Replies

Gunrunner, the first part is to you. The rest is for general consumption. Frankly, I think you and I see this about 97% the same.

As you will see from my original post, I am the one who coined the "against" term. Please note I used quotation marks to identify our position in the context of the majority of those on this thread who seem to want his immediate exoneration, facts and legal procedure be damned. We are not against him, per se. We are against him being granted sainthood.

NO ONE wishes him to be convicted, especially if he is in fact not guilty, but if he is guilty, he must face the consequences. If the facts determine him to be guilty, should some mitigation be involved at sentencing? Yes. And as I posted earlier, I fully believe that he will be allowed to retire, albeit at a lesser grade. There will very likely be a reconciliation of the "law" and what is "right."

But again, looking at some of the facts that have come out, anyone who knows about military law, knows he does not have an easy time ahead of him, but he will have the full benefit of a top-notch lawyer and our constitutional system. And if he is found guilty, it shows how our system of law is superior. And if he is found not guilty, it will show how our system of law is superior.

I am sorry if people on this thread consider what I, and a few others, post as "disgusting." Frankly, there are a lot of "virgins talking about sex" here in regards to how the military runs, as an organization and on active operations, and how military law works. Many arguments are outrageous hypotheticals and emotion-laden.

As conservatives and people who cherish the Constitution, I am bothered at the flip attitude so many have to the law and due process.

His intent was right, I concede that. But as is argued daily on this website and in other media, the left always claims to have our best intent in mind and we routinely debunk it.