1. The story is actually pretty good: it gives the relevant facts and does not appear to take sides.
2. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with hearings like this. On balance, I think it's probably better to have them than not, as a measure of accountability for the use of deadly force in what was essentially an assassination. If the facts are as reported in the story, the Green Berets have nothing to worry about.
Nothing wrong with being charged with murder for doing your job. After all, you might be found innocent after 6 months of hell. If so, I’m sure they’ll be anxious to put their lives on the line, once again, for such a grateful country.
2. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with hearings like this.
1. Doesn't take sides? How about just the title? The man killed was a known hunted terrorist and the NYT labels him first as a "suspect" then 2nd as just "Mr. Buntangyar"....... give me a break
2. Except that there will be new laws/rules/regulations/ROEs for all SPECOPS now and there will be a greater chance that terrorists will not be killed when we do have the shot.
To your point 2. There is EVERYTHING wrong with a hearing like this. They soldiers were operating within the ROE in effect in the field. They had PID on a known terrorist that gives them a green light to ventilate. This so called general is killing moral, even the lawyers, after investigation signed off on the shot a righteous.
Why the f$&*@$#% should the Green Berets have anything to worry about anyway? Our very best troops need to be worrying about their careers every time they pull the trigger in combat? This is how we will win the WOT???? ONLY in this very, very stupid, totally dumbed down generation of Americans would any American give a rat's tail about some mistake a Green Beret may or may not have made, ten thousand miles away in war-torn Al Stinkistan.
Haven't been outside of your room much have you?