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

SummerMadness said:

Twist in Green Beret's Extraordinary Story: Trump's Intervention After Murder Charges
I guess murder is okay for some folks.

Click to expand...

Well, in past instances stretching back over a hundred years, presidents have not intervened in any way in military prosecutions, not even expressed an opinion, until after the military had completed its own legal actions.

That way, the president would not have gotten involved at all if the soldier had been ultimately exonerated. If the soldier had been found guilty, the president would then have all the evidence in hand to make an educated decision about a pardon.

But, hey, that's how all the others did it.

By any measure, Major Golsteyn’s story is an extraordinary one — a soldier decorated for valor in combat who, during a job interview with the C.I.A. in 2011, volunteered that he had killed a suspected bomb maker a year earlier in Afghanistan. The Army opened an investigation but did not charge Major Golsteyn, instead stripping him of a Silver Star and an elite Special Forces tab, and issuing a letter of reprimand.

But then, five years later, in an appearance on Fox News, Major Golsteyn again said he had shot the Afghan. The Army opened a second investigation in late 2016, and charged Major Golsteyn with murder last week.

He's his own worst enemy. If you squeak through an Army investigation and avoid a potential date with the firing squad, you probably should not go bragging on Fox News. But I get the impression he's the kind of person who's (not-so-)secretly proud of killing bonus people outside the ROE.

essentialsaltes said:

By any measure, Major Golsteyn’s story is an extraordinary one — a soldier decorated for valor in combat who, during a job interview with the C.I.A. in 2011, volunteered that he had killed a suspected bomb maker a year earlier in Afghanistan. The Army opened an investigation but did not charge Major Golsteyn, instead stripping him of a Silver Star and an elite Special Forces tab, and issuing a letter of reprimand.

But then, five years later, in an appearance on Fox News, Major Golsteyn again said he had shot the Afghan. The Army opened a second investigation in late 2016, and charged Major Golsteyn with murder last week.

He's his own worst enemy. If you squeak through an Army investigation and avoid a potential date with the firing squad, you probably should not go bragging on Fox News. But I get the impression he's the kind of person who's (not-so-)secretly proud of killing bonus people outside the ROE.

Click to expand...

Well, let's not forget that Allen West has made a career out of being retired from service following non-judicial punishment for a war crime.

RDKirk said:

Well, in past instances stretching back over a hundred years, presidents have not intervened in any way in military prosecutions, not even expressed an opinion, until after the military had completed its own legal actions.

That way, the president would not have gotten involved at all if the soldier had been ultimately exonerated. If the soldier had been found guilty, the president would then have all the evidence in hand to make an educated decision about a pardon.

But, hey, that's how all the others did it.

Click to expand...

I much prefer letting the military investigate. Then the President can look at it. After all the situation in modern warfare is much more complex, it seems, than in the pre-Viet Nam era as to rules of engagement, etc.

And the military has been known to throw lower ranking service members under the Humvee.

cow451 said:

And the military has been known to throw lower ranking service members under the Humvee.

Click to expand...

That's how you know Mattis must have been peeved about the Niger investigation: one of the Captains had his reprimand rescinded.

Mattis Erupts Over Niger Inquiry and Army Revisits Who Is to Blame

iluvatar5150 said:

That's how you know Mattis must have been peeved about the Niger investigation: one of the Captains had his reprimand rescinded.

Mattis Erupts Over Niger Inquiry and Army Revisits Who Is to Blame

Click to expand...

Mattis may know more about it than the press does about the details, but a lot depends on who and what...and sometimes negative consequences follow that aren't easily seen by civilians.

I recall back when the Air Force accidentally shot down an Army Blackhawk helicopeter over Iraq, killing 15 soldiers, that a number of officers--the F-15 crew and several observing the situation aboard an AWACS. It was determined that while none was criminally negligent, they were certainly negligent to some extent, not having take the care that standard procedures required.

A year later, the Chief of Staff called for his own review of those officers' performance report, and he corkscrewed into the ceiling when he saw that the incident wasn't even mentioned in their glowing reports.

"And unlike two naval collisions last year in the Pacific that led within weeks to the removal of the commander of the Navy’s largest operational battle force, no top generals have been ushered out the door in the Niger case — an example officials say that Mr. Mattis has been quick to point out."

However, the Navy discovered in a very short period of time that their were common problems causing those collisions, and those common problems were directly because of overarching negligence at the senior command level.

It probably would have taken longer to discern a commonality that indicated senior leadership failure if there had been only one accident to study, as it is in the case of the Niger situation.

The basic rule of who to pin operational failure on is fairly uniform across the services: The on-scene commander takes the blame. At sea, that's going to be the skipper of the ship. If a ship runs aground, the skipper gets fired. No debate, he knows his fate the moment it happens.

In other services, the rule is basically the same: The on-scene commander is the first point of blame. It might rise to others if commonality at higher levels can be determined, but the on-scene commander is the first point of blame.

That's why he gets the salutes, big bucks, and first crack at promotions.