Posted on 09/21/2007 11:30:49 AM PDT by brent1a
FORT BRAGG, N.C., Sept. 17 — From his position about 100 yards away, Master Sgt. Troy Anderson had a clear shot at the Afghan man standing outside a residential compound in a village near the Pakistan border last October. When Capt. Dave Staffel, the Special Forces officer in charge, gave the order to shoot, Sergeant Anderson fired a bullet into the man’s head, killing him.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Keep building strawmen and neglect any attempt at argument. It fools no one, but apparently reassures you.
Oh?
Is there something about "this kind of war" that frees Americans from the requirement that they obey the law?
Looking at his commands, I'd be very careful before calling his credibility into question.
It appears this General pushing for charges and investigations has a record of dealing harshly with the Marines they charged with “cold blooded and premeditated murder of innocent civilians” as per Congress Critter Murtha...
It might have something to do with penis envy......him being an Army General.....
But that wouldn’t explain going after the Army’s own Green Berets.
Wrong it is not a matter of they will be found innocent, justice served. This is some REMF ruining two soldiers careers, this crap does not go away form their record. PLUS every operator in the field now has to worry whether or not command has their back.
These guys were not out cowboying around, this thing went down by the friggin’ book and a bad guy got ventilated. They should have a parade thrown for the not a trial.
What’s your definition of “domestic insurrectionism”?
I currently define the ACLU, CAIR, MoveOn.org, & activist judges as domestic insurrectionists.
Are you saying that when an activist judge sides with a liberal organization and sets a precedent in court ruling that doesn’t “alter how the Constitution is interpreted or enforced”?
I also consider thousands of pages of ROEs and letting terrorists go so they can go back to the battlefield as “negotiating terms conditionally with our enemies.”
Not to mention Pelosi and Kucinich hobknobbing in Syria is also as close to “negotiating terms conditionally with our enemies” as you can get.
But those are just MY definitions of domestic insurrectionism..
Thank you.
Well, maybe. And maybe not -- maybe you're just hearing one side of the story. Neither of us really knows enough to make that determination.
As I said above, I'm glad the bad guy got taken down. But at the same time, I'd prefer that the assassination was done as legally and properly as it's possible to do such things. If there's reasonable doubt about that, I'd prefer for it to be resolved, one way or the other.
Which ones impressed you?
Oh! Yes
I circumstances surrounding the GB’s actions, that is if you read the article, should not, may I say again, not have brought murder charges.
It is war, not a tea party, but a war against a very very tough people. The rules of engagement in a conflict of this nature need to be relaxed. Oh I know, the Afghans will hate us and turn against us because we killed a bad guy. Pick up a book and read their history and get out of your bubble.
I have been there and I know you have not by your lack of knowledge of what is going on there.
I’d imagine the afghans would respect us more if we killed him, killed his men, raped his women, and stole his goats. Not a PC people.
First Battalion of the 101st Airborne, and 3rd Ranger Battalion are a couple.
I suppose you'd have done better, though.
I suppose your “having been there” also excuses you from writing coherent sentences? I have no idea what you just said.
See your attitude is all wrong. Since we the US people are PC then we are on higher moral ground than them. Therefore the afghani people have great respect for us because they know we are a PC people fighting a war in a politically correct manner.
How can you not understand what EDArt said? Is English your second language? Ya, he screwed up the first sentence but it doesn’t take a crypto-linguist to decipher what he was attempting to say.
Beyond foolish - You don't know what you are talking about -The CID cleared this (The Army's Criminal Investigation Div/Command) - AARs clearly showed these warriors acted appropriately - Full stop - End of discussion - No need for this to have gone farther (regardless that you think it brings "balance").
The notion that, still, from time to time it is good that these hearings take place, regardless is stupidity wrapped around an even sillier notion (with guys lives on the line). With all due respect.
As for Gen. Kearney...It can be said he is not well respected within much of the SOF/SF communities to begin with - There is a big whiff of personal politics playing a role here - He is the same Gen. that kicked out MARSOC (Marine special operations) from Stan last year - (for being too rough...in response to an ambush).
As another said....Gen. Kearney is showing nothing other than the classic pathetic example of “leadership by penmanship".....and...."It stymies everything — creativity, calculated risk-taking, all of the latitude and creativity that you must use in Afghanistan,” (for us to be successful there).
We need leadership with more balls.....and far fewer JAGs.
JAGs have stretched our OODA loop to the point that a number of HVTs are still alive and operating precisely because of them (without question).
Meanwhile, with all the BS of this case (that you say, is needed for balance from time to time) we have two fine warriors that have been taken off line for months on end.....When their skills are desperately needed by on the front lines of this war....
The following is from a JAG (herself) regarding this case -
The fact that an internal investigation had exonerated both men prior to LTG Kearney "ordering the case go forward because no one at Fort Bragg would" is of grave concern to me from a military justice perspective and an even greater concern since LTG Kearney is well integrated into the command structure the SOF community. It is safe to say that he knew or should have known the exact language of the ROE in this case. It is also safe to say that he allegedly has years of experience regarding SOF missions and the unusual circumstances that are often encountered when executing those missions. Still, w/ all that knowledge and experience he flew in the face of an investigation that exonerated the individuals and "ordered the case forward". It makes me wonder just what exactly he knew about the case and what he thought he knew based on the "narrative of facts" provided to him. If he actually knew all the facts and went forward anyway then Heaven help the entire military community.
Couple this w/ the interesting fashion in which these charges were levied by Lt Cdr Douglas Velvel and the situation is even more concerning. Since when does the GO's legal advisor have his enlisted staff swear out charges against anyone, much less, have that subordinate swear out charges w/o actually reviewing all the underlying investigative documents including the ROE, the investigation and all its sworn statements? I've been around for many years and never seen such a thing happen, so unless it's just a Navy thing (my Navy JAG colleagues say it's not) then this is very unusual.
All these irregularities make you wonder if Mr. Waple’s concern about unlawful command influence is accurate and if it is, just who is doing the influencing in this case.
As post script to the above, I find it interesting that Douglas Velvel, has on at least one occasion participated in authoring an article (Assessing Responsibility for the Plight of Minorities) for the very liberal intellizine narrated/edited by the even more liberal Dean of Massachusetts School of Law, Dean Lawrence R. Velvel. Dean Velvel is a prolific writer of hundreds of newpaper columns and law review articles,several blogs and various books, and is also the host of several liberal radio programs in his local area. More interestingly to me, Dean Velvel in 1960’s and 70’s was associated w/ dozens of cases disputing the constitutionality of the Vietnam War and even sued President Lyndon Johnson on the issue in federal court.
Yes my sentiment is not particularly civilized nor is it "PC".
By the way, I'm assuming that you believe that the communistic ideas of Political Correctness actually have made the US, Britian, & Australia stronger. Obviously being PC has done just wonders for our governments and the security of our countries. Not to mention how much our enemies around the world are more terrified of us because we are political correct.
Unlike him, I do not consider it a valid presumption that "tough wars" relieve us of the responsibility to obey our own laws.
If you really want to know when "the USA is ... in it's last days," one way you'll be able to spot it us when folks take it upon themselves to decide which American laws no longer apply.
As I said before, it appears from the facts presented in the story, that the soldiers in this case behaved properly. So it's not an issue in this case.
It's interesting, though, that so many folks on this thread would evidently be so very eager to excuse them even if their actions were not legal. If you want to start searching for the seeds of America's destruction, that might be a good place to start looking.
Unless there are questions about the CID's investigation, or the rules of engagement, or both. That seems to be the underlying question, and neither of us has enough information to properly assess the true merits of the case.
That the procedings have come as far as they have, suggests that there's at least some ambiguity about the situation. So, "on balance," I think it's probably better to iron out that ambiguity now, rather than let another Haditha case crop up to make things really ugly.
Ass-U-Me.
I'll grant you the "ASS" and "U" part, but the "ME" part refuses to play along.
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.