Assuming the accuracy of the following article should First Lieutenant Clint Lorance be released and sent home? I firmly believe that he should because the Obama administration attempted to be overly agreeable with foreign governments that hated America and would try anything to harm American soldiers. US Army LT sentenced to 20 years; charged with murder for protecting his men from Taliban
This is his family's full story: http://www.freeclintlorance.com/case/ If it is true that the military kept from the defense that the captured tested positive for explosive residual on their hands, the trial was a sham.
Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t seem to be as clear cut as any of the vested interests or political operators make it out to be and I don’t think any of us are in a position to determine exactly what happened on the day in question or to second guess the actions of anyone involved; https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/...cer-has-support-but-not-from-his-platoon.html I don’t see any of the grand conspiracy some seem to have suggested about it. There must be countless contacts like this involving US forces, many of which will have led to suspects being killed and this seems to be a rare example of any legal action being taken. That suggests there was something different about this incident and there doesn’t seem to be any political motive as far as the people involved or any negative media coverage in the immediate aftermath. I think there is a valid question of whether there should be mitigation for a young man with such limited experience being put in charge of a unit and wider questions of how the behaviour and actions of officers can be addressed by their subordinates and how struggling officers can feel able to seek help and support. It seems like a tragedy for all concerned and while little can be done to make it better for them, a more open and honest assessment of everything that led up to that situation in the first place would be good.
Very well said! At the minimum it seems to me that this case should be reviewed.......... and there is a real possibility that the Donald Trump administration may look at his particular case very differently than the President Obama administration did?! President Obama's people may have worried too much about appeasing foreign government officials....... President Trump's people may be more concerned with the effect that their decisions have on the morale of America's military personnel?! President Obama's people surely meant well......... but in my opinion President Trump's people may choose a basically wiser course of action for the long term benefit of both America and her allies.
Without a transcript of what the other service members involved testified to we can't really form a knowledgeable opinion. A Marine squad leader we know VERY well was in the fighting in the Helmand District of Afghanistan, where the worst fighting occurred. He formed an extremely low opinion of the Army, though moreso the National Guardsmen. He called them "cowboys." He said they would make deals with a town's leaders to identify outsiders and where the insurgents might be and the town glad they were there because the Marines brought law and order and made them safe. But then Army, particularly Guardsmen, would show up with their 50 cals on their Humvees and shoot up empty houses, buildings and vehicles just for the fun of it - turning everyone in the town or village against them. If it turned out a family was killed hiding in one of those houses, I am confident if any were then put on trial, they would tell a story of seeing potential adversaries and shooting in self defense. The family tells a convincing story. But it takes hearing both sides to form an intelligent opinion. It is very rare the military puts anyone who was in combat on trial.
I wish I could return he compliment but I find your attempt to spin this in to a partisan political issue with zero evidence or justification distasteful at best. Everything I've seen suggests it's a relatively simple (albeit serious) legal matter which should be treated entirely as such. Whoever is sitting in the Whitehouse at the time should be entirely irrelevant.
But...... you and I both know that who is sitting in the White House is not irrelevant........ and both President Obama's team...... and President Trump's team........ have different but valid reasons to look at this situation quite differently!
