Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Early Bird

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-15-2018, 12:54   #31
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyz View Post
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.
__________________
“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” –Rudyard Kipling, The Law of the Jungle, The Jungle Book.

Last edited by WarriorDiplomat; 12-15-2018 at 23:24.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2018, 07:57   #32
JimP
Quiet Professional
 
JimP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,523
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.
JimP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2018, 09:33   #33
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat View Post
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.
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Last edited by tonyz; 12-16-2018 at 09:41.
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2018, 17:25   #34
lindy
Guerrilla Chief
 
lindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ft Benning
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post
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.
__________________
"I see that you notice that I wear glasses. Well, it was to be. I've not only grown old and gray, I've become almost blind in the service of my country." - General George Washington

"There are times in your life you'll be required to perform an exceedingly difficult task to the best of your ability, regardless of your perceived capability. Mental toughness is what will carry the day during these times. In other words, you suck it up and do what you have to do." - Razor
lindy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2018, 19:09   #35
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,021
-cause yet another d++
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post
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.
__________________
“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” –Rudyard Kipling, The Law of the Jungle, The Jungle Book.

Last edited by WarriorDiplomat; 12-16-2018 at 19:13.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2018, 19:53   #36
JimP
Quiet Professional
 
JimP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,523
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.
JimP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2018, 10:52   #37
miclo18d
Quiet Professional
 
miclo18d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Occupied Northlandia
Posts: 1,697
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?
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper
miclo18d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2018, 11:14   #38
Basenshukai
Quiet Professional
 
Basenshukai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by miclo18d View Post
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.
__________________
- Retired Special Forces Officer -
Special Forces Association Lifetime Member
Basenshukai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2018, 14:19   #39
scooter
Quiet Professional
 
scooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tennesse
Posts: 766
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.

Last edited by scooter; 12-17-2018 at 14:23.
scooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2018, 15:36   #40
Basenshukai
Quiet Professional
 
Basenshukai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
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.
__________________
- Retired Special Forces Officer -
Special Forces Association Lifetime Member
Basenshukai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2018, 07:13   #41
miclo18d
Quiet Professional
 
miclo18d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Occupied Northlandia
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
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.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper
miclo18d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2018, 17:22   #42
tom kelly
Quiet Professional
 
tom kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Philadelphia,Pa.
Posts: 1,474
The New Standard of "Justice" in the U S A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miclo18d View Post
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
__________________
EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO TO HEAVEN: BUT, NOBODY WANTS TO DIE.
tom kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2018, 20:58   #43
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom kelly View Post
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.
__________________
“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” –Rudyard Kipling, The Law of the Jungle, The Jungle Book.

Last edited by WarriorDiplomat; 12-19-2018 at 21:01.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2018, 07:21   #44
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 5,746
We are not at war WITH Afghanistan. We are at war IN Afghanistan.

That changes the dynamic. Picking sides isn't always an option.
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Screen Actors Guild, The Boy Scouts, The Good, The Bad, or The Ugly. These opinions are provided purely as overly sarcastic social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
Box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 22:07   #45
miclo18d
Quiet Professional
 
miclo18d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Occupied Northlandia
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom kelly View Post
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.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper

Last edited by miclo18d; 12-21-2018 at 22:12.
miclo18d is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:44.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies