• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twist in Green Beret’s Extraordinary Story: Trump’s Intervention After Murder Charges

J

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
962
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Twist in Green Beret’s Extraordinary Story: Trump’s Intervention After Murder Charges

A Green Beret killed a Taliban bomb maker, I believe, in 2011. Five years after imposing minor discipline, to quote the above-referenced NY Times article, "(t)he Army opened a second investigation in late 2016, and charged Major Golsteyn with murder last week." President Trump, the Commander-in-Chief, to his credit is standing with his troops, and may intervene, while the Times complains:
I think something is seriously misguided when a Green Beret is court-martialed for doing his job. I consider the Talib to be placing his life in danger when he manufactures a bomb; as well as jeopardizing other lives.
 

taking a prisoner out and summarily shooting the man does raise some tough questions. This isn't a case where they shoot a guy not in captivity because they think he is say planting a bomb or has just rigged one up. This was a guy in custody that they summarily executed based on what I read
 
JBG said:
I wasn't there. Neither were you or other second-guessers.
Click to expand...

We are not "second guessing".


We are reading the article you linked us to.


What an investigation shows and trial will decide the rest.
 
JBG said:
I wasn't there. Neither were you or other second-guessers.
Click to expand...

If you weren’t there then why do you assume he was just doing his job? You can get away with a lot in a combat zone. If something like this is going to trial it is likely because there is good evidence of breaking military law.

You and I speculating about it isn’t going to do any harm. A president commenting on it can taint the whole process much worse than if he commented on a civilian trial.
 
JBG said:
I wasn't there. Neither were you or other second-guessers.
Click to expand...

Soldier's **** up like anyone else, but being paid by the government doesn't mean they should be immune from the consequences of their ****ups.
 
A shoutout to President Trump if he eventually pardons that soldier (if convicted).

The President wanted to pull out of that country, but the deep state (which includes many members of the military-industrial complex) pressured him into staying.

All this talk about Afghanistan becoming a democracy if we stay just a little longer is nonsense.

American soldiers are dying unnecessarily.

Who knows? Maybe the Democratic president in 2021 will have the political power to withdraw all American troops.
 

We all know about this President and how taint is never far away.
 
spud_meister said:
So you're fine with the Taliban murdering captured US soldiers?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not fine with the Taliban murdering US soldiers, but the Taliban does it anyway - has done it in the past, is doing it right now, and will continue to do it ...
and they're not even shy about showing us how they kill enemy combatants and civilians.
 
The Taliban is an illegal army. It's members don't rate protection under the Geneva Conventions.
 

POTUS actions in this case remind me of POTUS actions in the Manning case. Similar in that POTUS should stay out of it until the UCMJ runs its course.
 
apdst said:
The Taliban is an illegal army. It's members don't rate protection under the Geneva Conventions.
Click to expand...

Don't we just love those Geneva Conventions? Except when we don't and refuse to comply with them? Funny, how hypocrisy plays.
 

You know, I took my grandfather to see Saving Private Ryan. He fought in WWII, really didn't talk about it much. I knew he didn't' like snow or the cold much, (then I saw band of brothers and well, he fought in the battle of the bulge) and really didn't go into details with anyone. I had hoped to pry some insight on the reality of WWII Vs the movie.

Some things stuck out.
He said the action was about right in that movie but somethings were unrealistic. Taking on the machine gun nest, talking and shooting the breeze behind enemy lines/near the front, and letting the prison go.

That last part is relevant here to this thread,

Him: "You didn't let the prisoners go..."
Me: "So grandpa, you guys capture a lot of Germans then?"
Him: "Some..."
Me: "Wow, that must of made a logistical nightmare waiting to the MP's to come take them"
Him: (laughing) "We didn't wait for anyone, we just shot them. You let them go and they'll come back to fight you, and we didn't have the resources to keep them"

That stuck with me, how if you did that today, people would wig out, and then I see this story.
 

How does taking a man you have already imprisoned, (since you do have the resources) out of the prison, and executing him, compare?
 
Manc Skipper said:
How does taking a man you have already imprisoned, (since you do have the resources) out of the prison, and executing him, compare?
Click to expand...
The Maj. claims he shot the guy because there was a good chance he was going to get released and make more bombs. Even the Local Afghans were afraid of that guy getting released.
I.E. Shoot him and end the threat, or watch him get released and kill more people. I think the situation is comparably relevant.
 
This guy originally got a slap on the wrist for that incident. Then applying for a job in the CIA, he admitted to what really happened. Later, he decided to discuss the incident publicly on FOX News.

Turns out this guy was not exactly forthcoming with the truth in the original Army investigation. Lying to the brass carries inherent risks, as this guy found out. Perhaps he thought that once he was out of the Army, they couldn't touch him. Well, he was wrong.

Using the information he provided to the CIA and his Fox News interview compared to what his sworn statements to Army investigators, the investigation was reopened and a fresh set of facts emerged. Hence, the murder charges.

Now, Trump is using this incident to distract us from Rudy's disastrous weekend rounds of the TV talk shows, which led to a NYU law professor to comment "We are in a death spiral of stupid."
 
spud_meister said:
Executing prisoners is a Green Beret's job?
Click to expand...
These brave folks volunteer and in times of war have to make tough decisions.

With the story being that the tribal leader identified the man as the enemy, who had bomb-making materials in his possession and who might very well inform the enemy of those locals that are assisting our cause and thus sentencing them to almost certain death, and while it may cause almost anyone in similar circumstances some distress... in a combat zone such decisions need be made, sometimes on the spot.

He was not just some lowly private, he had attained the high rank given him due to earning his responsibilities.

As to the article and the authors' explicit biases and obvious distaste for Fox News as well as the C in C, Trump being at the top of that military chain may, can and should do what HE thinks right. Presidents have the power of pardon for a reason. Get over it.

And I will wholeheartedly agree with Trump, Bergdahl should have been taken out and shot. That the slenderfella regime could and did intervene, make comments on such seems forgotten, but that goes almost without saying... except to lefties who need be reminded over and over and over and over and over and...


UTTER Bull ****
 
The whole idea of Geneva conventions and regulations is that as "good guys", we have set standards below which we will not stoop. Then a murderous thug like this comes along, and suddenly out of the woodwork comes an army of keyboard warriors who will make that stoop, and be as evil as the "bad guys" we are supposedly better than.
 

So do we allow our prison guards here to shoot our prisoners are likely to re-offend? That is your logic.
 
year2late said:
So do we allow our prison guards here to shoot our prisoners are likely to re-offend? That is your logic.
Click to expand...

This is why you fail, apples, oranges do not compare. War Zone Vs civilian legal setting.
Have a nice day, keep up that fail logic, you're a shining example of what's wrong with Progressive Thought.
 
JBG said:
I wasn't there. Neither were you or other second-guessers.
Click to expand...

You link an article. We read it, and then discuss what it said. You accuse of being "second-guessers".

That makes no sense. Didn't you even bother reading the article you linked?
 

I completely get that in a battle situation (ie WW2 deeply entrenched battle) there are no "good" options for those captured. This is not the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…