View Full Version : Army reopens probe into 3rd Group Alumnus after Fox interview
Slingstone
12-10-2016, 04:06
Army probes former Green Beret after Fox interview http://video.foxnews.com/v/5242176610001/
Army reopens investigation into former Green Beret Matthew Golsteyn
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/army-reopens-investigation-into-former-green-beret-matthew-golsteyn
If I had ever taken a guy I highly suspected was the enemy into my custody as a detainee, then executed him and burned his body, I would go to jail.
If someone raped your kid, then you took him to the woods and set the perp on fire, you would be justified in my book. You would also still go to jail, and shouldn't be surprised. You knew the rules.
I can sympathize with CPT Golsteyn, but there were other ways to deal with this. There were lots of other ways to deal with this that would still get the job done. If in fact he did shoot a detainee, the last thing he should do is talk on TV about it, no matter how justified he thought it was. The Army isn't "screwing him", they are investigating a potential war crime. This seems pretty cut and dry from where I'm sitting.
blue02hd
12-10-2016, 05:21
He needs to stay out of the media.
Oldrotorhead
12-10-2016, 05:48
He needs to stay out of the media.
He needed to stay out of the media too late now.
Fixed if for you.
blue02hd
12-10-2016, 05:50
He needed to stay out of the media too late now.
Fixed if for you.
True Dat!
sfshooter
12-10-2016, 06:30
There are some things from over there that you never discuss publicly!
I thought that was common sense and everyone knew that.
If selection is an ongoing process, he just screwed up big-time. Why give information that leads to putting your head in the noose unless you have some death wish?
Then again, I listened to his explanation and he may want to force the issue of ROE and engagement with the enemy when they are not currently a threat. I've always argued that once you PID them as the enemy - self identified or not - you can engage them; they don't have to constitute a threat. Our written ROE/ROF allows this although many Commanders are hesitant. For instance, I was consulted once by a Big Army unit downrange who had been the recipient of a command-initiated IED. They saw the guy who hit the clapper but unfortunately the dude got away. A few days later they saw the same guy in a crowd downtown and they were told to stand down that he "wasn't a threat". I lay out the rules and the law and the congruent case law in defense of them finding the guy and whacking him. Their command wouldn't go for it - too worried about political repercussions.
Sounds like this is what he may be hanging his hat on. ALTHOUGH....once the cuffs go on, the enemy's status changes. If G merely led him outside the wire while bound/cuffed and popped him, I wouldn't want to be defending him.
WarriorDiplomat
12-10-2016, 09:10
If I had ever taken a guy I highly suspected was the enemy into my custody as a detainee, then executed him and burned his body, I would go to jail.
If someone raped your kid, then you took him to the woods and set the perp on fire, you would be justified in my book. You would also still go to jail, and shouldn't be surprised. You knew the rules.
I can sympathize with CPT Golsteyn, but there were other ways to deal with this. There were lots of other ways to deal with this that would still get the job done. If in fact he did shoot a detainee, the last thing he should do is talk on TV about it, no matter how justified he thought it was. The Army isn't "screwing him", they are investigating a potential war crime. This seems pretty cut and dry from where I'm sitting.
Rep Duncan Hunter needs to be more selective of who he stands up for, Goldsteyn is justified and wrong he isn't the first to release a known bomb maker etc, because of ROE but most of us find creative ways within the ROE to make it right. I am concerned that some of the blatantly obvious violations of ROE and or a bad decisions where troops screwed up and are being held accountable that Hunter is getting involved with undermines our leaderships authority. Hey I murdered someone outside the ROE and got caught call Rep Hunter....this is abuse of an advocate which will have long term negative repercussions. He bought the ticket now he is riding the ride he knew it was murder and he covered it up until he couldn't.
I am not against killing bad guys BTDT and this puke deserved to be killed but like all GB's I know there are times we walk on a thin line but if we commit a crime IAW our laws we know there is a penalty. This guys arrogance is amazing he was given a quiet out it seems and he could not shut up in this case using Rep Hunter was no different than a jundi asking for shit until we get sick of it.
