Yahoo Sports highlights the three longest home runs from the weekend of August 3rd & 4th utilizing MLB statcast data.
David: As a four-tour combat veteran and a true expert on Operational & International Law, I find this article stunningly obtuse. A pardon implies guilt. Lorance is guilty of nothing other than doing what American commanders have done for countless generations: protecting their men and killing the enemy. The Army’s theory at every stage of this case has been that 1LT Lorance was a “bad apple” who ordered the killing of “civilian casualties” has been de-bunked by the following facts, discovered since 1LT Lorance’s conviction, and in spite of the Army’s efforts to support its theory of the case, which was developed without regard for the truth or a legitimate search for justice. Evidence that now exists establishes that during the engagement in July 2012, 1LT Lorance killed the enemy, and protected his troops, which is precisely what this nation sent him to do. Lorance was not given a fair trial nor were all the facts presented to the jury. Specifically: • Army prosecutors did not provide to 1LT Lorance’s trial defense team evidence that DNA and/or fingerprint evidence linked the Afghan men killed and wounded in the July 2012 engagement to improvised explosive device (“IED”) events targeted at killing Americans. Thirty three times at trial the government alleged Lorance ordered his troops to fire upon “civilians” or “tribal elders” when it knew all the time that they were unlawful combatant bomb-makers. • Army prosecutors did not provide to 1LT Lorance’s trial defense team Significant Activity Reports issued shortly before and contemporaneously with 1LT Lorance’s patrol indicated that the platoon was being scouted by hostile forces. • Army prosecutors did not provide to 1LT Lorance’s trial defense team surveillance reports from an over-flying aerostat with high-visibility cameras that indicated that the platoon was being scouted by hostile forces. • Nine members of the platoon over which 1LT Lorance assumed command just days before the July 2012 patrol were threatened with murder charges and then granted immunity in exchange for their testimony against 1LT Lorance. What do you think they would say? • While the Army prosecutors, and Army leaders in subsequent public discussions, accused 1LT Lorance of unilaterally and unlawfully changing the rules of engagement, 1LT Lorance was acquitted of that offense. The President should act in accordance with his own independent judgment as Commander-in-Chief, under the authority granted to him by the Constitution and the UCMJ. There is deep precedent for the President of the United States taking action in courts-martial, dating to many similar actions President Lincoln took during the Civil War. President Trump exercising his discretion and independent review here would affirm the faith the American people have in their military’s leadership. How many parents would want their sons and daughters exposed to roughshod military “justice” unleashed to appease putative allies? Lastly, the military generally and military “justice” system in particular seem to have forgotten Winston Churchill’s advice not to “remain neutral between the fire and the fire brigade.” In their zeal to achieve unwinnable goals as set forth in their poorly wrought counterinsurgency doctrine too many have forgotten that winning wars requires killing the enemy.