I’m not offended!

[LincolnMan]

Seriously, the Betsy Ross flag?! American history is American history. It has good and it has bad. We need to focus on the good. We have the greatest country in the world. It is the land of the free—and was bought with blood. And it requires constant vigilance! We are losing the very meaning of everything this country has stood for when we call the Betsy Ross flag racist, our Founders evil because they had slaves, and the United States not ever being great. I fear that we are losing Western Civilization itself if the onslaught against it’s values continue.

[L Verge]

To me, this is one particularly stupid thing to protest about -- and I don't care if it is Independence Day, why would Nike choose a pair of shoes to display the flag?

I've been trying to ignore this particular athlete and his venom against our country. I know that he was adopted, but I want to know if he got a college education at the taxpayers' expense (or were his grades good enough to earn a scholarship?). I also want to know his annual salary for running and catching a ball... Sports enthusiasts who support this type of "star" are lacking in my estimation also, as are the reporters and broadcasters that give life to him.

[Steve]

The so-called "Betsy Ross flag" used in the decorations at the capitol during President Obama's first inauguration:

[My Name Is Kate]

Colin Kaepernick was born to a teenage white woman (Heidi Russo) and an unidentified black man who deserted her immediately when he found out she was "expecting." The mother decided to give her child up for adoption to a white couple with two children and who had also lost two sons to heart defects shortly after birth. Heidi later claimed to regret her decision and has made repeated attempts to reach out to Colin, who largely rejects her attempts. She now has three other (white) children and is married. She disapproves of what she calls Colin's disrespect for this country, but Colin's foster parents are supportive of him.

Kaepernick's girlfriend, Nessa Diab, was raised in Saudi Arabia and is Muslim. Kaepernick says he is Christian and has not converted to Islam. Diab is a well-known activist, and once compared Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave owner.

So, looks like one parent/race gets all the blame and the other is not held accountable at all. Meanwhile, the country suffers...

[David Lockmiller]

The PBS Newshour reported yesterday, July 3, 2019, that after two weeks of testimony Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher was found not guilty of murdering an ISIS prisoner in Iraq. The decorated Navy Seal had been accused of stabbing to death the wounded teenage captive back in 2017.

What made me sick to my stomach was the statement made at the end of this report in a screenshot: “77 % of Americans believe U.S. service members should not be prosecuted for war crimes committed overseas.”

I remind readers and participants of the Lincoln Discussion Symposium of a discussion that President Abraham Lincoln had with Frederick Douglass at the White House during the American Civil War. Mr. Douglass was in the process of recruiting colored troops to fight in the Civil War and he made four demands of President Lincoln in this regard.

The forth demand (with slight editing for obvious reason) reads as follows: “In case any colored soldiers are taken prisoners and murdered in cold blood, you should retaliate in kind.”

Frederick Douglass wrote:

As to the exchange and general treatment of colored soldiers when taken prisoners of war, he should insist to their being entitled to all privileges of such prisoners. Mr. Lincoln admitted the justice of my demand for the promotion of colored soldiers for good conduct in the field, but on the matter of retaliation he differed from me entirely. I shall never forget the benignant expression of his face, the tearful look of his eye and the quiver in his voice, when he deprecated a resort to retaliatory measures.

“Once begun,” said he, “I do not know where such a measure would stop.”

He said he could not take men out and kill them in cold blood for what was done by others. If he could get hold of the persons who were guilty of killing the colored prisoners in cold blood, the case would be different, but he could not kill the innocent for the guilty.

(Source: Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, pages 187 – 189.)

[AussieMick]

“77 % of Americans believe U.S. service members should not be prosecuted for war crimes committed overseas.”

David, I'd be interested in some background to that statement. As in what was the specific question asked of the respondents, where and when was the sample taken, exactly how many people were asked. How was the survey conducted ( on the phone, online, website ...?) Who conducted the survey (if that was what it was)?

I do feel a statement such as that needs to be supported by some solid facts.

