Clint Lorance is a War Criminal and the First-Hand Account From One of His Soldiers is Chilling
John Lamparski. Getty Images.In July 2012, U.S. Army 1st Lieutenant Clint Lorance was leading a patrol in Afghanistan's Kandahar province which, at the time, was one of the most dangerous places on this here planet. During that patrol, Lorance's unit encountered a group of Afghan men on motorcycles approaching their position in a way the group had done dozens of times. In what he claimed was an effort to protect his troops, Lorance ordered his soldiers to open fire on the Afghan civilians without clear evidence of hostile intent and completely ignoring the Rule of Engagement. Without question, making the decision to engage is one that you have to make instantly in some cases. According to those on the ground that day, this situation wasn't one that required immediate action. They didn't even fire off any flares, rounds into the ground, or any type of de-escalation method which is insanity unless the threat is right fucking now.
Two of the Afghan men were killed in the incident, and several others were injured. The Army immediately started an investigation after it was revealed that the individuals targeted were not associated with any hostile activities or threats.
To me, what makes this trial and result so understandable is that Lorance had only been the platoon leader for three days. Three fucking days, man. In those 3 days, there were three incidents that would give any leader or person with a brain a big ole pause.
1. There were several soldiers who reported them above their platoon-level leadership instantly after returning to the FOB.
2. The communication and relationship with the locals were completely destroyed in a matter of days.
3. Their stories never and have never wavered.
4. The eyewitness statements were largely taken right away without the ability of the soldiers to "plot" against Lorance to fortify their stories. To me, that proves the accuracy.
Following the incident, Clint Lorance was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of second-degree murder. He went to a court-martial trial, where testimony from those same soldiers who were under Lorance's command said his claims of self-defense and defense of others were bullshit and completely a lie.
In 2013, Clint Lorance was found guilty on multiple charges, including two counts of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 20 years in military prison, dishonorably discharged, and stripped of his rank. The conviction set the military ablaze with a vast majority supporting the conviction because the crimes were so egregious and the fact that it is so rare… unbelievably rare… for soldiers to turn their leadership in.
Why? Because of the risk involved. If the investigation cracks and one or two of the soldiers change their story, then it's the other 8-10 soldiers who are now looking at serious charges. Why take that risk for someone you've known for literally 3 days. Three. These soldiers simply would not do that. No one with half a brain cell would do that especially not in a group that large.
In November 2019, then-President Donald Trump issued a controversial pardon for Clint Lorance. Trump's decision to pardon him came after a social campaign by Lorance's supporters. They portrayed him as a victim of an unjust conviction, arguing that he was a soldier who made a split-second decision in a hostile environment and deserved a much, much lighter sentence.
Those against the pardon, like me, believed that Trump's decision undermined good order and discipline and basic human rights. I believe it because there were so many first-hand accounts with credible testimony from soldiers who served with Lorance. Those first-hand accounts are all like the ones from Todd Fitzgerald.
Todd went through all the details with me and they will absolutely blow your mind especially when you find out that a convicted war criminal who committed murders is attempting to pass the Oklahoma state bar exam. Attorneys across the country are writing the state bar to say that Clint is not morally fit to practice law. Hard to argue with.
