Green Berets Accused of Murder?

[mwgfghost]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/us/18hearing.html

Since I'm just a civi, I'm not gonna give my opinion but feel free to comment on this load of crap(oops)

[Sup]

but feel free to comment on this load of crap(oops)

We're not legally allowed to kill people without immediate cause. I don't see how that can change just because we're at war. The law is the law, and folding in one case just because there's a very good reason to kill a person opens up all kinds of legal room for vigilantes of all sorts to just murder people on whims.

[mwgfghost]

Well you see. The guy they killed was in Afghanistan and he was a known terrorist. He made bombs used to kill us. The reason they're calling it murder is because they COULD have captured him. It's like how are they sure the village he was staying at wasn't under the influence of the Taliban? And people have been killing people in wars for as long as we've existed so it does kinda change the concept of murder being illegal. It's not murder if the guy's an enemy combatant. It's just a dead enemy. I think we should loosen up on the Rules of Engagement and tell all the press to pack their bags and go home and let our guys do their jobs the way they've been doing em since our existence. You think shooting a terrorist is murder? There's a story of Robert Rogers, the founder of Rogers' Ranger, of him scalping a French soldier to make an example and boost morale. Like Parabellum said in the Blackwater post. We've done bad things ourselves in wars but those things helped get the job done.

[Militiaman]

This article is written by the New York Times. Need I say anymore?

[Kurtz]

The Times did not charge these men, the army did. This is the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the number of civilians killed in air strikes.

[Guest]

any man who kills another man in a time of war should be brought up on murder charges. Also, the government should be brought up on murder charges for supplying the gun that shot the guy. All those involved in the murder of terrorists should be executed. How dare the US think they can kill terrorists when they haven't done a thing? I think a sexual harrassment charge should be filed on our whole society too for turning our soldiers into pu$$ies *rolls eyes*

[Sup]

Well you see. The guy they killed was in Afghanistan and he was a known terrorist. He made bombs used to kill us.

Okay, then are we free to start murdering scientists developing weapons technology for rival nations? What about farmers -- they feed their armies, y'know. Oh, hey, what about political rivals? One could fairly say many activists are enemies of the government, let's order some soldiers to kill them!

Just because in this case, the soldiers killed a man who we believe was a genuine threat, doesn't mean it's right to change the law. We have to enforce it, or we'll create legal precedent for all of those examples I stated to be allowed. It's not being a liberal ######, it's making sure we enforce our laws as they're written, no matter what. The legal system doesn't work anymore if you make exceptions. Hell, it hardly works as it is.

Fact is, if the law says that killing an unarmed man who isn't posing any immediate physical threat to the killers or their allies is illegal, than they need to be tried. It's just the way it works.

Plus, the moment we say it's okay for a soldier to intentionally kill a noncombatant just because they belong to the other side, what's to stop our enemies (future and present) from doing the same? If another country assassinated one of our leaders when he or she was in their own home, would you say 'oho, well played!', or want justice? Murder is murder. Just because we let a little more slide when we're at war doesn't mean it should be open season on anyone who's wearing an enemy's flag.

[Guest]

Okay, then are we free to start murdering scientists developing weapons technology for rival nations?

OH Hell yeah, if they're directly involved. Of course, I'd probably try to convert them over to our side first:)

What about farmers -- they feed their armies, y'know. Oh, hey, what about political rivals? One could fairly say many activists are enemies of the government, let's order some soldiers to kill them!

Eh, not so much.

Plus, the moment we say it's okay for a soldier to intentionally kill a noncombatant just because they belong to the other side, what's to stop our enemies (future and present) from doing the same?

Don't worry about it, they already did. Something tells me you weren't one of those guys chanting "never forget" about 6yrs ago.

[Sup]

Plus, the moment we say it's okay for a soldier to intentionally kill a noncombatant just because they belong to the other side, what's to stop our enemies (future and present) from doing the same?

Don't worry about it, they already did.

They didn't exactly get away with it, the US started two wars based on what happened.

And for doing that, Osama became pretty much public enemy #1 everywhere in the world. I can never forget without wanting the country to start killing unarmed noncombatants.

[WytchDokta]

Hang on a minute, everyone is a murderer:

You see, when you go out to mow your lawn, do you for one minute think about what you are about to do? That's right, each blade of grass is a living organism. Just because it isn't human doesn't mean it doesn't have feelings.

What about the last time you pruned your plants? Did you even care to think that they are living organisms too, and by cutting (pruning) bits off it you are in effect maiming a living organism? No? I didn't think so.

What about the last time you stamped to death/bludgeoned to death (with a rolled up newspaper or a shoe) a poor defenseless spider that was causing no harm to you, you killed it because you were afraid of it? Did you even consider it has just as much right to live as you do?

It's funny how we never see any of the above 'murder' cases reported in the news.

Edited September 22, 2007 by WytchDokta

[Guest]

I can never forget without wanting the country to start killing unarmed noncombatants.

I guess if you call leaving his homemade bombs in the house before he came out "unarmed" be my guest.

I know what you're trying to say though. Abide by the laws of the Geneva convention. I think they did, but I wasn't there personally so I would rather give my own the benefit of the doubt before I trust some radioshack bomb maker. Feel free to call me crazy if you want:)

Hang on a minute, everyone is a murderer:

You see, when you go out to mow your lawn, do you for one minute think about what you are about to do? That's right, each blade of grass is a living organism. Just because it isn't human doesn't mean it doesn't have feelings.

What about the last time you pruned your plants? Did you even care to think that they are living organisms too, and by cutting (pruning) bits off it you are in effect maiming a living organism? No? I didn't think so.

What about the last time you stamped to death/bludgeoned to death (with a rolled up newspaper or a shoe) a poor defenseless spider that was causing no harm to you, you killed it because you were afraid of it? Did you even consider it has just as much right to live as you do?

It's funny how we never see any of the above 'murder' cases reported in the news.

Oh LAWD, Buddah himself has entered the board! Welcome! Wanna play some siege?

[Parabellum]

The Times did not charge these men, the army did. This is the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the number of civilians killed in air strikes.

Hey, maybe you hadn't heard. You know, having your fingers in your ears, and all. Civilians tend to get injured and killed now and again in war. All of the civilians killed in Iraq to date are a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the number of Germans who were bombed to a fiery hell in WWII by Allied bombers.

[Sup]

Hey, maybe you hadn't heard. You know, having your fingers in your ears, and all. Civilians tend to get injured and killed now and again in war. All of the civilians killed in Iraq to date are a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the number of Germans who were bombed to a fiery hell in WWII by Allied bombers.

There's still a legal difference between hitting a civillian with a bomb and planning to assassinate an unarmed man.

WytchDokta: Murder is murder as defined by the law, and grass isn't covered. Neither are spiders. So, since we're talking about whether or not some men should have been charged for murder or not, what you posted was completely irrelevant.

We could argue forever about whether it was right or wrong, but the only genuinely relevant fact is whether it was against the law or not. From what's been reported, sounds like it is.

I guess if you call leaving his homemade bombs in the house before he came out "unarmed" be my guest.

That's the very definition of it. If I picked up a knife as a weapon, I'd be armed. As is, they're sitting in my kitchen, and i'm very much unarmed. By your classification, every gun owner is armed even when they're carrying no weapon and outside of their homes.

[Parabellum]

Hey, maybe you hadn't heard. You know, having your fingers in your ears, and all. Civilians tend to get injured and killed now and again in war. All of the civilians killed in Iraq to date are a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the number of Germans who were bombed to a fiery hell in WWII by Allied bombers.

There's still a legal difference between hitting a civillian with a bomb and planning to assassinate an unarmed man.

WytchDokta: Murder is murder as defined by the law, and grass isn't covered. Neither are spiders. So, since we're talking about whether or not some men should have been charged for murder or not, what you posted was completely irrelevant.

We could argue forever about whether it was right or wrong, but the only genuinely relevant fact is whether it was against the law or not. From what's been reported, sounds like it is.

I guess if you call leaving his homemade bombs in the house before he came out "unarmed" be my guest.

That's the very definition of it. If I picked up a knife as a weapon, I'd be armed. As is, they're sitting in my kitchen, and i'm very much unarmed. By your classification, every gun owner is armed even when they're carrying no weapon and outside of their homes.

Except that bombs can be triggered from a distance. As I understand it, this man was known to possess explosives. Now, follow this simple logic. Badguy makes bombs. Badguy makes said bombs to blow up you, your buddies, and civilians. Badguy also happens to be fundamentalist Islamist. Do you want to get close enough to find out if he's got some kind of detonator on him? I don't. If he showed any hint of being squirrely, I'd have popped him too.

[pz3]

I'm with you there para.

The guy was a known enemy.

As for it being "Illegal" It is either a UN made or a US law that wasnt intended against radical militants in guirella style wars.

Fact remains terrorists dont give a crap about laws and that man would use the unarmed route just to be able to snake away and kill more Soldiers the next day.

Think of it as.....

ben ladin unarmed walks out his front door you better beleive any US soldier would drop him on the spot.

Edited September 23, 2007 by pz3

[Guest]

i wouldn't drop him on the "spot," i'd make sure I whittled him down, starting with the knee caps:)

seriously, it's like talking to a brick wall. put yourself in that solder's situation and i think you would do the same if you really thought about it.

I for one would have no qualms shooting a known terrorist, espically an "poor, unarmed bomb maker."

and your analogy of all gun owners being "armed" is problematic. Now, if that gun owner had been known to actually shoot/kill civillians or anybody, your analogy might have some foundation.

[mwgfghost]

And there's also the fact that we dropped two A bombs on Japan to eventually make the surrender and end the war. If we were allowed to pop more terrorists like these soldiers did, we'd be closer to winning the war. And besides this guy's bombs haven't only been used to kill our servicemen and women. They've also been used to kill civilians. Anyways, this thread's gonna be deleted sooner or later because it's gettin too political. I posted for anybody with experience to post and then some law school wannabe gets involved and next thing you know you're on fire...GI Joooooeee

[Guest]

lol ghost, and sadly, getting rid of those guys (terrrorists) is only half the battle:)

[Dannik]

[3.13] Political Discussions Topics relating to politics are not allowed, they lead to unneccesary problems ie. flaming and chest beating. All posts relating to politics will be deleted.

Please, continue to keep it clean. You're all doing very well, but please, also keep the site rules in mind.

Respect. Keep at it.

[Guest]

An article from a different source, for better or for worse.....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military hearing may test war laws

By Kevin Maurer

The Fayetteville Observer

Aug. 26, 2007

The newspaper article below illustrates much of what is wrong with the U.S. attempt at waging war these days. Leadership by pen would have lost us Iwo Jima, Normandy and just about every other battle.

Yours in Patriotism, De Oppresso Liber

Henry J. Cook, III, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)

There is no question that Master Sgt. Troy Anderson shot Nawab Buntangyar in front of his compound near the Afghan-Pakistani border.

There also is no debate that Nawab was known to be a "bad guy" - an enemy who helped arm suicide bombers and who was on a list of the most dangerous insurgent leaders in Afghanistan.

The question facing an Army investigator at Fort Bragg in the coming weeks is whether Anderson and his commander, Capt. Dave Staffel, were acting within the rules of engagement when they killed Nawad.

But to many Special Forces soldiers, it appears that the rules of engagement themselves are going on trial at a time when leaders are trying to shift the role of Green Berets in Afghanistan.

Anderson and Staffel face an Article 32 hearing to decide whether they will be court-martialed on murder charges. The hearing is similar to a civilian grand jury investigation: The purpose isn't to decide guilt, just whether there's enough evidence to hold a trial.

No hearing date has been set.

Staffel and Anderson, like most veteran Special Forces soldiers, have deployed to Afghanistan several times since the Taliban were ousted from power in 2002. The Fort Bragg-based Green Berets have been at the front of the continuing effort to suppress the Taliban and al-Qaida insurgency.

That's what the Special Forces A-team led by Staffel was doing in Paktia province on the border with Pakistan in October 2006, when Nawad was killed.

Mark Waple, Staffel's Fayetteville-based lawyer, said the area was becoming more dangerous. The soldiers were seeing more roadside bombs and ambushes. A delivery truck taking food to the team's firebase was attacked.

They were sure one of the main culprits was Nawab, Waple said.

The Afghan was training and arming suicide bombers and teaching insurgents how to build and deploy roadside bombs, according to Special Forces sources. Days before the team found him, their sources said he'd bragged that he planned to kill coalition forces in a suicide bombing campaign.

In October, Staffel and Anderson were leading an advance team of Afghan soldiers ahead of a convoy delivering medical supplies and care to a village near their firebase. They were flagged down by an Afghan, according to descriptions of the incident from Waple and a Special Forces source.

The man wanted to give them Nawab. The insurgent leader was in the village of Ster Kalay, the man told the Americans.

While Staffel provided cover, Anderson led a small contingent of Afghan soldiers and police and at least one other Special Forces soldier up to what was identified as Nawad's compound.

The Afghan soldiers knocked on the door of the compound, and Nawab came out.

Anderson and the others kept their distance. They were afraid that Nawab was wired in an explosive vest and concerned that either he or one of his bodyguards would attack.

"Nawab was believed to be extremely dangerous to coalition forces," Waple said.

Through an interpreter, Anderson asked Nawab his name twice. He checked his physical description against a sheet the soldiers keep that describes each person on the vetted list of insurgents that came from the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force Afghanistan. On the list were the highest-priority targets for Special Forces soldiers. Some of the soldiers called it the kill-or-capture list.

Confident that Nawab was the man on the list, Anderson raised his rifle and killed him with one shot.

The circumstances of Nawab's death apparently raised questions right away with the soldiers' superiors.

The Army investigated the shooting twice.

An internal investigation was completed first, followed by a probe by the Army Criminal Investigations Command, still known as CID.

Waple was told that the CID investigation cleared both Special Forces soldiers.

But in June, the overall command over special operations in the region recommended charges of premeditated murder against Staffel and Anderson.

Back at Fort Bragg, the headquarters for Special Forces is not commenting on the case to avoid compromising it. But in a response to questions, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Special Forces Command did offer some insight on how its soldiers operate in Afghanistan.

Special Forces soldiers work in small teams far from their in-country commanders, said Maj. Clarence Counts. They receive guidance, but individual team leaders and sergeants are taught to use their initiative in figuring out how to do what needs to be done.

According to other Special Forces soldiers - who asked that their names not be used - Staffel and Anderson correctly assessed what needed to be done and acted appropriately under the rules of engagement they were supposed to be following.

Nawab's presence on the target list was key, one soldier who was in Afghanistan at the same time said.

Who was on the list "was never up to us," he said. The list always came from the task force level or higher. "We always thought if they were vetted, they were fair game. (Special Forces teams) planned missions off the vetted list."

A senior Special Forces soldier also in Afghanistan in 2006 said he believes Staffel and Anderson acted correctly when they encountered Nawad, who, because of his ties to suicide bombers, posed a risk even when it appeared he was just answering questions.

He said Staffel and Anderson obviously felt threatened.

"This was the definition of a chance encounter," he said. "We're dealing with suicide bombers every day now. If you feel you're in danger, deadly force is authorized."

But Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst with Human Rights Watch, said soldiers can't just label someone a combatant and shoot him.

"Though it is difficult to second-guess soldiers operating in life-and-death situations, this appears on the surface to be a violation of the laws of war," he said. "The Geneva Conventions are clear - you can only kill a combatant, and a combatant has to be armed."

New York-based Human Rights Watch is one of the chief civilian oversight groups monitoring U.S. military conduct in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Garlasco is a former civilian intelligence officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency.

He said the rules of engagement must be changed if a soldier is allowed to use force just because he feels he is in danger.

"If they are going to act like everyone in Afghanistan may be wearing a suicide vest and therefore is a combatant, the U.S. might as well just kill everyone because the definition of combatant becomes so subjective as to be meaningless," Garlasco said.

Some soldiers, meanwhile, worry that it is the rules of engagement - the rules that tell them what they can and can't do - that will have been rendered meaningless if Anderson and Staffel are prosecuted.

They believe the shooting of Nawad fit those rules as they existed in October 2006, and second-guessing now undermines the ability of Special Forces soldiers to do their jobs.

"It stymies everything - creativity, calculated risk-taking, all of the latitude and creativity that you must use in Afghanistan," said a former Special Forces commander who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Without that, we're doomed to do the same old stuff. It is a recipe for defeat."

He said the Article 32 is a classic example of "leadership by penmanship." The top commanders of Special Forces, he said, may pay lip service to creative thinking but they've made their careers by being cautious.

"They color inside the lines," he said. "They grew up in a box factory."

Maj. Counts, the Special Forces spokesman, said the Article 32 investigation is to determine the facts of the case and should not have any adverse effect on future operations.

"Honest people can have differing observations from their perspective of view," Counts said. "The purpose of the Article 32 is to understand all points of view."

Part of the rank-and-file anger over the Nawad case could be related to a difference with commanders over what Special Forces soldiers should be doing in Afghanistan. Soldiers on the ground say that they should be doing what Anderson and Staffel were doing: going after the bad guys.

But late last year, the special operations task force in Afghanistan started defining a new role.

The Fayetteville Observer obtained a memorandum from special operations sources dated Nov. 18, 2006 - just over a month after Nawad's death. The memo ordered Special Forces teams to suspend operations for a day.

Lt. Col. Samuel Ashley, commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 3rd Special Forces Group, wrote in the memo that he wanted Afghan security forces to take the lead in planning and executing operations.

Ashley cautioned his men that the list of vetted targets was "not an open license to use any and all tactics to kill an individual."

There was no indication in the memo that it was in response to the Nawad case.

Last week, officials with the Special Forces Command at Fort Bragg said the primary job for Special Forces in Afghanistan is foreign internal defense - essentially the mission outlined in the memo.

"Special Forces always tries to work itself out of a job," Counts said. "They do this by training and working with the host nation forces, molding them into a professional Army, one that is tactically proficient as well as one that understands and practices human rights."

---Staff writer Kevin Maurer can be reached at maurerk@fayobserver.com.

[Sup]

seriously, it's like talking to a brick wall. put yourself in that solder's situation and i think you would do the same if you really thought about it.

Maybe. Probably not, though, since it's illegal and I don't want to go to jail.

That's the thing. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong -- these soldiers are accused of doing something against the law, so, naturally, they should be tried.

Think of it as.....

ben ladin unarmed walks out his front door you better beleive any US soldier would drop him on the spot.

And that is exactly the problem. We aren't supposed to, as a society, shoot people just because we don't like them. No matter what they did, the law says no murder because a society where you start gunning down people on sight because they're radical islamics or terrorists or murderers or theives or just look at you the wrong way (it's all pretty much the same, in the law, really) devolves into total anarchy.

(Before anyone chimes in, the death sentence is irrelevant. I'm not commenting on whether these people deserve death, only that we have laws against just shooting them for no immediate reason)

[2nd Ranger]

We're not legally allowed to kill people without immediate cause. I don't see how that can change just because we're at war. The law is the law, and folding in one case just because there's a very good reason to kill a person opens up all kinds of legal room for vigilantes of all sorts to just murder people on whims.

Pardon me, but you seem like you're confusing civilian laws with military laws, notably the Rules of Engagement.

Soldiers are not the police. Yeah, they can't just go around shooting civilians who look at them cross-eyed. But this guy was on a High Value Target list. He was on it for a reason. Depending on the SF team's ROE, they may not have been obligated to capture him.

Killing the guy on the spot (read: after being led to him by a native and confirming his ID twice before engaging) may not be palatable, but the legality of the killing depends on the team's particular ROE. Judging by their actions, they must have felt they were working within the confines of their ROE when they took the guy out. Nobody can say for sure that what they did was wrong unless they have seen these guys' ROE for the list.

It's a murky issue, and obviously someone back at Ft. Bragg felt the ROE were murky enough to investigate. It's not cut and dry. They didn't shoot him in the back of the head while he was on the ground with his hands cuffed.

[philkilla]

This is just sad. SF soldiers are trained to kill, and they do it for a reason.

This afghan obviously has a track record IF the intel is correct (and SF soldiers are trained to take excellent intel)

If I was MSG. Anderson, I would have laid him out too.

[Sup]

Judging by their actions, they must have felt they were working within the confines of their ROE when they took the guy out. Nobody can say for sure that what they did was wrong unless they have seen these guys' ROE for the list.

It's a murky issue, and obviously someone back at Ft. Bragg felt the ROE were murky enough to investigate. It's not cut and dry. They didn't shoot him in the back of the head while he was on the ground with his hands cuffed.

This is why there's going to be a hearing. I'm only arguing whether it was right for them to be accused, I'm not asking for a conviction.

[Parabellum]

Judging by their actions, they must have felt they were working within the confines of their ROE when they took the guy out. Nobody can say for sure that what they did was wrong unless they have seen these guys' ROE for the list.

It's a murky issue, and obviously someone back at Ft. Bragg felt the ROE were murky enough to investigate. It's not cut and dry. They didn't shoot him in the back of the head while he was on the ground with his hands cuffed.

This is why there's going to be a hearing. I'm only arguing whether it was right for them to be accused, I'm not asking for a conviction.

If the guy was a known terrorist, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with him being dropped on the spot. I see no reason for the soldiers to be second-guessed in any way, provided the man's identity was confirmed before he was shot. As far as I'm concerned, the guy threw any "rights" he had out the window when he started blowing people up.