Posted on 05/06/2015 10:59:48 PM PDT by nickcarraway
On September 14, 2011, the CIA sent an alarming message to the Pentagon: a decorated U.S. special operations commando admitted during a job interview with the agency to hunting down and killing “an unknown, unarmed” Afghan man.
The claim triggered an investigation that spanned years and saw U.S. Army Major Mathew L. Golsteyn stripped of his Silver Star. While the admission has been reported in the press, the army’s investigation into the alleged killing has been largely conducted in secrecy.
The Intercept has obtained internal U.S. Army documents that detail elements of the military’s investigation into the alleged killing and a previously undisclosed letter of reprimand Golsteyn received last year.
“In an interview conducted at the CIA, then-CPT Golsteyn claimed to have captured and shot and buried a suspected IED bomb maker,” an Army memo dated September 29, 2014 reads. “He further went to comment that he went back out with two others to cremate the body and dispose of the remains. In the transcript, CPT Golsteyn stated that he knew it was illegal but was not remorseful as he had solid intelligence and his actions protected the safety of his fellow teammates.”
Following the September 2011 CIA interview, the agency alerted the military of a “possible violation of criminal law.” In October, the Army launched a criminal probe. The next month, Golsteyn was promoted to the rank of major.
Two years later, in November 2013, U.S. Army criminal investigators concluded that Golsteyn had knowingly violated the laws of war, alleging he had committed the crimes of “murder and conspiracy.” Army Secretary John McHugh stripped Golsteyn of his Silver Star and other awards. However, Golsteyn remains in the military and no criminal charges have been filed against him. Golsteyn received the Silver Star in 2011 for his role in a mission to hunt down enemy snipers in Afghanistan.
Maj. Mathew Golsteyn (Right) in Afghanistan with an Afghan soldier (Photo released by Rep. Duncan Hunter’s office) Golsteyn’s lawyer, Phillip Stackhouse, says the Army document describing his client’s comments “contains incorrect information in several important and significant areas.” In an email to The Intercept, Stackhouse wrote, “What is true – is that during the investigation that lasted over two years, there was not one piece of evidence that corroborated the allegation.” He denounced the stripping of Golsteyn’s medals and charged that “Secretary McHugh’s actions were vindictive.”
Military law experts interviewed by The Intercept said that the confession alone was not enough to criminally prosecute him, so Army officials took the only route available to them — an administrative reprimand — to punish him.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey Addicott, the former senior legal advisor for US Army Special Forces, says the “Army acted correctly” in the case. The Geneva Conventions and corresponding Army regulations “require that whenever we receive information about a grave breach of the law of war we must investigate and take appropriate action,” wrote Addicott in an email to The Intercept. “The admission by the Captain that he had killed an unarmed unlawful enemy combatant in his custody (the 2001 AUMF would classify the person killed as such) and buried the body required further investigation.” Addicott, who currently runs the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University in Texas, says the military would need “additional evidence” to obtain a conviction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“Someone could look at this and say, ‘My God, this is a slap on the wrist for a heinous, unjustified killing,’” says Professor Geoffrey Corn, an international and war law expert at the University of South Texas. “If I had been the JAG officer they came to, it would kill me not to be able to charge this guy.”
Corn, who spent 22 years as a military officer and served as the Army’s senior law of war expert in the Office of the Judge Advocate General, says that in order to criminally charge Golsteyn with murder, prosecutors would have to find corroborating evidence, such as a witness, a body, physical evidence or a co-conspirator. “The fact is that he admits to what — if it’s true — is as serious of a felony as we can imagine: intentional, unlawful killing of a human being, which is premeditated murder,” Corn told The Intercept. “If there was a viable criminal sanction, you’d have to do a general court martial. You’d have to. Nothing else would be credible. And you can’t because you can’t find corroboration for the confession.”
Golsteyn would have known the CIA would eventually polygraph him during his application to work with the CIA, according to Corn. “The odds that he’s gonna lie in that interview are pretty slim. So the context of the statement makes it highly credible,” he said. “Maybe he didn’t do it. Or maybe he killed somebody in a fight and he’s trying to embellish it to make it seem like he’s more hardcore than he is. I don’t know. The problem is all of that is speculative.”
Maj. Golsteyn was reprimanded for the alleged murder by Army Brigadier General Darsie D. Rogers in a letter dated April 24, 2014, also obtained by The Intercept.
“On 6 September 2011, during an interview with the Central Intelligence Agency, you admitted to committing a Law of Armed Conflict violation,” the letter begins. “You are hereby reprimanded. Your behavior in this matter manifests a complete lack of judgment and responsibility.”
The letter explains that the “reprimand is administrative in nature and is not imposed as punishment under the” Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“It’s a career ending administrative sanction for an officer. The stripping of the medals is peripheral. The real thing is once he gets this reprimand in his official file, then somebody’s going to say we should process him to be separated from the military—in other words, fire him,” says Corn. “The burden of proof is different for an administrative sanction than it is for a criminal sanction. That’s the law. You don’t need corroborating evidence.”
California Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has publicly declared his support for the embattled soldier. Writing on Golsteyn’s case in an article for The Daily Beast in February, the republican lawmaker, himself an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, lamented that, “The career of a decorated soldier and everything he has accomplished over a nearly fifteen-year service career has been taken away. The reason: an allegation that the Army was never able to substantiate.”
Speaking to The Intercept Wednesday, Hunter’s spokesman, Joe Kasper, argued that relying solely on the information contained in the army’s documents could present a “one sided” view of the Golsteyn case. In the absence of a transcript, the context of the conversation Golsteyn had with the CIA remains unclear, he said, adding that the army has failed to present evidence linking Golsteyn to any wrongdoing.
“The process has to have integrity,” Kasper said. “There has to be due process.”
This is not the first time soldiers with the Army’s 3rd Special Forces Group have been suspected of unlawfully killing Afghans and disposing of their bodies. In November 2013, Rolling Stone magazine presented evidence linking a unit with the special forces group to the disappearance – and suspected killing – of 10 Afghan civilians.
Golsteyn’s hearing to determine whether he will receive a less than honorable discharge from the army is scheduled for May 18.
As a veteran I have no sympathy as murder is murder and his actions do dishonor to the military and all service members and veterans. Too bad he’s not charged with it since HE ADMITTED IT. Guess the likely Dishonorable Discharge will have to suffice.
Huh! Major Golsteyn ought to go work for the Texas Rangers. They will likely need a man with his attitude.
“Green Beret” (Special Forces), Commando—not the same thing. Those are two different specialties.
No matter what he did, he shouldn’t lose his silver star. Wrong actions don’t erase whatever actions he committed to earn the medal.
To the media, Special Forces = Special Ops = Commando = Operators = Navy SEALs = Rangers = Rifleman = etc.
I agree....he should be discharged from the US Army and installed as “Director of Southern Border Recon for the State of Texas Ranger Agency. All decorations restored.
You can’t make this stuff up. I thought the military was messed up when I served 67-70.
Since he had two team-mates with him, they either refused to incriminate themselves or they don’t exist since the Army couldn’t corroborate his story.
If it’s true. It needs to be substantiated and he needs to be prosecuted.
If it’s false (braggadocio/embellishment), he’s shown some pretty poor judgement - I wouldn’t hire him. However, I don’t think it justifies taking away his awards for other actions.
There are many brave knuckleheads who absolutely deserve the honors and recognition they’ve received for their heroic actions.
There are no afghan civilians. They are all moslems. (I am unaware of any non-moslem community left in Afghanistan)
Why is it our CIC can send a drone to bomb a target, knowing it will kill civilians, and the attitude is oops, sorry, and that is not a crime. Sometimes, in war, people just need killing. That is why it is called war, people on both sides die. The major had intell that the guy he killed was a IED maker, How many of our soldiers died because of him. The ROE for our soldiers are much more stringent than our LEO’s in this country. I have watched videos of our drone operators killing indiscriminately Afghans, hunting them down like dogs. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with this major doing what he did.
Sounds like a self-starter!
The only thing wrong with this is that he didn’t get permission beforehand. Had the target been designated “high-value”, a drone-strike (or more) would be valid options.
He violated the bureaucracy. No one got to “order” him to do it. And for that he must be punished. That is the sole difference.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
The military is being indoctrinated, step by step, to commit heinous acts, and the public is being indoctrinated, step by step, to accept the acts.
That’s the question, asked in today’s terms as.....Would you have killed Hitler in 1936, if you had had the opportunity, knowing what you know now, you murderer?
“...military is being indoctrinated, step by step, to commit heinous acts...”
Well, they are “Military”. Their job is to kill folks and break things. Personally, I *want* them to be the most ferocious, heinous, feared warriors on the face of the globe. And ever since we’ve had a “military” the training cadre have tried to build those warriors.
So, looking at what he did... He identified a legitimate military target, built a case against him and then took the initiative to prosecute that target. What he *should* have done is present the case for *authorization*, which in the politically correct ROE he found himself in, may not have been forthcoming. The current administration seems to prefer waging war by only shooting the enemy “a little bit” (to our detriment).
So, had he followed proper channels, and *if* he had gained authorization, then would the prosecution of that target have been less heinous? More heinous? About the same heinous?
I guess my point is that “heinous” in the context of fighting a war can be a highly subjective description. Opinions will vary.
Didn’t John Kerry get a medal for hunting down and killing “an unknown, unarmed” man?
There is right and wrong. It’s a clear line.
“The job” of the military is not to kill folks and break things... blind to moral law.
That’s why illegal orders specifically are not to be followed.
To have the military encouraged or permitted to kill according to whim would mean that the military was nothing more than a criminal gang operating with government backing.
It’s important to remember that new world order - the folks behind the throne of our goofy “government” quisling weasel politicians - plan on using our military against our own civilians.
In Germany in the 1920s and 30s, they never imagined a paramilitary police force would be unleased on the domestic citizenry, and they welcomed a “strong man” who - in the midst of chaotic street violence - brought “order”. New world order instituted the chaos - and they provided the “strong man” to quell it.
How clear a picture needs to be painted to have folks understand that everything the see in the news media today is horse***t, er, propaganda,
that it’s all aimed at getting the last rational, moral thinkers, the “little people” conservatives who “cling to their guns and Bibles”...
to politically support the creation of a United States DOMESTIC PARAMILITARY which will be used to smash the cr@p...
out of those same “little people” conservatives.
We are EXTREMELY CLOSE - A HAIR’S BREADTH - from...
1) Papers please [stop anyone anywhere and arrest them for no reason]
and
2) [4:00am] Bang ! Bang ! [bashing into your home] Everybody Down ! Everybody Down ! Lie on the floor ! Stretch out your arms ! Where are the Guns ! Where are the Guns ! [shot kills your child] Nobody Move ! Where are the Guns !
“...We are EXTREMELY CLOSE - A HAIR’S BREADTH - from...”
I work with the mil community daily and I take exception to that level of hyperbole.
Now, I will grant you that the higher up in rank you go - especially with Officers, you will encounter more and more folks who first approach a problem/orders through a political magnifying glass. But those aren’t the trigger pullers and they do not get their hands dirty.
The lower you go in the ranks, you will encounter the folks who actually carry out those orders and do the vast bulk of the physical work - the dirtiest work - needed to accomplish the mission. Those folks are far, Far, FAR more patriotic than you may think. They have not only a logical understanding that they are there, voluntarily, to protect and defend us citizens, but they will typically have a deep seated attachment at an emotional level.
My point is that I don’t personally know of any soldier (and I encounter quite a few) that would blindly follow orders to abuse the citizens. I’m not saying they wouldn’t fight back and win if the citizens attacked them, but I am saying that they are on our side far more than the general public may believe. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise as yo may have your own reasonings. But I am saying, forthrightly and with an extremely high level of confidence that I am personally not at all worried about any martial law situation nationwide. Isolated pockets like Baltimore/Ferguson due to out of control rioting? Yes! But nationwide among law abiding citizens who are not actively assaulting/attacking the soldiers or trying to Riot/Loot/Burn down a city? No concern at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.