detainees or kill civilians. and if we do, we take action. a jury trial of your combat experience peers. so why mr. trump would intervene in that process which is widely not supported by the military chain in command, i m positive of that. this is a political act. it s ill thought out. it s harmful to our image. and indeed it would put our own military at risk. are we suggesting that we would allow one of our soldiers to be stripped naked and shot dead while being interrogated? so we ve got a real problem with the president s publicly stated values system. other than getting individuals out of legal jeopardy, who would it help? well, you make a good point, by the way. that navy chief s.e.a.l., the allegations are horrendous. he s not yet gone to trial, so
it s kill or be killed. but the u.s. armed forces is still guided by its values, by its discipline. it operates under the uniform code of military justice. and for sure we don t execute detainees or kill civilians. and if we do, we take action. a jury trial of your combat experience peers. so why mr. trump would intervene in that process which is widely not supported by the military chain in command, i m positive of that. this is a political act. it s ill thought out. it s harmful to our image. and indeed it would put our own military at risk. are we suggesting that we would allow one of our soldiers to be stripped naked and shot dead while being interrogated? so we ve got a real problem with the president s publicly stated
first, let s get to the the essential argument here. i heard this from a lot of service members as well in the wake of this story over the weekend. you have done your service on the ground. you say in this op-ed and i m quoting here, soldiers take most serious ly the things their leadership makes most serious. by issuing pardons, is the president making it less serious when u.s. soldiers break the law, break u.s. military law and kill civilians. soldiers do what the leadership tells them or signals to them is most important to them. and i think it s clear in this case you have the president who also functions as the commander-in-chief sending a message that he disagrees with
these precision-guided missiles, these weapons and the arms that they are used to go kill civilians in places like yemen. we need to end ours military support in yemen, and this is something that i want to talk about a little bit because there s not been much focus placed on what the united states role has been in partnering with saudi arabia and yemen, something that began in 2015 under the obama administration, continuing now through the trump administration where our u.s. military are refueling saudi bomber planes. they are dropping u.s.-made bombs that we have supplied to them. we are providing them with intelligence and targeting support as has been reported by this administration, and, therefore, very complicit in this genocidal war that that saudi arabia is waging in yemen. as you said, it s causing millions of yemeni people to starve and suffer and to speak of innocent women and children in the tens of thousands during
an admirer of the saddam regime, they to the same in 2011, when they tried to remove ghaddafi. it s a standard tactic. what we have is this union between neo-cons, who been embraced by the establishment wings of the republican democratic party and the militarists, people like lindsey graham and lots of democrats, who love every war. this climate arises that you are supposed to cheer when it comes time to drop bombs and other countries, not ask whether there is evidence to justify, not ask whether it will do good, kill civilians. if you do ask us questions, it means youse are on the side of america s enemies. it s an incredibly authoritarian tactic that gets used to suppress debate. tucker: its poison. glenn greenwald, thank you as always. good to be with you. tucker: richard goodstein is an attorney who advised both of hillary clinton s campaigns