Why President Trump Is Right To Consider Pardoning Green Beret Matthew Golsteyn
All too predictably, The New York Times is hyperbolically criticizing President Donald Trump for saying that he would review the case of Maj. Matthew L. Golsteyn, a Green Beret accused of killing an Afghan man in 2010. The New York Times called Trump “impulsive” and accused him of exercising “undue command influence.” But Golsteyn’s case is exactly the situation for which the presidential pardon must be considered. . .
Golsteyn’s involvement in the man’s murder first came to light when he interviewed for a job at the CIA. As part of his application, he was asked to identify any illegal acts or indiscretions in which he may have participated. His confession led to an investigation resulting in withholding Golsteyn’s employment with the CIA, but without charges being brought against him. . .
But then there’s the rule of law, above which none of us can be placed. Golsteyn was given specific orders. He is part of the greatest fighting force in the world, a fighting force whose greatness proceeds from its soldiers’ discipline, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for the chain of command. It is not up to Golsteyn to decide who lives and who dies. No man should have that kind of unfettered authority. He is a soldier, and his job is to follow orders, to carry out his mission faithfully, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and, by extension, its laws.
According to the information available, Golsteyn broke the law then made the unforced error of brazenly bringing attention to that fact through a national television broadcast. Unquestionably, there is much more evidence to be uncovered, some of it potentially exculpatory, but if the facts stand as they are, and if there is nothing more of substance to consider, Golsteyn’s choice stood outside of the boundaries of the law, and he must be held to account.
But there are times when the law is too harsh; times when society’s punishment is either illogical or inappropriate for the circumstances. Under these conditions, an escape clause must be configured. Alexander Hamilton said it best, as he so often does, in The Federalist Number 74, “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” (Read more from “Why President Trump Is Right To Consider Pardoning Green Beret Matthew Golsteyn” HERE)
Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.