I so thank you for this JakeJ! After reading this I think I definitely voted correctly in the poll: "Yes....." http://www.freeclintlorance.com/case/
Sorry for showing up late to this thread, but I want to clear the air regarding this. I am one of the soldiers who was on that patrol and subsequently at the court martial testifying against him. No, Lorance does not deserve to be released, he deserves every day he spends in prison and he is fortunate it is only twenty years. The entire story as told by his family on their website is more or less fabricated. There are so many lies and inconsistencies that I hardly know where to begin. My name is Todd Fitzgerald, and I was quoted in stories by both the Army Times and the New York Times, if you care to look those up. I will tell you the truth of what happened, what isn't true about the stories being told, and I will back it up with actual coverage of the court martial itself. Now, where to begin. First and foremost, Clint was not protecting us, he did not save our lives, and he did not make a split second decision. There was no motorcycle speeding towards us, and the men that he murdered were actually returning to their own village when he illegally ordered them to be fired upon. The soldier who fired the fatal shots was in a gun truck, separate from our dismount element, and did not have the same context of the situation as we did, but I will get to that. First we must start with his first and second day with us. Lorance was only with our unit for a few days but in that time he committed a series of crimes, at least one for every day, culminating in the murders of the village elders with whom our platoon had been working with for months and had established a good working relationship with. During his short time, he harassed and threatened the local villagers, ordered the murder of two village elders, and attempted to cover up evidence of their identities, all things with which he was convicted of. He ordered a marksmen to fire into a village near some locals to scare them, including women and children, however that soldier refused to fire near the children. Immediately after that incident he attempted to order a non-commissioned officer to call up a false report of receiving incoming fire in order to justify the outgoing fire, however that soldier also refused that illegal order. He falsely told us that we were to shoot any motorcycle that we saw, despite that never having been part of our ROE, and knowing that the locals used motorcycles as their main form of transportation. The day of the murders, the local village elders came to our base to complain about the harassing fire, at which point Lorance charged his weapon and pointed it at them, threatening to kill them if they did not leave. They immediately went back to speak with the farmers that had been shot at, and were driving back into their own side of the village when they were spotted and ordered to be fired upon. After shooting them, we searched their bodies and found no weapons or communication devices, but we did find identification cards, which he told us to ignore. He also refused to allow them to be biometrically identified despite having the proper equipment in the field, knowing that they were not enemy insurgents and would not have come up as hostiles in our database. He also ordered the soldier with the radio to lie about being able to search their bodies. The third rider, who was the young son of one of the elders, ran off and was not found later, although the lieutenant ordered the gunner to fire at him and the gunner refused to order because he was just a child and was running away after his family members were murdered. The helicopter did not witness any of the events and was not in contact with the lieutenant, having showed up after the murders and only having direct comms with our fire support team member. We in the platoon turned him in and nine of us were among the twenty two witnesses called to testify against him. I did not receive any immunity as I was not facing any charges, and to my knowledge nobody else was granted immunity or facing charges. There was a separate engagement from our gun team at the far end of the village after the helicopter showed up which did involve radio traffic and was investigated and deemed to be justified and within our rules of engagement, however did not involve majority of the dismount element including myself and the lieutenant. Now, for the things that are NOT true. I will try to list them all but there have been far too many fabrications created that I may miss a couple. First off, as previously mentioned, there was not at any time a motorcycle speeding towards us. The men he killed had already come to our base and spoken with us before being threatened and leaving. The road was not restricted to police and military use only, it was the main thoroughfare for both soldiers and the locals living in the area. There was no helicopter overhead prior to the patrol or at any time until AFTER the two village elders were murdered, there was no radio traffic indicating they were doing anything at all, and they did not have radios themselves. When the helicopter showed up, Clint was NOT in direct communication with them, so he did not confirm any descriptions of anything else regarding anyone in the area, instead he was attempting to order the fire support officer to lie in order to cover up his crimes. When first fired upon, the men stopped their motorcycle and dismounted, they followed our hand and arm motions to remain where they were and did not disobey orders to stay where they were. They were shot standing still. The third individual on the bike was not captured later. The motorcycle was not removed before it could be searched, we had positive control over the area and were ordered to shoot anyone who approached it. There was in fact a local population, including men, women, and children, as mentioned earlier. I am going to stop here because the rest of the "case" as presented by his family is just plain hogwash. I will copy and paste the some of the articles written during the court martial that fully support everything I have just said in a separate post as this one is quite long and will provide links to them as well.
The court martial took place at Fort Bragg, NC just outside of Fayetteville, NC. A local reporter from the Fayetteville Observer was sent to sit in on the court martial and spent all five days writing articles based on his own observation and the testimony of everyone who was present. First I will quote the fourth article written with a list of other charges besides murder and attempted murder for some perspective. "Prosecutors wrapped up their case Wednesday in Lorance’s court-martial after calling 22 witnesses who described the shooting and other aggressive behavior toward Afghans for which Lorance faces other charges. Those charges include ordering illegal harassing fire into a village, making false official statements, obstructing justice and making threats against villagers." Source: http://www.fayobserver.com/cd780d59-3a3a-5b92-a860-bda10076cc4a.html Here is the bulk of the fifth in his series of articles, featuring a rundown of the day-to-day happening, along with a link. "Lorance’s defense team argued during the three-day trial that he was trying to protect his men in a Taliban-controlled part of Afghanistan where motorcycles were often a sign of trouble and where four of the platoon’s soldiers had been hurt in recent weeks. But soldiers who served with Lorance testified that motorcycles were the most common form of transportation for all Afghans, insurgents and civilians alike. Lorance was convicted of committing at least one crime every day he was with his unit at a small outpost in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan last summer. On June 30, as soon as he arrived at the outpost two days after being tapped as the platoon leader, Lorance threatened to have a man and his family killed if the man moved concertina wire near the outpost or if any soldiers were ever injured on his land. On July 1, he ordered a marksman in the platoon into a guard tower to harass civilians by shooting close enough to scare them. The soldier who shot said during the court-martial that he eventually refused to fire when Lorance ordered him to shoot near a group of children. Lorance also asked another soldier to file a false report saying villagers shot at the outpost to provoke the attack. On July 2, Lorance threatened to kill villagers who showed up at the base to complain about the shots into the village the day before. Lorance was acquitted of making a false official statement, a charge related to his allegedly telling his men before a foot patrol that morning to immediately shoot anyone they saw on a motorcycle. During the July 2 patrol, Lorance ordered a soldier who reported seeing three Afghans on a motorcycle to open fire. The men stopped and got off the motorcycle. Shortly after that, Lorance ordered a soldier manning the turret of a gun truck to shoot them. Two of the men died. The third escaped. The two soldiers who fired at the Afghans said they never felt threatened and would not have shot had Lorance not ordered it. They said they didn’t see any hostile action or hostile intent from the men, a requirement before U.S. forces can fire their weapons in Afghanistan. “Lieutenant Lorance murdered those two men. He ordered them to be shot with no legal justification,” said Capt. Tripp Otto, the lead prosecutor. “Without his manufacturing of combat, those two men would be alive.” Guy Womack, Lorance’s lawyer, said the biggest shame of the situation was that American troops had their hands tied by the rules of engagement and that Lorance was being punished for making a snap decision in combat. Lorance also was convicted of obstruction of justice for working to cover up the murder immediately after it happened, lying about several details of the incident. He reported the bodies couldn’t be searched because the family had retrieved them so quickly. Multiple soldiers testified that the bodies already had been searched when Lorance made that report. Cucumbers, scissors and other personal items were found, but no weapons or items such as cellphones or hand-held radios that could have been evidence of insurgent activity. Lorance also said a support helicopter pilot had seen the men on the motorcycle carrying weapons. The pilot, Capt. Katherine McNair, testified Wednesday that she didn’t arrive as air support for Lorance’s platoon until after the two Afghans were shot." Source: http://www.fayobserver.com/5348ca10-d022-59c5-91a5-3259b6dedddb.html Here is a clip from another article by an independent journalist from Reuters, quoting Clint's lawyer as admitting that he covered up evidence, one of his actions leading to his obstruction of justice. 'After the shooting, Lorance tried to hide evidence that the two dead Afghans were carrying proper identity, something the Taliban rarely do. "He told his soldiers to forget they saw the IDs. That was wrong," said Womack.' Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-murder-idUSBRE97201H20130803 As I also mentioned, I was quoted and featured in both the Army Times story (here: https://www.armytimes.com/story/mil...rance-afghanistan-murders-case-army/21470289/) and the NY Times story (here: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/...as-support-but-not-from-his-platoon.html?_r=0). You're free to ask me any questions but I cannot think of anything I have not covered. The idea that the previous administration had anything to do with this criminal's trial or sentencing is ridiculous as it came from the ground and was pushed up the chain and pursued at a division level and the sentiment that he should be released without having any real basis for it is preposterous. As one of the soldiers on the ground that day, and someone who spent seven months fighting the enemy in hostile territory, I can personally tell you that he not only endangered the lives of all the brave men that he was supposed to be leading, but all of the soldiers that replaced us as well. And saying that he deserves to be free is kind of insulting both to myself and all the honorable men and women that served their country and testified against his illegal and immoral actions. Nobody involved ever condoned his acts then or now, we still stand by our words and deeds, and have received support from soldiers at all levels of our company, squadron, and brigade. If you feel like you are supporting the troops, you should seriously consider who you are supporting, a single dishonorable person residing in a federal penitentiary for war crimes (one of only two officers convicted for murder on the battle field in both current long-running conflicts) or the nearly two dozen involved men and women who have served our country, some of who continue to serve our country. That is all I really have to say at this time. Thank you if you have made it this far. Respectfully, Todd Fitzgerald
Would a high profile case of this nature probably go all the way up to the desk of the then Secretary of State?
