GOP Rep defends accused war criminal, says his own unit likely killed civillians - Polidicks

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/duncan-hunter-barstool-interview-killed-hundreds/index.html (CNN) California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter said that as an artillery officer, his unit "killed probably hundreds of civilians" during his 2004 tour in Fallujah, Iraq. During a Barstool Sports interview for a podcast that was released on Monday, Hunter defended his support of Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL facing a premeditated murder charge in the stabbing death of an injured person in Iraq. President Donald Trump is considering pardoning Gallagher. "I was an artillery officer, and we fired hundreds of rounds into Fallujah, killed probably hundreds of civilians, if not scores, if not hundreds of civilians," Hunter said. "Probably killed women and children, if there were any left in the city when we invaded. So do I get judged, too?" When pressed on a specific killing differing from collateral damage, Hunter argued that it was simply a matter of how people were killed. Gallagher's alleged victim "might have been killed in a way that you don't personally agree with, because you say it's against the laws of war," Hunter said. "As opposed to artillery killing civilians, women and children, because it's kind of indiscriminate in a way. It's not a sniper weapon, right. Which is worse?" Among the accusations against Gallagher are that he stabbed and killed a wounded person, shot at noncombatants, posed for a photo and performed his re-enlistment ceremony next to a corpse, according to a charge sheet from November. Hunter said that after viewing relevant photos and video from the prosecution and speaking to other SEALs who served with Gallagher, he didn't believe the charges nor care if the alleged ISIS fighter was killed. Hunter has stirred controversy with his defense of Gallagher before, saying earlier this week that he had taken a photo with an enemy corpse and that many other service members had done so.

"So do I get judged, too?" Yes, actually

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/486/015/02b.png this about sums up this piece of shit's attitude towards his own fucking war crimes, never mind he used them to defend somebody else committing the same crimes

Question: why the hell is this guy a sitting representative and not also under trial for war crimes, like the shithead he's defending?

"I was an artillery officer, and we fired hundreds of rounds into Fallujah, killed probably hundreds of civilians, if not scores, if not hundreds of civilians," Hunter said. "Probably killed women and children, if there were any left in the city when we invaded. So do I get judged, too?" take a wild fucking guess buddy.

"GOP Rep defends accused war criminal, says his own unit likely killed civillians" "Rep. Ocasio-Cortez returns to bartending to promote fair wages" Republicans vs Democrats in a nutshell really.

America is an imperialist nation, is why

So this man's argument is that these two things are morally identical: An artillery officer ordering a strike, with the distinct possibility that civilians did not obey the order to flee. A special warfare officer indiscriminately firing into a crowd of civilians and torturing individuals. If that is what he truly believed, he should never have been allowed into the military. Rep. Hunter has bellied a distinct failing of his moral character.

ya, that's a war crime in of itself what we did to cities, the difference is that the chain of command exists for this reason, for the ones making the orders to ultimately be held responsible for this, but what this soldier is accused of doing was not ordered, was not sanctioned, and is against the US military code as well, and I can't believe it has to be explained to a former soldier the difference.

Imagine his face if this comment triggers an investigation into him / his unit.

it wouldn't because his unit was carrying out orders to shell a city with civilians and combatants in it.

Atleast he didnt get his own movie like alot of these hoorah scumbag criminals

The US technically won.

no one will be held responsible for the war crimes america committed when they illegally invaded iraq and killed thousands of its people.

From what I recall "I was just following orders" wasn't exactly considered a stellar defense 70 years ago.

Just remember that standing law in the US is that if the Hague, or anywhere, tries to try Americans on war crimes, America will invade them to free the captive. This law was signed by George W. Bush. America has been an unaccountable rogue state since 9/11 spooked it and made it go insane with paranoid fear.

Really? Wow, that is actually pretty disturbing. I assume this applies even for proven war crimes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act The USA essentially does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court when it comes to prosecuting US military or government officials, even for war crimes: It authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court." (emphasis mine) Coincidentally this was around the time all those CIA black sites were totally not waterboarding people for totally not no good reason.

it was believed nazis were a thing of the past by then too

yes but that's substantially different from dragging a guy into the desert and executing him, then desecrating his corpse, and then taking pictures of you standing on it with a shit eating grin