Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 8 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 11/30/19

The President is a Domestic Enemy of the Constitution: Ellsberg Slams Trump For Pardoning War Crimes

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages) (# of views)   3 comments
Author 84160
Message Democracy Now

See original here

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper demanded the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, one week after President Trump overruled military leaders and cleared three U.S. service-members accused or convicted of war crimes. The men included Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher, who has been accused of multiple war crimes, including shooting two Iraqi civilians and fatally stabbing a captive teenager in the neck. Gallagher was convicted of posing with the teenage corpse but was acquitted of premeditated murder.

Trump criticized the Navy on Thursday for moving toward holding a review hearing to decide if Gallagher should be ousted. The New York Times reported Navy Secretary Spencer then threatened to resign after Trump's backlash but there are also reports that Spencer attempted to reach a backroom deal with Trump that would have allowed Gallagher to keep his Trident Pin. In a statement on Sunday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he was "deeply troubled by this conduct."

We speak with Daniel Ellsberg, one of the world's most famous whistleblowers. In 1971, he was a high-level defense analyst when he leaked a top secret report on U.S. involvement in Vietnam to The New York Times and other publications that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers and played a key role in ending the Vietnam War.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!. I'm Amy Goodman. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has fired the Navy Secretary Richard Spencer. His ouster comes a week after President Trump overruled military leaders and pardoned three U.S. service members who have been accused of or convicted of war crimes. The men included Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who has been accused of multiple war crimes including shooting two Iraqi civilians and fatally stabbing a captive teenager in the neck. Gallagher was convicted of posing with the teenage corpse, but acquitted on premeditated murder.

On Thursday, Trump criticized the Navy for moving toward holding a review hearing to decide if Gallagher should be ousted from the elite SEAL commando unit. Trump tweeted, "The Navy will not be taking away war fighter and Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's trident pin." The New York Times reported Navy Secretary Spencer then threatened to resign after Trump's tweet but there are also reports Spencer attempted to reach a backroom deal with Trump that would have allowed Gallagher to keep his Trident pin. A backroom deal meant he was going outside the chain of command, outside of the Defense Secretary Mark Esper. In a statement on Sunday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he was "deeply troubled by this conduct." Esper went on to state, "Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position."

Still with us in Berkeley, California, is Dan Ellsberg, one of the world's most famous whistleblowers. In 1971, he was a high-level Defense analyst when he leaked a top-secret report on U.S. involvement in Vietnam to The New York Times and other publications that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers and played a key role in ending the Vietnam War. Can you make sense of what took place? What is very clear is that President Trump wanted to -- that President Trump pardoned those that were accused of or convicted of war crimes and wanted to restore the level of Eddie Gallagher in the Navy SEALs. The Navy SEALs wanted to oust him. Dan Ellsberg, what is going on here?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: I react to this, Amy, not from my last 40 years as an antiwar activist or an anti-nuclear activist, but in 15 years before that, which included three years in the Marine Corps when I was a company commander. I'm very proud of that. A rifle company commander. I was a first lieutenant before that, a training officer of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines. Before that a platoon leader of infantry, rifle platoons. I came to teach the laws of war and I believed in them very strongly.

In the Marine Corps, before I was in, I entered that very much imbued with the notion of just war, something that President Trump has never been exposed to because he has had no military experience whatever. He has never worn the uniform. But his fake bone spurs have kept him from learning how stupid and absolutely off-the-wall his statement is that these men, all of these men, including the accused ones, have been trained to be killing machines and therefore should not be prosecuted when they kill.

That is not what he would have learned, what he would have learned in the Army or the Marines or the SEALs. Those people are trained to kill discriminately. They are trained not to kill noncombatants or prisoners. And the three men involved here, among them are accused and one has been convicted so far, of doing exactly that. Of killing prisoners and killing -- ordering the death of noncombatants. Very serious charges. The president shows that he has no interest in what the realities of this were. He sought from the beginning to stop any inquiry.

And the latest move yesterday, which appalled me and I think should be -- it corresponds to a turning point in my own life, and it should be a turning point for a lot of senior officers in the Pentagon right now. There are a lot of lies been going on. And it reminds me of an incident 50 years ago last month, which exactly triggered my copying the Pentagon papers on October 1st, 1969. And that was the day after I read in the paper that President Nixon had stopped, had terminated an almost unprecedented murder trial of Special Forces officers, then an elite corps just as they are -- and one of the prisoners here, one of the defendants was a Special Forces Green Beret, and of course the SEALS are involved, and if anything, an even more elite force, I'd have to say even more elite than the much larger Marine force, Marine Corps. I must say I never believed I could have physically measured up to the training course that SEALs have to go through.