Who is sitting in the Whitehouse should be irrelevant and neither of them had/have any valid reason to look at the case at all. The executive shouldn’t interfere with the judiciary (including, arguably especially, military justice). You’re still trying to twist this in to a political issue (with a partisan spin) where there is absolutely nothing in any of the reporting to support that idea. Whether this officer acted appropriately or not and if he didn’t, what punishment he should face focuses entirely on the facts of the individual case and the people involved.
Wow!!!!!!! Thank you for joining the forum FitzForShort...... and thank you for taking this discussion up to a whole new level that I had not quite expected! For starters..... I have to admit that I am somewhat biased........ I have to give Secretary of State Hillary Clinton credit for being an extremely hard working person........ She was all over the subject of Health Care as she researched the topic in preparation for the creation of Obama Care so............. ..... it is difficult for me to imagine Ms. Clinton.....NOT....... dealing personally with the First Lieutenant Clint Lorance case.... while she is in the office of America's Ambassador of all Ambassadors / Secretary of State?! Behaviour patterns of people....... tend to be somewhat consistent over time and....... somebody who acts in the following way after they are convicted of a "crime"............ does not very well fit with the person you seem to be describing??????!!! On the other hand.... I admit that I am biased.... and I have to admit that I found Ms. Clinton somewhat scary.... since reading certain articles about her and her husband back in the 1990's!
Wow!!!!!!!! Thank you again for your powerful testimony Mr. Fitzgerald! Two questions immediately pop into my mind....... one........ you are about to become rather famous so...... would you be willing to go on the Dr. Phil show .... or any equivalent program that you choose.......and take a lie detector to back up your testimony? This is kind of important because............ if in fact a certain high level political leader came to a conclusion somewhat along the line of....... John 11:50 "Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." and if..... that political leader deleted e-mails related to this case.... and if those relevant e-mails do still exist........Then ..... the terrible division in America today could be greatly reduced if the full truth on this topic were to come out! ... the lives of hundreds.... if not thousand of Americans could perhaps be saved if the truth surrounding this were known....... because the enthusiasm in those anti-Trump demonstrations would soon rapidly decrease! Two....you wouldn't happen to know off hand if this case did go all the way to the desk of the then Secretary of State would you?
I admit that I am biased...... I admit that I tend to suspect that the First Lieutenant Clint Lorance case was somewhat cooked for political reasons......... I am somewhat reminded of another case that was written up here on the forum..... where it seems a possibly somewhat corrupt judge...... who may have wanted to show that he was tough on drunk drivers...... may have caused evidence to to ignored that indicated that the driver of the car with two nurses inside..... may have fallen asleep at the wheel and driven into Mr. Paul Nigl?????! Injustice can occur even in America...... when there is enough money or influence at stake...... http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/broken-justice.484336/#post-1067590074 Broken Justice
.... and could there be e-mails out there where she dealt with this case? If so.... what did she write I wonder? Lieutenant Clint Lorance wrote a letter to his supporters that can be read here: https://www.facebook.com/freeclintl...7246702129079/707303952790016/?type=3&theater
Here is a somewhat similar case. The full text of the original e-mail can be viewed at the link: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Tate4CentralNova/conversations/messages/3681 Hero gets prison instead of parade
This type of case has significant potential to be of value within the circumstances that the USA and Canada are in here in 2019 with elections coming up!