Jim, you're right, as long as you have PID (under OEF ROE, not ISAF), you can shwak him. Our ROE would have allowed us to kill that guy. I've followed a guy on ISR for an hour after he ambushed a convoy, then nuked him when he got clear of civilians and houses. Righteous kill.
As for killing the bomb maker, can't do that if you PUC him. Once he's a detainee the game is up, and that's where this went wrong. There are literally so many other ways to make this guy go away.... Even if you wanted to stay above board, his operation had to have some sort of detainee plan. Hell, saying you had no evidence, and releasing him to the custody of the nearest elder (in this case, the threatened guy) would have worked. But no, cap him in the head and bury him. Then freak out, exhume him, and burn the body.
I'm all for expediency, but this wasn't a righteous shoot based on the evidence available publicly.
CDRODA396
12-10-2016, 12:48
Jim, you're right, as long as you have PID (under OEF ROE, not ISAF), you can shwak him. Our ROE would have allowed us to kill that guy. I've followed a guy on ISR for an hour after he ambushed a convoy, then nuked him when he got clear of civilians and houses. Righteous kill.
As for killing the bomb maker, can't do that if you PUC him. Once he's a detainee the game is up, and that's where this went wrong. There are literally so many other ways to make this guy go away.... Even if you wanted to stay above board, his operation had to have some sort of detainee plan. Hell, saying you had no evidence, and releasing him to the custody of the nearest elder (in this case, the threatened guy) would have worked. But no, cap him in the head and bury him. Then freak out, exhume him, and burn the body.
I'm all for expediency, but this wasn't a righteous shoot based on the evidence available publicly.
I watched the whole interview and towards the end the female recounts events as the bomb maker HAD been a detainee, who was RELEASED due to the ROE at the time.
The good CPT thinking this was wrong, subsequently hunted the guy down and killed him.
Its not clear what the circumstances were at the actual scene of the killing subsequent to the release. If the guy gave himself up again, was taken into custody, then swacked, then that is where it went wrong.
If no surrender was accepted, and the CPT killed the guy as soon as they had PID, then things get less easy to define.
Either way, burning the body was a stupid move that infers guilt, or an effort to hide something.
...bomb maker HAD been a detainee, who was RELEASED due to the ROE at the time. The good CPT thinking this was wrong, subsequently hunted the guy down and killed him.
I know of a group of people (I'm being vague here) that did something like this. They invited some Taliban leadership to come to a shura to discuss their differences. At the meeting, they confirmed it was the dudes in question. They all agreed to disagree, and the Taliban left. Having confirmed they were on the strike/kill list, they let them get 20 yards out of the gate then shot them dead.
Their command did not like this. At all. They opened a criminal investigation into the events, which eventually concluded that 1) they should have just taken them prisoner once PID'd, and 2) they didn't actually break the law as the guys were not in US custody, and had been PID'd.
They didn't go to jail, but the leadership were unceremoniously fired and sent packing, and everyone else split up and sent to different units.
Oldrotorhead
12-10-2016, 13:25
Well Fox replayed the interview today. He dude you weren't buried deep enough take that shovel and make it a foot deeper! Fox is not your friend, they are no better than NBC, CNN or the HOPO:(
Remington Raidr
12-12-2016, 18:50
"Last summer, newly surfaced Army documents alleged that Golsteyn told the CIA during a polygraph test that he killed an unarmed Afghan bombmaker in his custody and later conspired with others to destroy the body."
Even if he hadn't given the interview, if the above statement is what he actually said, he should have passed on the polygraph and whatever his reason for taking it was.
The community is littered with the bodies of people who have implicated themselves on polygraphs taken when applying for a job. I always have felt that we tend to operate in "grey" areas enough that I would never seek a job that required a polygraph.
The community is littered with the bodies of people who have implicated themselves on polygraphs taken when applying for a job. I always have felt that we tend to operate in "grey" areas enough that I would never seek a job that required a polygraph.
I remember clearly in Robin Sage the G chief holding up a drink, and giving one to the Captain, and making a toast to our recent victory. The good captain wouldn't drink, it had been forbidden by higher. The G chief went apeshit.... After much drama, the captain took the drink, while the instructor winked off to the side.
The lesson was clear. Sometimes following the rules directly hurts accomplishment of the mission, and you should have the presence of mind and maturity to recognize those moments and break the rules. I have no idea if this lesson is institutionalized, or command approved, or still taught..... But it sums up nicely the realities that ODAs face all the time. Sometimes teams go too far, as CPT Golsteyn could attest to.
I remember clearly in Robin Sage the G chief holding up a drink, and giving one to the Captain, and making a toast to our recent victory. The good captain wouldn't drink, it had been forbidden by higher. The G chief went apeshit.... After much drama, the captain took the drink, while the instructor winked off to the side.
The lesson was clear. Sometimes following the rules directly hurts accomplishment of the mission, and you should have the presence of mind and maturity to recognize those moments and break the rules. I have no idea if this lesson is institutionalized, or command approved, or still taught..... But it sums up nicely the realities that ODAs face all the time. Sometimes teams go too far, as CPT Golsteyn could attest to.
I remember that little test in Robin Sage as a CPT and I took the drink and downed it. Tasted like Jack Daniels mixed with Texas Pete Hot Sauce. It was awful. Funny that the guy playing the G Chief that offered me the drink was "Spearchucker" and the same guy that used to clear my 82nd ABN infantry platoon off the range at Fort Bragg.
As for the polygraphs, I've taken 4 CI Polygraphs and had minimal issues getting through it. The full scope that he took would have been more in depth but my guess is that he fell prey to the elicitation techniques of the polygrapher and just kept talking. Polygraphs are shit in my opinion.
Basenshukai
12-13-2016, 12:02
I remember clearly in Robin Sage the G chief holding up a drink, and giving one to the Captain, and making a toast to our recent victory. The good captain wouldn't drink, it had been forbidden by higher. The G chief went apeshit.... After much drama, the captain took the drink, while the instructor winked off to the side.
The lesson was clear. Sometimes following the rules directly hurts accomplishment of the mission, and you should have the presence of mind and maturity to recognize those moments and break the rules. I have no idea if this lesson is institutionalized, or command approved, or still taught..... But it sums up nicely the realities that ODAs face all the time. Sometimes teams go too far, as CPT Golsteyn could attest to.
Because you brought that up:
It's 2012 and the Cartagena Incident had just taken place a few months prior (Summit of the Americas in Cartagena Colombia where the Secret Service and about five CIF guys got into hot water). My company was next up on the rotation and we were read the "riot act" before we left. Of course, everyone was nervous of another event. On top of that, we would be the holiday rotation (right through Christmas and New Years). In fact, because of all of these factors I was selected to lead this company. I was already a company commander at the time, and because of the circumstances we would go into (embarrassing international incident just happened, the FARC-COLGOV talks were at a critical point, etc.), I was pulled from 10 months into my own company command and asked to lead this company into theater. Anyway, so I deploy and meet outgoing AOB commander. The Defense Attache decides that the best way to get to know one another is to have a quiet dinner at his home and discuss the way forward. He has his home staff prepare a terrific dinner for us and it ends, quite unsurprisingly, with a cup of wine. So, the guy I'm replacing sits there staring at his glass while the Defense Attache proposes a toast. I raise my glass. The Defense Attache looks at the major and says, "You don't like wine?". My replacement answers, "Well, sir, it would be a violation of my orders to drink this." The Defense Attache looks at him puzzled, "If anyone in-country can authorize an exception to this it is me. I'm the one who signs the damn thing anyway. Besides, the spirit of the rule is to prevent you from drinking at some watering hole and getting hammered and then doing something stupid. Right now, you are sitting with the most senior DoD official in-country who is asking you to join him in an after-dinner cup of wine. Drink the wine. I authorize it." "No sir. I cannot." Replies the major. The Defense Attache looks at me and I knock my glass against his, "Salud, Colonel" and we drink. Anyway, we had a phenomenal rotation. Not a single incident with my guys - we even had a Thanksgiving, Chrismas party, and New Years party. A near identical scenario took place when I was in Robin Sage.
Because you brought that up:
It's 2012 and the Cartagena Incident had just taken place a few months prior (Summit of the Americas in Cartagena Colombia where the Secret Service and about five CIF guys got into hot water). My company was next up on the rotation and we were read the "riot act" before we left. Of course, everyone was nervous of another event. On top of that, we would be the holiday rotation (right through Christmas and New Years). In fact, because of all of these factors I was selected to lead this company. I was already a company commander at the time, and because of the circumstances we would go into (embarrassing international incident just happened, the FARC-COLGOV talks were at a critical point, etc.), I was pulled from 10 months into my own company command and asked to lead this company into theater. Anyway, so I deploy and meet outgoing AOB commander. The Defense Attache decides that the best way to get to know one another is to have a quiet dinner at his home and discuss the way forward. He has his home staff prepare a terrific dinner for us and it ends, quite unsurprisingly, with a cup of wine. So, the guy I'm replacing sits there staring at his glass while the Defense Attache proposes a toast. I raise my glass. The Defense Attache looks at the major and says, "You don't like wine?". My replacement answers, "Well, sir, it would be a violation of my orders to drink this." The Defense Attache looks at him puzzled, "If anyone in-country can authorize an exception to this it is me. I'm the one who signs the damn thing anyway. Besides, the spirit of the rule is to prevent you from drinking at some watering hole and getting hammered and then doing something stupid. Right now, you are sitting with the most senior DoD official in-country who is asking you to join him in an after-dinner cup of wine. Drink the wine. I authorize it." "No sir. I cannot." Replies the major. The Defense Attache looks at me and I knock my glass against his, "Salud, Colonel" and we drink. Anyway, we had a phenomenal rotation. Not a single incident with my guys - we even had a Thanksgiving, Chrismas party, and New Years party. A near identical scenario took place when I was in Robin Sage.
My rule for the guys in my company, who attended all of the major social functions with host nation and USEMB was that if you are willing to stand in front of the SOCSOUTH CDR and the GRP CDR and explain why you did it then it was fine. Zero incidents and they also knew to request an exception to policy before each deployment from SOCSOUTH.
As for the polygraphs, I've taken 4 CI Polygraphs and had minimal issues getting through it. The full scope that he took would have been more in depth but my guess is that he fell prey to the elicitation techniques of the polygrapher and just kept talking. Polygraphs are shit in my opinion.
Polygraphs ARE shit. They hit on innocent guys all the time and fail to find actual spies. I did a CI poly and immediately decided they were garbage (yes I passed). I think we still use them because they are a good method for making idiots confess to shit, not because they are accurate in and of themselves.
miclo18d
12-14-2016, 00:19
I remember that little test in Robin Sage as a CPT and I took the drink and downed it. Tasted like Jack Daniels mixed with Texas Pete Hot Sauce. It was awful. Funny that the guy playing the G Chief that offered me the drink was "Spearchucker" and the same guy that used to clear my 82nd ABN infantry platoon off the range at Fort Bragg.
As for the polygraphs, I've taken 4 CI Polygraphs and had minimal issues getting through it. The full scope that he took would have been more in depth but my guess is that he fell prey to the elicitation techniques of the polygrapher and just kept talking. Polygraphs are shit in my opinion.
Because you brought that up:
It's 2012 and the Cartagena Incident had just taken place a few months prior (Summit of the Americas in Cartagena Colombia where the Secret Service and about five CIF guys got into hot water). My company was next up on the rotation and we were read the "riot act" before we left. Of course, everyone was nervous of another event. On top of that, we would be the holiday rotation (right through Christmas and New Years). In fact, because of all of these factors I was selected to lead this company. I was already a company commander at the time, and because of the circumstances we would go into (embarrassing international incident just happened, the FARC-COLGOV talks were at a critical point, etc.), I was pulled from 10 months into my own company command and asked to lead this company into theater. Anyway, so I deploy and meet outgoing AOB commander. The Defense Attache decides that the best way to get to know one another is to have a quiet dinner at his home and discuss the way forward. He has his home staff prepare a terrific dinner for us and it ends, quite unsurprisingly, with a cup of wine. So, the guy I'm replacing sits there staring at his glass while the Defense Attache proposes a toast. I raise my glass. The Defense Attache looks at the major and says, "You don't like wine?". My replacement answers, "Well, sir, it would be a violation of my orders to drink this." The Defense Attache looks at him puzzled, "If anyone in-country can authorize an exception to this it is me. I'm the one who signs the damn thing anyway. Besides, the spirit of the rule is to prevent you from drinking at some watering hole and getting hammered and then doing something stupid. Right now, you are sitting with the most senior DoD official in-country who is asking you to join him in an after-dinner cup of wine. Drink the wine. I authorize it." "No sir. I cannot." Replies the major. The Defense Attache looks at me and I knock my glass against his, "Salud, Colonel" and we drink. Anyway, we had a phenomenal rotation. Not a single incident with my guys - we even had a Thanksgiving, Chrismas party, and New Years party. A near identical scenario took place when I was in Robin Sage.
My rule for the guys in my company, who attended all of the major social functions with host nation and USEMB was that if you are willing to stand in front of the SOCSOUTH CDR and the GRP CDR and explain why you did it then it was fine. Zero incidents and they also knew to request an exception to policy before each deployment from SOCSOUTH.
Had a team leader that was Mormon in Peru. We finished the POI and the unit we were with gave us a big party with many Peruvian military traditions. We had a crap load of ceviche mixta then we stood up in formation in front of the HN soldados and drank beers with our Peruvian wings in them and had shots of Pisco. The captain did awesome by throwing the shot over his shoulder and dribbling the beer all over himself. He understood what he had to do and also didn't compromise his religious beliefs.
I on the other hand, after the shots ran outside and puked my brains out as I was on metronidazole! :D
Shit, I married a polygraph test...
AngelsSix
12-29-2016, 06:25
Shit, I married a polygraph test...
The quote of the day!:D
Back in the news.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-decorated-green-beret-after-years-of-investigations-charged-in-2010-killing-of-suspect-taliban-bomb-maker
WarriorDiplomat
12-14-2018, 19:59
Polygraphs ARE shit. They hit on innocent guys all the time and fail to find actual spies. I did a CI poly and immediately decided they were garbage (yes I passed). I think we still use them because they are a good method for making idiots confess to shit, not because they are accurate in and of themselves.
Polys can be shit especially when the examiner is not really skilled and/or experienced but what get's most guys is not the CI poly it is the lifestyles poly the OGA's gives......even the smartest of us get caught in those and those examiners are much better at identifying an issue.....with a the narcissistic sociopath is easily caught they can't help themselves like Goldsteyn they want people to know how badass they think they are
twistedsquid
12-14-2018, 20:01
I'm a realist. I can imagine the fog of war. I can see doing what's necessary in a combat environment. But why the eff would you give a tv interview and cop to it? Isn't that something a SEAL would do?
WarriorDiplomat
12-14-2018, 20:04
Back in the news.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-decorated-green-beret-after-years-of-investigations-charged-in-2010-killing-of-suspect-taliban-bomb-maker
Goldsteyn is his own worst enemy...he can't shut his mouth or conceal his arrogance
mojaveman
12-14-2018, 20:57
Polys can be shit especially when the examiner is not really skilled and/or experienced...
I've taken several and I'm convinced they're not that reliable. ;)
... if you are willing to stand in front of the ...CDR and the GRP CDR and explain why you did it ...
This has always been the litmus test.
Basenshukai
12-15-2018, 08:32
Arrogance and poor judgement got this guy. He self-selected.
Not advocating either way - but if you are going to do what he allegedly did...
...3S rule.
S. S. S.
WarriorDiplomat
12-15-2018, 12:54
Not advocating either way - but if you are going to do what he allegedly did...
...3S rule.