Edit :
I did a google (that perhaps provides 'some' support to your view)
https://psmag.com/news/trumps-pardon-is-...war-crimes
"A 2018 Clarion Project poll found that 77 percent of Americans believed U.S. service members shouldn't be prosecuted for overseas war crimes simply because "war is a stressful situation and allowances should be made."

However, from I read of Clarion Project (again, using google), its not the best.

[LincolnMan]

(07-03-2019 11:59 PM)Steve Wrote:  The so-called "Betsy Ross flag" used in the decorations at the capitol during President Obama's first inauguration:

How about that!

[DanielC]

Next up Thomas Jefferson... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/profess...ed-history

So very sad.

[My Name Is Kate]

The poll was taken by the Clarion Project, which is trying to raise awareness and concern about the threat of radical Islamic terrorists.

https://clarionproject.org/navy-seals-ch...d-they-be/

The question was:
Should American service personnel be prosecuted for war crimes committed overseas?

The answers were:
Yes, they should always be held to American standards, whether at home or abroad
No, war is a stressful situation and allowances should be made

As you can see, both the question and the answers were slanted to get the desired response. The question should have been:
If there is evidence a war crime may have been committed overseas, should American service personnel always be prosecuted for it?

The options should have been:
Yes, they should always be held to American standards, whether at home or abroad, no matter the seriousness of the crime
No, war is a stressful situation and allowances should sometimes be made

As it was, the poll was designed to make it appear that most Americans think war crimes committed overseas by Americans should never be prosecuted.

[Gene C]

Thanks for posting Steve, my wife pointed it out to me on face book, after I saw it here.

Which reminds me of a song - Dear America by Ray Stevens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDvhbRJdLnw

[David Lockmiller]

(07-04-2019 06:29 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  “77 % of Americans believe U.S. service members should not be prosecuted for war crimes committed overseas.”

I do feel a statement such as that needs to be supported by some solid facts.

I did a google [search]

"A 2018 Clarion Project poll found that 77 percent of Americans believed U.S. service members shouldn't be prosecuted for overseas war crimes simply because "war is a stressful situation and allowances should be made."

However, from I read of Clarion Project (again, using google), its not the best.

You are correct. The stated source for the quote was Clarion. You may view the screenshot at the 25:44 mark of the YouTube video of the News Hour July 3, 2019 episode.

You also state: A 2018 Clarion Project poll found that 77 percent of Americans believed U.S. service members shouldn't be prosecuted for overseas war crimes simply because "war is a stressful situation and allowances should be made."

It is almost needless to state that "war is a stressful situation" for the soldiers on both sides. It is the least stressful situation when you have captured and disarmed a wounded enemy combatant.

Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher was found not guilty of murdering an ISIS prisoner in Iraq. The decorated Navy Seal had been accused of stabbing to death the wounded teenage captive back in 2017.

And, after World War I, civilized nations agreed that the use of chemical weapons would henceforth be considered a war crime. But Syria does it to this day with the blessing (or without the censure) of their Russian ally.

---

(07-04-2019 07:15 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  The question was:
Should American service personnel be prosecuted for war crimes committed overseas?

The answers were:
Yes, they should always be held to American standards, whether at home or abroad
No, war is a stressful situation and allowances should be made

As you can see, both the question and the answers were slanted to get the desired response. The poll was designed to make it appear that most Americans think war crimes committed overseas by Americans should never be prosecuted.

Kate, thank you very much for that insightful information. The PBS News Hour should be informed of this because in publishing this statement they have done an extreme disservice to the American people by mischaracterizing our opinion on the subject in such a disgraceful manner.

P.S. I copied over this entire post and sent it to viewermail@newshour.org. Hopefully, the PBS NewsHour will make a clarification and retraction. But, I will not be holding my breath.

[L Verge]

Just a personal note: While we are judging our own military, I cannot forget the image of our Middle Eastern enemies holding the severed head(s) of American citizens as trophies... Lest we forget.

