Green Berets Face Hearing
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/us...erland&emc=rss

There's definitely more to this than meets the eye. Best of luck to MSgt A and Capt S. And all the other members of ODA374.

New York Times
 

Personally, I would not post anything from the NYTimes on this websight, but that's just me.

MSG Anderson worked for me in Yuma and is a great NCO.
I hope this works out for him.

<BREAK>

RL/AL: Please PM any advice I can pass on...

Is that the same General that ran the Marines out of country?

According to the article, yes it is.

This Mornings Paper
 

From the Fayetteville Observer

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=272793

They got "cakked" by the defense team.

The damage is already done. This will be in the mind of every SF soldier who is placed in a similar situation......

Jim

I can almost assure you that it was in the mind of some BEFORE this situation. :mad:

ROTFLMAO! Finally, a lawyer I can relate to....

Is this an Art 32 investigation, or has it progressed past that phase?

Is this an Art 32 investigation, or has it progressed past that phase?
__________________


Art 32! But it still sucks!

Jim

UNDERSTOOD!

I was subjected to two Art 32 investigations during my rather stormy (non illustrious) career, one of which was the result of throwing a dirtbag off the top of a two story guard bunker in VN.

I caught him asleep on guard on three different occasions, wrote him up the first time, Can Tho 1969, no one wanted to make waves nothing happened to him. The second time I ordered him to meet me behind the Op's tent the next morning, "Don't wear a shirt, I wont either!" I told him. He got a chance to kick a CWO's ass, he failed...Caught him again, asleep on top of the guard tower, on the sandbags and put him over the side. It was wrong. I knew it. I would do it again!

Didn't mean to hijack this thread, I am praying these two warriors are vindicated!

IMHO,

These Soldiers are the best at what They do!!!
Let Them do Their jobs, for cryin' out loud!:confused:

Why in the world would we subject Our Bravest to this idiotic inquiry?

They are the ones fighting this war...They're not sitting behind a desk somewhere, collecting bonus miles!:mad:

Holly

WTF is going on???
 

:confused:


If CID cleared it, than why the fuss. I see the General, just recieved his third star. Is there any relation to his actions against SOF forces?

DW

Yep.

Clearly, wrongfully persecuting SF soldiers is viewed as career enhancing by his superiors.

TR

Yep, That's what I thought. It stinks that he's playing the game at the expense of guys doing their jobs. Unbelievable.:mad:

He'll probably be a guest speaker at the democratic National Convention once he retires.

Sort of like Gen. Clark? I caught him on the Daily Show the other night and when asked about General Patraeus' report, you could tell he was biting his tongue. However he did talk about the time when Gen. Clark was a Colonel and Gen. Patraeus was one of his Captains... he basically said Gen. Patraeus was in charge of getting him coffee.... :eek:

If I can find the video I'll add it...

They truly need to quit trying to make policemen out of our soldiers.

Methinks they will never learn.

PC is killing this country.

I spoke to MSG Anderson yesterday. He is in good spirits considering the situation. I have known him since 1995 and he has always been one of the best among us. His biggest concern about all of this is that he is afraid that guys will hesitate in the future because of this situation. I think that he and CPT S will prevail and be vindicated. I was briefed on what happened by the Bn JAG a couple of months ago and I'm sure that they were operating inside the ROE, same as what the CID investigation found. We are all behind them.
Could have been you, could have been me.

.............MDW

THE GENERAL:
 

His name is Frank H. Kearney,and he just got his 3rd star.Another example of a LIBERAL POLITICAN masquerading as a soldier,He should resign from the U S Army today and run for public office.However he will probably hang around and kiss ass for a 4th star so he can retire with a pension of around $135,000/year and go on the TV circut as a consultant and blab about his career and service.DISGUSTING that he does not back up REAL SOLDIERS and PROFESSIONALS who are unfortunate to serve under him.I bet his decision to have murder charges brought against Captain Staffel and Master Sgt. Anderson are a direct result of the aftermath of the Pat Tlllman affair,where a General officer was held accountable for the misleading results of the investigation into Tillman's unfortunate death.Regards and Best Of Luck to Captain Staffel and Master Sgt. Anderson...Regards,tom kelly

Like I said in the other thread. In the Book Lone Survivor. Fear of being prosecuted and sent to jail was the reason they let the three sheep herders go. Couple of hours later three SEALS were dead for it. He mentions it throughout the Book. He states he go's to bed every night agonizing over the decision. He blames himself because he was the tie breaking vote. But he makes it very clear why they let the herders go.
They knew the Taliban would find the Bodies and Parade them in front of Cameras. They even discussed killing them with a knife so forensics couldn't pin it on them. But they didn't want to live with this secrete the rest of their lives.
One thing he said. According to the rules it was OK to kill these herders who stumbled upon their position. Not that it would of protected them from charges.
What do's that rule state? My guess, holding them as prisoners or releasing them would put your Team at risk, more then likely resulting in death. Can you legally kill these people in this situation. Anyone?

Lone Survivor
 

I just read on Reuters that the rights to making the film "Lone Survivor" were purchased by Universal for $2,000,000.

Peter Berg, who directed "Kingdom" which is due out this weekend is going to direct this film also. Heck, I remember Peter Berg on "ER" He's come a long way.

Sorry for the hijack.

Nope.
You would be required to apply whatever force needed (minimum necessary) up to deadly force to subdue them as they approached your position because you were being threatened (felt threatened) OR you would have to take them prisoner until you could arrange for exfil.
This is my understanding of the rules as per the Law of Land Warfare.

...........MDW

Quote:

"What do's that rule state? My guess, holding them as prisoners or releasing them would put your Team at risk, more then likely resulting in death. Can you legally kill these people in this situation. Anyone?"