S. S. S.
I agree but on the other hand if we got someone who crosses the line from legal killing to deliberate planned murder and they can live with it? do you want that guy in the ranks? get away with it once
Goldsteyn is a narcissist and wants people to know its like most murderers they want someone to know....he wanted the world to know while he sat there playing the humble QP...this was not a fog of war thing he deliberately chose to hunt this terrorist down and murder him and attempted to conceal the crime and even went a step further to hide it. I have killed my fair share if not more down range but can say I never made a decision to hunt down anyone that I knew deserved to be killed....certainly not at the risk of hurting myself, family, team, unit and nation. His alleged situation is nothing new the ROE prevented us from getting rid of some bad people but most didn't use this as an excuse to murder. Even in war we are expected to know if what we are doing is legal, morale and ethical.
Therein lays the issue: I'm not so sure this was "murder." This will be an interesting case. There must be something compelling about the guy NOT being "bad", or "on the list" to warrant going to such extraordinary lengths to pursue G.
Good case for a good defense counsel.
How do you "kill" someone illegally whom you have put on a kill list; or, the AUMF (quite possibly the classified portion of the EXORD) says to kill him?
We confuse with "being a threat" (self-defense based killing), with lawful shwacking of identified bad guys. Truth is, if you show up on the wrong list, you get killed - means and mechanism don't matter.
I agree but on the other hand if we got someone who crosses the line from legal killing to deliberate planned murder and they can live with it? do you want that guy in the ranks? get away with it once
Even in war we are expected to know if what we are doing is legal, morale and ethical.
Concur WD.
For the moment, take the personality of the accused out of the discussion, and your observations and JimP’s observations above taken together capture the nuances and the complexities of these types of situations (although the character and personality of the individual does come into play).
There are too many unknowns in this specific case to discuss fairly - but the types of issues raised, the tensions, the complexities provide ample learning opportunity for those that follow. Just another reason why this site can provide valuable information for the young guys to consider.
Truth is, if you show up on the wrong list, you get killed - means and mechanism don't matter.
Good point. A good defense lawyer could argue the MAJ actually saved the USG the price of a Hellfire compare to a 9mm.
Why he would admit it during a poly is another matter...or as WD noted, a significant warning sign of personality issues.
WarriorDiplomat
12-16-2018, 19:09
-cause yet another d++Therein lays the issue: I'm not so sure this was "murder." This will be an interesting case. There must be something compelling about the guy NOT being "bad", or "on the list" to warrant going to such extraordinary lengths to pursue G.
Good case for a good defense counsel.
How do you "kill" someone illegally whom you have put on a kill list; or, the AUMF (quite possibly the classified portion of the EXORD) says to kill him?
We confuse with "being a threat" (self-defense based killing), with lawful shwacking of identified bad guys. Truth is, if you show up on the wrong list, you get killed - means and mechanism don't matter.
I can't speak on legality of how a lawyer views the issues with defense or prosecution, I could agree if he didn't state that the reason he went and killed the guy was because of the restrictive ROE that placed them in a LEO type role in which he felt it was impossible to prosecute bad people so as I interpret what he is saying is he took it into his own hands and knew it was illegal hence the coverup.
Guys fear prosecution from an overzealous Jag-weenie all the time. How many bad guys have we prosecuted as "war criminals" versus our own..?? I can tell you: zero.
The DB has more than a couple guys who whacked a bad guy but then feared some overzealous CID agent or JAG weenie who had never heard a shot fired in anger prosecuting them for - what they perceived - to be a war crime. They then toss some wiring or a detonator on the body to try to keep the inevitable investigation I "in the right track." This is then interpreted as "consciousness of guilt" rather than some troops simply fearing his command eating him alive.
Can't tell you how many "war crimes" I was able to put to bed simply because I was either on the spot, working with the guys, or on the net when the incident occurred.
I thought after 17 years of war we would get better. We've gotten worse. The silliness and tsunami of stupid involving rules for the use of force for our guys on the south-west border right now are freaking criminal.
miclo18d
12-17-2018, 10:52
Morals - refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong
Killing is right
Murder is wrong
These are states of mind. Killing in defense is called justifiable homicide. Murder is just homicde, less the justifiable. Killing enemy combatants in war is considered justifiable unless they are alive in your custody then they are required to be safeguarded and cared for. Killing them at that point is considered murder.
Ethics - refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions.
