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

[JustHanging]

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.

ROFL! You know better than the commanders of the armed forces eh?

Oh Kruger Dunning, meet your proof!

 

[year2late]

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.

But that is your logic. You are comparing apples (deeply entrenched battle of ww2 with no good options for prisoners) to a situation where we have the ability to properly go through a legal process.

But like I said, I get being deeply entrenched in warfare an carrying around a prisoner would endanger the troops ability to protect themselves.

 

[Obscurity]

Law and order conservatives embracing extrajudicial murder of prisoners is about as priceless as it comes.

 

[Renae]

But that is your logic. You are comparing apples (deeply entrenched battle of ww2 with no good options for prisoners) to a situation where we have the ability to properly go through a legal process.

But like I said, I get being deeply entrenched in warfare an carrying around a prisoner would endanger the troops ability to protect themselves.

"proper legal process" The story even shows the locals were afraid this guy would be set free, because of the idiot ROE at the time and the guy would kill more.

But that's fine, you think wars should be fought with lawyers and laws...

 

[apdst]

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

There's a time we're required to and there's a time we aren't. The United States armed forces hasn't engaged a GC signatory state since Vietnam.

The GC clearly defines a "legal combatant". It also states that illegal combatants don't rate GC protections.

Those are the rules and it looks like you want them to be onesided.

 

[apdst]

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.

War is hell.

 

[apdst]

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

U.S. troops executed prisoners during WW2. Executing prisoners, or surrendering enemy troops isn't ncessarily a war crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

U.S. troops executed prisoners during WW2. Executing prisoners, or surrendering enemy troops isn't ncessarily a war crime.

generally what is a "war crime" depends on who won and who lost. and what the relevant authority believes. I read books by men who liberated the concentration camps during WWII and yes, Nazi guards were often summarily shot by the liberators-especially when it was Soviets. Same with Japanese guards. This case seems more problematic

 

[year2late]

"proper legal process" The story even shows the locals were afraid this guy would be set free, because of the idiot ROE at the time and the guy would kill more.

But that's fine, you think wars should be fought with lawyers and laws...

We have rules for warfare. Are you saying there are not rules/laws that our soldiers adhere to?

Summary execution is essentially what he is admitting to.

Again, back to the local issues. We are afraid as US citizens when individuals in custody with violent history (up to and including murder) get released does that give our guards the right to execute them first because recidivism rates are high?

We have rules in our military. Every person I know who has served deeply adheres to and respects the rules. And there is an expectation of serious consequence for not following the rules. If he had some altruistic intentions for executing the prisoner - being judge, jury and executioner, then her will accept the punishment for his actions and be at peace with accepting the consequences of his actions believing that his actions saved lives.

 

[apdst]

generally what is a "war crime" depends on who won and who lost. and what the relevant authority believes. I read books by men who liberated the concentration camps during WWII and yes, Nazi guards were often summarily shot by the liberators-especially when it was Soviets. Same with Japanese guards. This case seems more problematic

The GC is very specific about treatment of prisoners and surrendering enemy troops. The line isn't as fine as most folks think.

 

[year2late]

generally what is a "war crime" depends on who won and who lost. and what the relevant authority believes. I read books by men who liberated the concentration camps during WWII and yes, Nazi guards were often summarily shot by the liberators-especially when it was Soviets. Same with Japanese guards. This case seems more problematic

To say the least.

 

[apdst]

We have rules for warfare. Are you saying there are not rules/laws that our soldiers adhere to?

Summary execution is essentially what he is admitting to.

Again, back to the local issues. We are afraid as US citizens when individuals in custody with violent history (up to and including murder) get released does that give our guards the right to execute them first because recidivism rates are high?

We have rules in our military. Every person I know who has served deeply adheres to and respects the rules. And there is an expectation of serious consequence for not following the rules. If he had some altruistic intentions for executing the prisoner - being judge, jury and executioner, then her will accept the punishment for his actions and be at peace with accepting the consequences of his actions believing that his actions saved lives.

Those rules aren't as broad as you think they are.

This is what the GC says about executions:

No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.

— Second Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977), Article 6.2

The GC doesn't define "court" the same way The United States Constitution does, nor do our constitutional protections apply outside of The United States.

 

[Mach]

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.

Not his call.

These are the rules our military has established.
These are the rules that a solider who pledged contractually to follow, apparently broke.
The U.S. Army, upon learning of his crime, investigated it and closed the case with no charges.

The solider then saw fit to disclose again, his potential crime, on FOX news, meaning the deniability that the U.S. government had on this, as they kept in relatively safe from prosecution to-date, was blown.
Not only does he bear responsibility for his actions, he has precipitated the re-opening of his own case in making this an world-wide public issue, rather than a private matter for the Army alone to judge.
It is the U.S. Army that has decided to re-open the case, not liberals. Gods **** why do even ****ing post that bull****.

So no. Our military tried to keep this guy from facing penalty, but he's sort of insisted that it happened, and felt the need to go public with it. It's now in the hands of the Army, who was forced to re-open the case due to this public disclosure, and apparently up to David Dennison, AKA Trump, to decide if he wants to oppose our U.S. military, and step on the scales of military justice in letting a self-confessed murderer, go unpunished.

I like your later post attacking "laws" in general. Good one Renae.

 

[Mr Person]

I wasn't there. Neither were you or other second-guessers.

You weren't there? You should have considered that before you typed the bolded:

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.

At any rate, a soldier who executes a prisoner is a disgrace to the nation.

 

[Renae]

Not his call.

These are the rules our military has established.
These are the rules that a solider who pledged contractually to follow, apparently broke.
The U.S. Army, upon learning of his crime, investigated it and closed the case with no charges.

The solider then saw fit to disclose again, his potential crime, on FOX news, meaning the deniability that the U.S. government had on this, as they kept in relatively safe from prosecution to-date, was blown.
Not only does he bear responsibility for his actions, he has precipitated the re-opening of his own case in making this an world-wide public issue, rather than a private matter for the Army alone to judge.
It is the U.S. Army that has decided to re-open the case, not liberals. Gods **** why do even ****ing post that bull****.

So no. Our military tried to keep this guy from facing penalty, but he's sort of insisted that it happened, and felt the need to go public with it. It's now in the hands of the Army, who was forced to re-open the case due to this public disclosure, and apparently up to David Dennison, AKA Trump, to decide if he wants to oppose our U.S. military, and step on the scales of military justice in letting a self-confessed murderer, go unpunished.

I like your later post attacking "laws" in general. Good one Renae.

What do you care, dead afghani's or silly soldiers fighting a war in some place most people can't find on a map...

 

[prometeus]

I wasn't there. Neither were you or other second-guessers.

Yet you raise unfounded questions. Why is that?

 

[prometeus]

I'd call it eliminating an enemy bomb maker in a war zone ... nothing wrong with that.

Moronic drivel.

 

[year2late]

What do you care, dead afghani's or silly soldiers fighting a war in some place most people can't find on a map...

Good gracious.

 

[SCrider]

Law and order conservatives embracing extrajudicial murder of prisoners is about as priceless as it comes.

Cons are no longer for law and order.

 

[apdst]

Not his call.

These are the rules our military has established.
These are the rules that a solider who pledged contractually to follow, apparently broke.
The U.S. Army, upon learning of his crime, investigated it and closed the case with no charges.

The solider then saw fit to disclose again, his potential crime, on FOX news, meaning the deniability that the U.S. government had on this, as they kept in relatively safe from prosecution to-date, was blown.
Not only does he bear responsibility for his actions, he has precipitated the re-opening of his own case in making this an world-wide public issue, rather than a private matter for the Army alone to judge.
It is the U.S. Army that has decided to re-open the case, not liberals. Gods **** why do even ****ing post that bull****.

So no. Our military tried to keep this guy from facing penalty, but he's sort of insisted that it happened, and felt the need to go public with it. It's now in the hands of the Army, who was forced to re-open the case due to this public disclosure, and apparently up to David Dennison, AKA Trump, to decide if he wants to oppose our U.S. military, and step on the scales of military justice in letting a self-confessed murderer, go unpunished.

I like your later post attacking "laws" in general. Good one Renae.

Actually, he had commanf authority. It was a call he could make.

 

[Grand Mal]

I'd call it eliminating an enemy bomb maker in a war zone ... nothing wrong with that.

You know, armies from civilized nations follow those rules to protect their own soldiers, not the enemy. It's like torture of prisoners- anyone who advocates it isn't doing their own troops any favours.
That guy who was shot was a suspect, according to the story, and he was shot in part to protect the identity of the Afghani who identified him as a Talib. The guy who shot him buried him in a shallow grave then went back later, dug him up, dragged him into the base and burned him in the trash pit.

 

[Mach]

What do you care, dead afghani's or silly soldiers fighting a war in some place most people can't find on a map...

I accept that your claims were so absurd that you can't bear the thought of defending them, and instead lash out at me.

 

[Barnacle]

You know, armies from civilized nations follow those rules to protect their own soldiers, not the enemy. It's like torture of prisoners- anyone who advocates it isn't doing their own troops any favours.
That guy who was shot was a suspect, according to the story, and he was shot in part to protect the identity of the Afghani who identified him as a Talib. The guy who shot him buried him in a shallow grave then went back later, dug him up, dragged him into the base and burned him in the trash pit.

It's called ham-stringing your own army for the benefit of the enemy. Obama was a master in that field. (spit)
That Green Beret guy was operating in Afghanistan during a time when the enemy was given all advantages while our troops fought with one hand tied to their backs ... courtesy of Obama's new rules of engagement. (2 x spit) Our troops never fought civilized nations in the middle east.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

As President Obama’s troop surge began in 2009, so did new rules of engagement demanded by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was responding to local elders angry over the deaths of civilians from NATO airstrikes and ground operations."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/

 

[year2late]

Actually, he had commanf authority. It was a call he could make.

Show the command authority to execute a captured prisoner in this situation.

Seems like if he had "command authority" he would not have been charged and the question would be would the command have the ability to order the execution of someone captured that in real time did not pose an immediate threat.

 

[Grand Mal]

It's called ham-stringing your own army for the benefit of the enemy. Obama was a master in that field. (spit)
That Green Beret guy was operating in Afghanistan during a time when the enemy was given all advantages while our troops fought with one hand tied to their backs ... courtesy of Obama's new rules of engagement. (2 x spit) Our troops never fought civilized nations in the middle east.

“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

As President Obama’s troop surge began in 2009, so did new rules of engagement demanded by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was responding to local elders angry over the deaths of civilians from NATO airstrikes and ground operations."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/

Obama? Where is he in this story? Trump's in the White House, been there awhile now, while that officer is being charged.
If you have a beef in this matter it sure as hell isn't with Obama. Truth be told, your beef should be with the Green Beret who couldn't keep his big mouth shut.