Stand by for high seas, heavy rolls in NSW and JAGC

[Brett327]

Words

For the sake of this discussion I will grant you everything about how fucked up the Gallagher prosecution was. That's was never my point. My point is that the WH could have done this in a coordinated way to avoid all the public incoherence. Can't you at least grant that, all else being equal, that would have been a preferable COA for POTUS to take?

 

[Hozer]

Thanks, but you don't have to grant me anything.

You cannot cherry pick and separate the prosecution from what you label as public incoherence when you assert the lack of process earlier in this thread. The decision of POTUS to overturn the CNO's decision is part of the entire judicial and appellate process. What you label "out of synch" with the CNO, is nevertheless the same process of exercise of executive authority used by every single prior president in this nations history when exercising the constitutional power of clemency, whether pardon or commutation .

What exactly is incoherent, or suboptimal, or irrational, or absent process, or overt political interference in military justice in the arraignment, pre-trial phase, pre-trial confinement, jury selection phase, trial phase, sentencing phase, judicial review and clemency application to the CNO, and subsequent exercise of executive authority to overturn the CNO's decision as specified in Article II of the Constitution as exercised by every US president since Washington?

How would you do it differently?

 

[squorch2]

Bruh. Brett laid it out pretty cut and dry - i.e., using the interagency process so everyone isn’t caught looking stupid.

Same end result, less embarrassment and a more predictable process.

 

[Brett327]

@Hozer Nice chatting. TYFYS.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I guess what I don’t understand is why it’s on the executive branch to coordinate with the CNO. The CNO is the subordinate to the President so shouldn’t he, and by extension his staff, have given the President and the White House a heads up on what the decision was prior to announcing it? That’d be like me making a decision and expecting my CC to have sought me out before hand, instead of the other way around.

With the publicity this case had from start to finish, you’d have to be living under a rock to expect our President to not have an opinion on it.

Maybe the CNO staff did try to coordinate, but that’s not obvious if they did.

 

[Hotdogs]

The military trial process, subsequent review, confinement and exercise of executive authority is not a free pass.
It is a rational, well-established, and tested process.

A jury heard the evidence, reached a verdict and Gallagher was convicted on one count. Gallagher was already confined for longer than the allowable term for the conviction. POTUS then reinstated Gallagher's rank, exercising executive authority similar to every prior US President since the founding of the country.

That literally is our system. Many Presidents exercise similar power, Obama exercised executive power pardoning Marine General Cartwright two weeks before sentencing after he had pled guilty, and commuted the 35 year prison sentence of Chelsea Manning. That exercise of authority goes back to the founding days of this country.

Our system provides the mechanism to bring other charges against Gallagher, if they believe they can convince a finder of fact to the standard of proof.

Regarding a Defendant's history, you may not give a flying fuck, but the judicial system does and has for a long time. In fact, giving consideration in the sentencing phase to mitigation is a substantial part of that phase for long and well established reasons.

Cold War? I was in a direct action aviation outfit eight years ago in RC-East in the CAS stack with folks like you.
But I guess your generation thinks guys my age should be arguing in the commissary.

Thanks, but you don't have to grant me anything.

You cannot cherry pick and separate the prosecution from what you label as public incoherence when you assert the lack of process earlier in this thread. The decision of POTUS to overturn the CNO's decision is part of the entire judicial and appellate process. What you label "out of synch" with the CNO, is nevertheless the same process of exercise of executive authority used by every single prior president in this nations history when exercising the constitutional power of clemency, whether pardon or commutation .

What exactly is incoherent, or suboptimal, or irrational, or absent process, or overt political interference in military justice in the arraignment, pre-trial phase, pre-trial confinement, jury selection phase, trial phase, sentencing phase, judicial review and clemency application to the CNO, and subsequent exercise of executive authority to overturn the CNO's decision as specified in Article II of the Constitution as exercised by every US president since Washington?

How would you do it differently?

I don’t care for the political implications as much as I do the matters that involve the conduct our service members.

You're clearly avoiding the ethical argument of this case. You’re apparently okay with murder of unarmed injured combatants, posing with corpses, and a lack of ethics demonstrated by this unit. If you can’t agree to that then I’d sincerely question your morality and that’s surprising to say the least of a former Navy Officer. To that end, this discussion is basically over. Not sure there is much more to be debated.

I guess what I don’t understand is why it’s on the executive branch to coordinate with the CNO. The CNO is the subordinate to the President so shouldn’t he, and by extension his staff, have given the President and the White House a heads up on what the decision was prior to announcing it? That’d be like me making a decision and expecting my CC to have sought me out before hand, instead of the other way around.

With the publicity this case had from start to finish, you’d have to be living under a rock to expect our President to not have an opinion on it.