[AussieMick]

(07-04-2019 09:37 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  It is almost needless to state that "war is a stressful situation" for the soldiers on both sides. It is the least stressful situation when you have captured and disarmed a wounded enemy combatant.

Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher was found not guilty of murdering an ISIS prisoner in Iraq. The decorated Navy Seal had been accused of stabbing to death the wounded teenage captive back in 2017.

David, as you can see I've extracted part of your Post (hopefully without taking it too much out of context).

I have never been in the situation of being in a fire-fight, capturing, and disarming a wounded enemy. Maybe you have. I can though use my imagination. I'd imagine that it would still be very very stressful. What does one do when another human being that you yourself have mortally wounded and is dying in agony in front of you? Your adrenaline is still pumping and there may be other enemies close by. I'd be quite stressed I think.

I know that the court case covered a huge amount of evidence but I thought the following was interesting ...
"Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a SEAL medic who was given immunity from prosecution by the Navy, stunned prosecutors by testifying that he, and not Chief Gallagher, had killed the captive, by covering a breathing tube inserted in the captive’s neck. His testimony also deviated in other significant ways from what he had told investigators before trial; the Navy has indicated it is considering charging him with perjury."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/na...rdict.html

[David Lockmiller]

(07-04-2019 06:24 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  I know that the court case covered a huge amount of evidence but I thought the following was interesting ...

"Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a SEAL medic who was given immunity from prosecution by the Navy, stunned prosecutors by testifying that he, and not Chief Gallagher, had killed the captive, by covering a breathing tube inserted in the captive’s neck. His testimony also deviated in other significant ways from what he had told investigators before trial; the Navy has indicated it is considering charging him with perjury."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/na...rdict.html

The following is from a NYTimes story titled “Navy SEAL Whose Testimony Roiled War-Crimes Trial May Face Perjury Charge” and is dated June 26, 2019:

On the witness stand, Special Operator Scott minimized the stabbing, saying the chief had stabbed the captive only once, that there was no blood coming from the wound afterward and that the stab wound was not life-threatening. He testified that after the stabbing, the captive was still in stable condition, but that he then placed his thumb over the captive’s breathing tube, asphyxiating him.

A Navy prosecutor immediately leapt from his chair in the courtroom and angrily accused Special Operator Scott of lying, saying that on one crucial point after another, his testimony contradicted what he had told Navy criminal investigators and lawyers in at least five interviews.

Special Operator Scott, who made eye contact with Chief Gallagher and with Timothy Parlatore, the chief’s defense lawyer, several times during his testimony, seemed unshaken by the accusation. He said he had never told investigators that he killed the captive because no one had bothered to ask.


Navy investigative documents obtained by The New York Times show that investigators had asked Special Operator Scott a number of times, in the presence of other agents and lawyers, to detail the cause of the captive’s death.

The Navy official said that Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents and Navy prosecutors would be able to testify in a perjury trial that the medic had repeatedly given them a very different account of the captive’s death: that he saw Chief Gallagher stab the captive two or three times, not once; that he saw blood rushing from the stab wounds; that the wounds were fatal; and that Special Operator Scott had watched the captive stop breathing and die from those wounds.

The medic’s testimony in court appeared to conflict with all of those statements, as well as with photos offered in evidence at the trial that show a pool of blood on the ground by the victim.
**************************************************************
As a consequence of this obvious contradiction in courtroom testimony, it would seem to me that the verdict of the court might well be invalidated and a mistrial declared. In other words, there should be a new trial of Chief Gallagher. And, this next trial should end in an order for the military execution of Chief Gallagher.

[Steve]

(07-04-2019 07:30 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  As a consequence of this obvious contradiction in courtroom testimony, it would seem to me that the verdict of the court might well be invalidated and a mistrial declared. In other words, there should be a new trial of Chief Gallagher. And, this next trial should end in an order for the military execution of Chief Gallagher.

Double jeopardy protections would prevent an acquitted defendant from being retried.