products in the world. Amongthe things typically copied areluxury productssuch as perfumeandwatches, football shirts, medication, artworks and much more.As the techniques used to make and sell fake goods become ever more sophisticated, companies need to do more to stay ahead of the counterfeiters.

MIDDLE EAST MATTERS

Female protesters on the front line in Lebanon

Prime Minister Saad Hariri has resigned after nationwide rallies brought the country to a virtual standstill.The protesters want a complete overhaul of an establishmentthat they call corrupt. Our correspondentLeila Molana-Allen reports on how women have taken an active role in the protests.

YOU ARE HERE

Step back in time: Discovering France's regional dances

In France's western Poitou region, dancers dressed in 18th-century costumes twirl in time to the music. Meanwhile, in the southern town of Gmenos, a dance troupe called La Poulido de Gmo keeps the local Provence culture alive through traditional dances. Perhaps surprisingly, the majority of its dancers are young people.

Link:
Week in Review: Baghdadis fall, UK fishermen struggle with Brexit and a look inside Miss Maggies kitchen - FRANCE 24

Updated at 1:57 p.m. ET

As the court martial of Army Private First Class Bradley Manning got underway Monday, prosecutors argued that the former Army intelligence analyst "knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy" when he leaked 700,000 U.S. government documents to Wikileaks.

Manning's defense attorney did not deny that his client had leaked the documents but did so because he was "young, nave and good-intentioned". The release of the documents has been described as the most extensive leak of classified information in U.S. history.

In the three years since first being detained during a combat deployment to Iraq, the former Army intelligence analyst has become a cause clbre for civil liberties and anti-secrecy advocates who consider him a whistle-blower.

The court-martial for Manning, 25, is taking place at Fort Meade, Md., north of Washington D.C and is expected to last three months.

The most serious of the 22 charges Manning faces is aiding the enemy for which Manning could face life in prison if convicted. The additional charges include wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

In his opening arguments Army prosecutor Captain Joe Morrow presented detailed computer forensic evidence of Manning's computer activity that indicated he began passing along classified information to Wikileaks within two weeks of his deployment to Baghdad in November, 2009.

The prosecutor said the computer evidence indicated that in following months Manning gathered information in bulk, "not onesies or twosiesthese were massive, massive downloads." Morrow said the information gathered by Manning was of "great value to our adversaries and in particular to our enemies."

Morrow said Manning "knew the consequences of his actions" as he "literally dumped that information onto the Internet in the hands of the enemy."

Morrow presented chat logs of Manning's contacts with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about some of the information that was released to his website. In particular he tried to link Manning's computer searches with a "most wanted" list of items the anti-secrecy website had published in 2009. Assange has not been charged in the case.

In his arguments David Coombs, Manning's attorney, described a young nave soldier who decided to release the classified documents he had access to "because he thought he could make the world a better place."

He said from among the "literally hundreds of millions of documents" Manning had access to he chose the documents he released not because of Wikileaks' most wanted list but because "he believed this information needed to be made public." "He was young, nave, good intentioned," said Coombs.

Challenging the prosecution's narrative Coombs pointed to a roadside blast on Christmas Eve, 2009 as being the prime motivator for Manning's leaks.

Coombs said that for Manning the good news that colleagues had escaped injury in a roadside blast that night was offset by the fact that a car carrying five Iraqi civilians took the brunt of the blast, killing one.

The defense attorney said Manning was transformed by incident because "he couldn't forget the lives lost that day" and "led him to feel that he needed to do somethingto make a difference in this world."

Ultimately he said Manning began to look for information that he could make public. In doing so Coombs said Manning purposefully looked for information that he believed "could not be used against the U.S. "

He said Manning leaked hundreds of thousands of battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan out of a belief that "the American public should know what is happening on a day to day basis" in the two countries. He said Manning's research indicated the reports did not include intelligence sourcing, were historical in nature and did not contain information about future operations.

He said Manning first became aware of the 250,000 diplomatic cables he leaked when his supervisor urged his team to use them in their intelligence reports. Coombs said Manning found State Department regulations which said most of the cables were unclassified. He said Manning felt the documents were important because they "showed how we deal with other countries."

In February, Manning pleaded guilty 10 lesser charges that carried a 20-year prison sentence. At a pre-trial hearing, Manning read for an hour from a 35-page statement in which he explained his motivations in releasing the classified documents. He said he had wanted "to spark a debate about foreign policy" and show "the true cost of war."

Army prosecutors decided soon after that they would continue to pursue prosecution for the most serious charges against him.

After opening arguments prosecutors began the procession of nearly 140 witnesses who will be called to testify for the case. On Monday, several Army criminal investigators were called to testify about the evidence they recovered from Manning's quarters and workspace in Baghdad, including contacts with Wikileak's Julian Assange. Specialist Eric Baker, Manning's roommate in Baghdad also testified that Manning spent most of his free time on his laptop.

Prosecutors will try to prove that Manning's leaks aided the enemy by calling as a witness a Navy SEAL who participated in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. They say that copies of the documents Manning leaked to WikiLeaks were found on the computer hard-drives recovered by U.S. special operations forces during the raid.

Read More: Osama Bin Laden

That portion of the trial will likely be closed to the public and the media.

Now being held at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Manning's initial detention at the Marine brig at Quantico, Va., became the subject of controversy. Supporters claimed the conditions of his detention there had amounted to cruel and unlawful punishment, which his attorneys said merited dismissing the case against him.

After a lengthy pre-trial hearing, the judge in the case found there was validity to some of the allegations and reduced his potential prison sentence by four months.

Related: Bradley Manning's Former Guards Testify About Controversial Incident

Sunday night Coombs posted a statement on his website thanking supporters for their financial support and for raising awareness of the case.

"On behalf of both myself and Pfc. Manning," he said, "I would like to thank everyone for their continued support over the last three years."

Original post at 7 a.m. ET

The rest is here:
Bradley Manning Trial Begins; Prosecutor Says Leaker Gave ...