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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-10-2016, 04:06   #1
Slingstone
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 10
Army reopens probe into 3rd Group Alumnus after Fox interview

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/a...tthew-golsteyn
Slingstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 04:48   #2
scooter
Quiet Professional
 
scooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tennesse
Posts: 766
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.
scooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 05:21   #3
blue02hd
Quiet Professional
 
blue02hd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Near the flag pole
Posts: 1,168
He needs to stay out of the media.
__________________
"It's not my aim, it's these damn crooked bullets,,,"

Verified Tax Payer and Future Sex Symbol
blue02hd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 05:48   #4
Oldrotorhead
Guerrilla Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue02hd View Post
He needs to stay out of the media.
He needed to stay out of the media too late now.

Fixed if for you.
__________________
Oldrotorhead
Oldrotorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 05:50   #5
blue02hd
Quiet Professional
 
blue02hd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Near the flag pole
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead View Post
He needed to stay out of the media too late now.

Fixed if for you.
True Dat!
__________________
"It's not my aim, it's these damn crooked bullets,,,"

Verified Tax Payer and Future Sex Symbol
blue02hd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 06:30   #6
sfshooter
Quiet Professional
 
sfshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Big Sky
Posts: 426
There are some things from over there that you never discuss publicly!
I thought that was common sense and everyone knew that.
__________________
Exceptions are so inevitable that no rule is without them - except the one just stated. - Paso Por Aqui, by Eugene Manlove Rhodes

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people........" George Mason
sfshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 09:09   #7
JimP
Quiet Professional
 
JimP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,523
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.
JimP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 09:10   #8
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
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.
__________________
“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.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 09:48   #9
scooter
Quiet Professional
 
scooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tennesse
Posts: 766
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.
scooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 12:48   #10
CDRODA396
Quiet Professional
 
CDRODA396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
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.
__________________
"Excellence is its own punishment..."
CDRODA396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 13:19   #11
scooter
Quiet Professional
 
scooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tennesse
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDRODA396 View Post
...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.
scooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 13:25   #12
Oldrotorhead
Guerrilla Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 830
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
__________________
Oldrotorhead
Oldrotorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 18:50   #13
Remington Raidr
Guerrilla
 
Remington Raidr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: midwest
Posts: 353
From the article:

"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.
Remington Raidr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 21:09   #14
sinjefe
Quiet Professional
 
sinjefe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,987
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.
__________________
"Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag, puke, piece 'o shit, Private Pyle, or did you have to work at it?" - GySgt Hartman
sinjefe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2016, 03:11   #15
scooter
Quiet Professional
 
scooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tennesse
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjefe View Post
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.
scooter 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 09:42.



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