ROE dictates what you can and can’t do on the battlefield. The rules. If said bad guy was an identified enemy combatant (PID’d), then he was subject to kill or capture at any time or place. The question that I have pertains to his status as a captured individual. I read that a unit had him in custody and could not identify him, hence they let him go from their custody. The CPT did identify him and at some point after his release, chased him down, and killed him. The details that will make or break this case pertain to this time frame.
Could he have captured the guy? Sure. Did the ROE state that attempted capture is required prior to killing combatants? Hmmmm?! I bet it didn’t. Would it have been justifiable if he had put a CONOP together and killed the guy in his house? Probably. Or if they had PID’d him by Predator, unarmed, and hit him with a Hellfire? They’d be giving each other high-fives at Creech AFB. So is there a difference here? If the CPT walked out of the gate, put sights on him, and burned him down? Is that any different?
Legality - I return to the definition of detained individual. Yes or no. Or did I miss the briefing somewhere on the ROE?
Was the CPT morally wrong? That lies on his shoulders.
I am not for or against this guy. He appears narcissistic, as someone has said. He seems not to have a moral compass. He even appears to be a douche. But is he guilty of murder because of that or because he didn’t follow the ROE?
Basenshukai
12-17-2018, 11:14
Morals - refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong
Killing is right
Murder is wrong
These are states of mind. Killing in defense is called justifiable homicide. Murder is just homicde, less the justifiable. Killing enemy combatants in war is considered justifiable unless they are alive in your custody then they are required to be safeguarded and cared for. Killing them at that point is considered murder.
Ethics - refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions.
ROE dictates what you can and can’t do on the battlefield. The rules. If said bad guy was an identified enemy combatant (PID’d), then he was subject to kill or capture at any time or place. The question that I have pertains to his status as a captured individual. I read that a unit had him in custody and could not identify him, hence they let him go from their custody. The CPT did identify him and at some point after his release, chased him down, and killed him. The details that will make or break this case pertain to this time frame.
Could he have captured the guy? Sure. Did the ROE state that attempted capture is required prior to killing combatants? Hmmmm?! I bet it didn’t. Would it have been justifiable if he had put a CONOP together and killed the guy in his house? Probably. Or if they had PID’d him by Predator, unarmed, and hit him with a Hellfire? They’d be giving each other high-fives at Creech AFB. So is there a difference here? If the CPT walked out of the gate, put sights on him, and burned him down? Is that any different?
Legality - I return to the definition of detained individual. Yes or no. Or did I miss the briefing somewhere on the ROE?
Was the CPT morally wrong? That lies on his shoulders.
I am not for or against this guy. He appears narcissistic, as someone has said. He seems not to have a moral compass. He even appears to be a douche. But is he guilty of murder because of that or because he didn’t follow the ROE?
You make a good point here. When I was in the sandbox, when an enemy combatant was deemed a "vetted target", we could shoot him on sight; no warning shots required. Yes, could there be intelligence value if he was captured, sure. But, vetted meant just that - the commands above us, and their lawyers, had already figured out that he should be taken off the chess board. Maybe this has changed.
I think the issue here is that he had NOT been ID’d as a vetted target, and the good CPT decided that he knew best and offed the guy. I haven’t seen anyone get hosed for engaging a declared hostile person yet (they tried a few years back, didn’t get past AR 32 hearing). I’m pretty sure that the people with all the info on the case have good reason to think this guy murdered the dude.
Basenshukai
12-17-2018, 15:36
I think the issue here is that he had NOT been ID’d as a vetted target, and the good CPT decided that he knew best and offed the guy. I haven’t seen anyone get hosed for engaging a declared hostile person yet (they tried a few years back, didn’t get past AR 32 hearing). I’m pretty sure that the people with all the info on the case have good reason to think this guy murdered the dude.
If that's the case - that the guy was not a vetted target - then, by the rules, you are correct: this is murder. They Afghan may have been an SOB who likely needed to be underground serving as food for plant life, but there is an ROE out there for a reason.
miclo18d
12-18-2018, 07:13
I think the issue here is that he had NOT been ID’d as a vetted target, and the good CPT decided that he knew best and offed the guy. I haven’t seen anyone get hosed for engaging a declared hostile person yet (they tried a few years back, didn’t get past AR 32 hearing). I’m pretty sure that the people with all the info on the case have good reason to think this guy murdered the dude.
There is a lot of mud in the water and conflicting stories. That’s why we have evidence based trials. I want justice carried out either way, but I don’t want him railroaded for politics sake, nor let off the hook if wrong.
I’ll stop speculating and stay in my lane.
tom kelly
12-19-2018, 17:22
There is a lot of mud in the water and conflicting stories. That’s why we have evidence based trials. I want justice carried out either way, but I don’t want him railroaded for politics sake, nor let off the hook if wrong.
I’ll stop speculating and stay in my lane.
PICK A SIDE; We, the USA is at war, the Afgan was the enemy he was on the other side his job was to kill us. WAR IS NOT A SPORTING CONTEST, The soldier's job is combat; Their mission is to close with the enemy and kill them. Why do we need lawyers deciding if killing the enemy is moral, fair, justified? The object of war is to win. (by any means necessary)PERIOD. Was the Green Beret action a pre-emptive strike or a deterrent or was it both? tom kelly
WarriorDiplomat
12-19-2018, 20:58
PICK A SIDE; We, the USA is at war, the Afgan was the enemy he was on the other side his job was to kill us. WAR IS NOT A SPORTING CONTEST, The soldier's job is combat; Their mission is to close with the enemy and kill them. Why do we need lawyers deciding if killing the enemy is moral, fair, justified? The object of war is to win. (by any means necessary)PERIOD. Was the Green Beret action a pre-emptive strike or a deterrent or was it both? tom kelly
It seems preemptive but also from what we know it sounds somewhat vigilante regardless it was a bad decision for a commander especially knowing the responses from command during the entire conflict. I agree with getting rid of the lawyers and in another time the dirty profane detailed reality of war was not as visible and political we could. But like then we have to live with the consequences multiplied by the new era of social media and political jockeying. I don't think there is one man here that has an issue with the killing of the man he deserved it. The issue is this guy against the rules of armed conflict determined by our ROE is accused of murder admittingly so the bigger issue is can we allow lawless vendettas? and more importantly can we today allow our military machine to act in such a manner without consequence...success and power has its enemies and the world is looking for every reason to knock us down a peg. To me this speaks much more about the character and personality flaws of the Captain than it does about the circumstances.
We are not at war WITH Afghanistan. We are at war IN Afghanistan.
That changes the dynamic. Picking sides isn't always an option.
miclo18d
12-21-2018, 22:07
PICK A SIDE; We, the USA is at war, the Afgan was the enemy he was on the other side his job was to kill us. WAR IS NOT A SPORTING CONTEST, The soldier's job is combat; Their mission is to close with the enemy and kill them. Why do we need lawyers deciding if killing the enemy is moral, fair, justified? The object of war is to win. (by any means necessary)PERIOD. Was the Green Beret action a pre-emptive strike or a deterrent or was it both? tom kelly
Define the enemy....
What uniform do they wear? Do they carry weapons or not? Do we just shoot ALL Afghans and call it a day? I mean, our job is just to kill, aka combat. Kill ‘em all let God sort them out, right? I’ll wait for you to tell me that you gunned down every Vietnamese person you saw, man, woman, and child. As we were at war with Vietnam, is that your stance?
You and I know it’s not black and white Tom Kelly, don’t try to make it so.
...I’ll be waiting in my corner.
WarriorDiplomat
12-28-2018, 01:06
Define the enemy....
What uniform do they wear? Do they carry weapons or not? Do we just shoot ALL Afghans and call it a day? I mean, our job is just to kill, aka combat. Kill ‘em all let God sort them out, right? I’ll wait for you to tell me that you gunned down every Vietnamese person you saw, man, woman, and child. As we were at war with Vietnam, is that your stance?
You and I know it’s not black and white Tom Kelly, don’t try to make it so.
...I’ll be waiting in my corner.
Agreed
We are supposed to understand this basic tenent of such a conflict in our job