Despite common opinion to the contrary, there is no requirement for "minimum force" for military personnel.

That is a load of crap carried over into the military by civilian lawyers and commanders who have seen one too many episodes of COPS.

If someone represents a threat to you, your people, or innocent civilians, you may immediately apply lethal force. Period. No force continuum BS, no requirement to use harsh language, physical restraint, OC, TASERS, impact weapons, wounding shots, etc. Yes, you may be charged by an overzealous/bad commander. Lawyers recommend, but last time I checked, cannot charge anyone with anything without the support of the CoC. There is no DA in military law, that prerogative is the CO's. Fine, I'll take my chances with a board of my peers at a Court Martial rather than in a box with a folded flag for my family.

If they are unarmed civilians, you may detain them for as long as tactically necessary, but not kill them, under the Conventions.

IMHO, they should have been grabbed, gagged, bagged, cuffed, and left in a not too obvious location, and the mission aborted with immediate exfil requested. A discussion of this scenario should be part of every mission planning process that takes place, and Go/No Go criteria determined in advance of infil.

This lesson has been learned repeatedly, starting with Balwanz and his team in DS. Why continue to repeat it?

TR

TR,
Just got the brief yesterday and the JAG told me that they are sticking to the "minimum force necessary" to subdue the threat as a basic principle of the Law of Land Warfare. They may be blowing smoke because I don't really see use of minimum force in there. I'll have to get studying on the Geneva Conventions documents to see if that verbage is in there or not. Me personally, I'm going to do what needs to be done on the ground at the time and worry about the JAG later. But they now investigate every time a bad guy gets killed. That didn't happen just a couple of years ago. Bottom line is, it is tougher than ever for the dude behind the gun.

............MDW

Apparently it isn't a JAG you have to worry about....It's a GO with an agenda.

I respectfully recommend that you read the book mentioned in this thread (Combat Self-Defense: Saving America's Warriors From Risk-Averse Commanders And Their Lawyers), and give a copy to your CO and JAG.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...d.php?p=182289

TR

During the 1995-97 timeframe I was assigned to 1st Gp at FT Lewis.

We had a power outage and we were required to assign “armed” guards to every arms room until the power came back on. Many of those assigned were support troops and they stood guard with M-4’s 24/7.
The HHC commander wanted guidance on use of deadly force SOP. Our JAG wrote out a list of guidelines, one which was “Shoot to wound” first. The JAG and I then went head to head. I informed the JAG there was no Army or DoD school that taught a soldier how to "shoot to wound" and where in fact should we shoot people for a wounding shot?

In the end the JAG lost the argument as he was informed he and the Group commander were in fact incapable of re-writing the Ft Lewis, or DoD CONUS ROE.

The point of my story, don’t always believe your JAG. And stick to your guns when you know you’re right. If it takes a JAG to interpret the current ROE for an OCONUS tour of duty, we’re no longer fighting a war…………. And we need to send America’s policemen to the front lines.

CONUS ROE is stated clearly below.

Sometimes I just want to puke.

Team Sergeant
I also made it clear to that spineless JAG he was not allowed to stand in my shadow.




E2.1.6.1. Warning shots are prohibited.

E2.1.6.2. When a firearm is discharged, it will be fired with the intent of rendering the person(s) at whom it is discharged incapable of continuing the activity or course of behavior prompting the individual to shoot.

E2.1.6.3. Shots shall be fired only with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders.

E2.1.6.4. In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there is reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary.

E2.1.6.5. The Heads of the DoD Components may establish additional considerations in implementing procedures over the use of firearms.

TR,
Thanks. I will hit up Amazon and take it with me. I bet I will be suprised when I read it.
...........MDW

RELEASE NUMBER: 070928-03
DATE POSTED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
PRESS RELEASE: Charges dismissed against Special Forces Soldiers

U.S. Army Special Forces Command Public Affairs Office

Charges dismissed
 

Excellent news. I hope that those two QPs can get back to defending America's Freedom.

Now that made my day.

Thanks Dan.

TS

Cracking a beer to that news...

My only concern is the "chilling effect" it will have on the rest of the company, battalion, group, and SF in general...our enemies are watching this and realize that one of the most potent weapons in their inventory is our own leadership (or lack thereof).

Great news.

NJP to follow...

XXOOs,
Frankie K.

GOOD NEWS: Artical 32 charges dismissed.
 

Maj.Gen. Thomas R. Csrnko has dismissed all charges under Article 32 which charged Capt. Dave Staffel and Master Sgt. Troy Anderson with the "unauthorized and illegal killing of one Mr. Buntangyar an Afgan enemy combatant.This is certainly very good news and I hope it sends a clear message to Lt.Gen. Frank Kearney that the Special Forces Command does and will stand behind all Special Forces when they are doing their job...Regards,tom kelly

"Lawfare" or abuse of the legal system for politcal purposes/defeat/hinder our forces is here to stay.

There are many examples in our "sue-happy" society. Civil rights for detainees at Gitmo, the Blind Sheik (whats his name), many of the attacks by the leftwing to interfere with the war. Hell, I suppose it could go back to the establishment of law in the Greek city-states, unscruplous people abusing the law for their own purposes.

Maybe Billy Shakespere had it right about killing all the lawywers??? Just kidding RL:D

Everytime I went OCONUS we had a 'class' where a JAG officer came in and spoke about ROE. I thought it was rather odd. Of course, after the briefing our First Sergeant would stand up and inform us that he would back us 100% as long as we think we are right. This was then echoed by different commanders... but we only believed Top.

With all the publicity surrounding "cases" like this, it truely does have an effect on us on the ground in the "Big Army." From soldiers asking if they can return fire to insurgents attacking and then dropping their weapons... when did it become okay to second guess troops in the field?