Maybe the CNO staff did try to coordinate, but that’s not obvious if they did.

That’s not how the delegation of authority works. You either entrust your subordinates and their judgement to do their jobs or not. If you can’t, then fire them. It was a stupid decision by the executive branch. I’m personally expecting my next set of orders to be adjudicated by POTUS if I don’t get those sweet VMR orders in Hawaii.

 

[insanebikerboy]

That’s not how the delegation of authority works. You either entrust your subordinates and their judgement to do their jobs or not. If you can’t, then fire them. It was a stupid decision by the executive branch. I’m personally expecting my next set of orders to be adjudicated by POTUS if I don’t get those sweet VMR orders in Hawaii.

You actually are making my point for me. Using your logic means that from now on if I make a decision and my commander doesn’t like it and chooses option B when I chose option A, it’s his fault for not coordinating with me.

Delegated authority doesn’t mean total authority. The commander always has 51% of the vote and retains the right to veto the decision of any subordinate. And just because the boss disagrees with your decision doesn’t mean you deserve to be fired, that the epitome of a zero-defect mentality.

Even with boundless lateral limits, the subordinate should have a fairly clear picture on what their boss’s preferences are and how he would react to a decision or situation. Like I alluded to before, anyone with a pulse, especially anyone in the military, should’ve had a pretty clear indication that the President would weigh in here.

The theme from those that don’t like the President’s decision isn’t that he made the decision, it’s that there wasn’t ‘proper coordination’, or that people aren’t ‘in sync’. If you don’t like the decision, fine, say it, I’ll respect your opinion. Railing against ‘the process’ is ignorant because the process has literally existed as long as our country has been in existence.

 

[Brett327]

This is not how the interagency process works.

 

[insanebikerboy]

This is not how the interagency process works.

Then explain it, because you keep saying it’s not how it works but haven’t actually said how it does.

 

[Brett327]

Then explain it, because you keep saying it’s not how it works but haven’t actually said how it does.

No. Go do a tour in DC. I’m tired of explaining myself to legions of Dunning-Kruger sufferers.

I’ve led you all to water. I can’t make you drink.

 

[Hotdogs]

You actually are making my point for me. Using your logic means that from now on if I make a decision and my commander doesn’t like it and chooses option B when I chose option A, it’s his fault for not coordinating with me.

Delegated authority doesn’t mean total authority. The commander always has 51% of the vote and retains the right to veto the decision of any subordinate. And just because the boss disagrees with your decision doesn’t mean you deserve to be fired, that the epitome of a zero-defect mentality.

Even with boundless lateral limits, the subordinate should have a fairly clear picture on what their boss’s preferences are and how he would react to a decision or situation. Like I alluded to before, anyone with a pulse, especially anyone in the military, should’ve had a pretty clear indication that the President would weigh in here.

I imagine the DoD writ large adjudicates hundreds of cases a month in this manner without POTUS input. It was abnormal just for the CNO to pull it into his office anyways. I doubt it was out of the norm for them to make this decision. The boomer social media lynch mob claims yet another victim.

I would love to hear some one say that they know what POTUS’s priorities, preferences, and intent is on a daily basis. I would think that is something that changes based off of what is blowing up on twitter and being shared on social media.

 

[insanebikerboy]

No. Go do a tour in DC. I’m tired of explaining myself to legions of Dunning-Kruger sufferers.

I’ve led you all to water. I can’t make you drink.

Lovely. I genuinely ask for help in understanding something that I’m apparently off on, but instead you effectively call me an idiot? Unlike others, I’ve admitted being wrong on this forum previously.

I know what Dunnin-Kruger is and the irony is it applies to you as well.

 

[AllAmerican75]

There’s a thread for that but you have to pilot a flying object to participate.

I thought the first rule of the secret aviator subforum was you don't talk about the secret aviator subforum?

 

[Hozer]

@Hozer Nice chatting. TYFYS.

Back at you, Brett.

 

[Hozer]

I don’t care for the political implications as much as I do the matters that involve the conduct our service members.

You're clearly avoiding the ethical argument of this case. You’re apparently okay with murder of unarmed injured combatants, posing with corpses, and a lack of ethics demonstrated by this unit. If you can’t agree to that then I’d sincerely question your morality and that’s surprising to say the least of a former Navy Officer. To that end, this discussion is basically over. Not sure there is much more to be debated.

Not avoiding anything. You said that this process sent a signal that our military is not held accountable for crimes (alleged) in a war zone.
I responded with information illustrating the process. You don't think the outcome of the process was appropriate.

Just like you incorrectly assumed my service history, you incorrectly assume my personal ethical feelings on the matter.

Good luck to you though, and I mean that sincerely.