But I do know and they do know that the military honor has as its core the notion that indiscriminate killing is murder. That you kill people under orders when they are endangering our country or a country's security, not the people these people have very credibly been accused of killing. So I would say that the president is a domestic enemy of the universal code of military justice, the heart of military law, just as I perceive him as a domestic enemy of the Constitution, in the sense in which all of these people in Congress, in the officials, in the White House, have all taken -- and the Marines -- have all taken the same oath. And that is an oath not to a fuhrer, and not to secrecy, not to unquestioned obedience to illegal orders. It is an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I repeat, I think the senior officers of the military right now who have been trying to persuade President Trump over the last week and more, all together, that this action he is -- the set of actions he is undertaking is dishonorable and undermines discipline, honor, loyalty and the entire Armed Forces -- it is up to them to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they can honorably serve this commander-in-chief. I would say they could not. And that means that the very next resignation should be that of Rear Admiral Green, the commander of the SEALS, who knows that this is in direct contradiction of his efforts to improve morale and morals and ethics in the SEALS. It destroys that. He cannot honorably serve the president under these conditions, nor can the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, any of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Secretary of Defense, Esper, all of whom are reported to have perceived how disastrous this counter-military ethos, culture, would be if it's continued.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Democracy Now Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Democracy Now!  is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program hosted by journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

After Trip to Gaza, Anthony Bourdain Accused World of Robbing Palestinians of Their Basic Humanity

Glenn Greenwald: Why the Obama Administration's Persecution of Bradley Manning Should Terrify Us All

Julian Assange on WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, Cypherpunks, Surveillance State, from DemocracyNow

Bernie Sanders on Resisting Trump, Why the Democratic Party is an "Absolute Failure" & More

Seymour Hersh: Obama "Cherry-Picked" Intelligence on Syrian Chemical Attack to Justify U.S. Strike

Seymour Hersh Details Explosive Story on Bin Laden Killing & Responds to White House, Media Backlash

Comments Image Post Article Comment and Rate This Article

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.
          

Comment Here:   


You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.
 

Username
Password

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

1 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments  Post Comment


Richard Pietrasz

Become a Fan
Author 6357
(Member since Jun 7, 2007), 13 fans, 1 quicklinks, 2921 comments, 1 diaries (View Extended Stats)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

I am quite disappointed in Ellsberg's words in this interview. He is quibbling about details in the treatment of one man who crossed an ethical boundary that seems extremely arbitrary in comparison to what is considered honorable conduct be the leaders of the US military. It is easy to conclude that Ellsberg is justifying the wars, and honoring those who waged them.

Gallagher was convicted of posing with the corpse of an executed prisoner, which is definitely a minor crime when compared to the totality of what the US military has done, and continues to do, in these various wars. The reason Gallagher was convicted was he committed a public relations blunder, and US military leaders are appalled Trump publicly spoke the truth about US military training, and what US military leaders practice (and presumably believe) about prosecution of US soldiers who kill.

Submitted on Monday, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:22:51 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
Indent

Richard Pietrasz

Become a Fan
Author 6357
(Member since Jun 7, 2007), 13 fans, 1 quicklinks, 2921 comments, 1 diaries (View Extended Stats)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Richard Pietrasz:   New Content

Ellsberg:

"... But his fake bone spurs have kept him from learning how stupid and absolutely off-the-wall his statement is that these men, all of these men, including the accused ones, have been trained to be killing machines and therefore should not be prosecuted when they kill.

"That is not what he would have learned, what he would have learned in the Army or the Marines or the SEALs. Those people are trained to kill discriminately. They are trained not to kill noncombatants or prisoners. ..."

In reality, these people are trained to discriminate between their own selves plus allies, versus those in targeted populations including civilians and other noncombatants. Identification, Friend, Foe or Neutral (IFFN) was once part of US military doctrine (or more accurately its dictionary), but the N in the acronym was dropped shortly after the early 1991 portion of the US war against Iraq. And, based on what they did, and still do in Gitmo as far as we know, they (at least some of them) were trained to torture prisoners.

Ellsberg:

"... But I do know and they do know that the military honor has as its core the notion that indiscriminate killing is murder."

So, why didn't Ellsberg speak up to advocate the prosecution of those who did not make the discrimination between non-combatants and combatants, or between patriots defending their own country and invaders who kill in vast numbers.

Ellsberg:

"... It is an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..."

The US Constitution explicitly limits the powers of the US government, and explicitly addresses additional rights held by US citizens. The US military is part of that government, and he additional rights of US citizens only concern the right to hold certain government offices. The US Constitution explicitly addresses war, and there is no provision to suspend Bill of Rights.

Submitted on Monday, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:23:52 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndent

Richard Pietrasz

Become a Fan
Author 6357
(Member since Jun 7, 2007), 13 fans, 1 quicklinks, 2921 comments, 1 diaries (View Extended Stats)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Richard Pietrasz:   New Content

It is possible that Ellsberg did not think through the subject of this interview thoroughly prior to participating it. At 88 years old, it is quite possible Ellsberg is beyond major revisions in his worldview, despite his claim to a "a turning point in my own life" as a result of this. However, Ellsberg turned 65 the year (1996) the Lancet study estimated the US war against Iraq had caused the death of about one half million babies and other children under age 5 in Iraq, and US ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright admitted it and commented "... we think the price was worth it", and age is not an excuse for an epiphany then, given his coherence 23 years later. Military training is not merely indoctrination, it is long term immersion in group-think 24/7 for long terms of time; the mindset is very difficult to shake off.

Submitted on Monday, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:24:48 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment