Green Berets to be charged with murder?

[clean]

Originally Posted by gear_monkey

PLEASE read my original post. I said it was from Bill O'Reilly and his show. I posted exactly what is on his website as a transcript which I also cited.

What exactly is your problem??

It's a serious subject with ramifications stretching throughout the armed forces, ROE, public perception et al. What you posted was fine, just add the link at the bottom so it can be verified and debated in a way that doesn't revolve around heresay.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Originally Posted by gear_monkey

PLEASE read my original post. I said it was from Bill O'Reilly and his show. I posted exactly what is on his website as a transcript which I also cited.

What exactly is your problem??

I don't have a problem with anything except idiots who don't follow instructions. It's quite simple - I asked you quite politely to add a link to your post as SOPs on this board, you chose to get gobby with me.

Take a break and learn to follow instructions - while you're at it learn some manners!

[Midav]

It was just a simple task to post the source, gear monkey.... ><

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us...html?ref=world

Green Beret Hearing Focuses on How Charges Came About


By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
Published: September 19, 2007

FORT BRAGG, N.C., Sept. 18 — An enlisted man who accused two Special Forces soldiers of illegally killing an Afghan man last year testified in a court Tuesday that he would not have agreed to make the accusation if he had known that a military investigation already concluded the killing was justified.

Sgt. First Class Scott R. Haarer, a paralegal for the lawyer responsible for initiating the murder charges, said that if he had known about the investigation’s findings, “I would have requested that I not sign the document” that officially accused the two soldiers in June of premeditated murder.

The admission was one of a few unusual moments in a hearing that cracks open a window onto some of the most secret Special Operations tactics in Afghanistan, including the hunting and killing of people designated as enemy combatants.

The hearing is meant to determine whether there is enough evidence to convene a court-martial for Capt. Dave Staffel and Master Sgt. Troy Anderson, the two Green Berets accused of killing a man the Army considered an “enemy combatant.”

On Captain Staffel’s order, Sergeant Anderson killed the man, Nawab Buntangyar, on Oct. 13 after a team of Special Forces soldiers discovered him walking outside his residential compound near the village of Ster Kalay, a few miles from the border with Pakistan. Special Operations commanders in Afghanistan had placed Mr. Buntangyar on a “Top 10” list of individuals to be captured or killed, according to other testimony heard Tuesday, because he had organized a local cell of suicide attackers and helped build bombs.

Sergeant Haarer, testifying via telephone, said he thought it was “a little odd” that his boss, Lt. Cmdr. Douglas R. Velvel, the legal adviser to the Special Operations commanding general in Afghanistan who was advocating filing the murder charges, asked him to sign legal documents as the official accuser. The request came after Commander Velvel told Sergeant Haarer to read through a “narrative of facts” about the killing written by Commander Velvel.

It is unusual for an enlisted soldier to formally accuse other soldiers of crimes, particularly soldiers of higher rank. It is rarer still for a military lawyer in a criminal inquiry to request or order a subordinate with no firsthand knowledge of any wrongdoing to allege a crime formally.

Army legal procedures require military lawyers like Commander Velvel to find someone else, usually an officer, to sign the charging document as an accuser.

Rest of article can be read at link posted above.

[-DarthMaul-]

So green berets killing terrorists > Haditha murders?

shouldn't it be the other way around? the green berets were doing their jobs, while the marines massacred civilians...

America is so weird.

[Steelcoreammo]

Although there is far less support for the military in our country than the US, elite soldiers and the military in general learned a powerful but horrible lesson about what the ultra liberal media can do. I really hope these guys are looked after better than ours from of the following story.


http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-723/...t_war/somalia/

[supercontra]

Next they'll be handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
This sucks, he was a known terr in a warzone = good kill

[OldRecon]

“We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village, army after army. And they call me an assasin. what do you call it when the assasins accuse the assasin?”

Col Walter E. Kurtz

Couldn't have said it better myself

[AirCommando]

It´s the job of the Green Berets to kill "suspects"? I don´t think so. I mean, it´s enough to be a "suspect" for getting killed by the US military? Think about it.
However, I´m not accusing nobody, it´s just for the "Trigger-Happy-Gun-Hoh-let´s-kill-all-enemies-of-our-county-blokes".
There´s no excuse for "killing a little bit too much but who cares".
Anyway, this is my opinion without considering all the details of the article. Let´s investigate, if they´re inncocent, good. If not, it´s a true crime and must be punished. There´s no question about "military immunity". A lot of people misunderstand that rule. But I agree, Afghanistan and Iraq are dirty wars and to cross "the line" can happen every day. However, all have to respect the ROE. That´s the difference beween a bunch of terrorits in sandals and the military from a civilized country.
Without blaming nobody, just my two euro cents.

[Calanen]

An article with more detail I found, that explains a fair bit more about what is going on and why:

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

Green Berets Face Hearing on Killing of Suspect in Afghan Village A military hearing will convene at Fort Bragg on Tuesday in a rare public examination of the rules that govern the actions of Special Operations troops in Afghanistan.'

By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
Published: September 18, 2007

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.

In June, Captain Staffel and Sergeant Anderson were charged with premeditated murder. On Tuesday, in a rare public examination of the rules that govern the actions of Special Operations troops in Afghanistan, a military hearing will convene at Fort Bragg to weigh the evidence against the two men, both Green Berets.

The case revolves around differing interpretations of the kind of force that the Special Forces team that hunted and killed the man, Nawab Buntangyar, were allowed to use once they found him, apparently unarmed.

To the Special Forces soldiers and their 12-man detachment, the shooting, near the village of Ster Kalay, was a textbook example of a classified mission completed in accordance with the American rules of engagement. They said those rules allowed the killing of Mr. Buntangyar, whom the American Special Operations Command here has called an “enemy combatant.”

Mr. Buntangyar had organized suicide and roadside bomb attacks, Captain Staffel’s lawyer said.

But to the two-star general in charge of the Special Operations forces in Afghanistan at the time, Frank H. Kearney, who has since become a three-star general, the episode appeared to be an unauthorized, illegal killing. In June, after two military investigations, General Kearney moved to have murder charges brought against Captain Staffel and Sergeant Anderson — respectively, the junior commissioned and senior noncommissioned officers of Operational Detachment Alpha 374, Third Battalion, Third Special Forces Group.

The soldiers’ cases also highlight the level of scrutiny that General Kearney, who also ordered swift investigations into an elite Marine unit accused of killing Afghan civilians last March, has given to the actions of some of the most specialized and independent American troops fighting Taliban and insurgent forces along the border with Pakistan.

Mark Waple, a civilian lawyer representing Captain Staffel, said the charges against his client and Sergeant Anderson carry a whiff of “military politics.” In an interview, Mr. Waple said that General Kearney proceeded with murder charges against the two soldiers even after an investigation by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command concluded in April that the shooting had been “justifiable homicide.”

A spokesman for Special Forces Command at Fort Bragg declined to comment on the shooting or the murder charges. Lt. Col. Lou Leto, the spokesman for General Kearney’s previous command, where the murder charges originated, also did not comment. General Kearney was promoted in July to lieutenant general and became deputy commander of Special Operations, where a spokesman declined to discuss the case.

On Oct. 13, 2006, when Captain Staffel learned that Mr. Buntangyar could be found in a home near the village where his detachment was guarding a medical convoy, he ordered a seven-man team to investigate the tip.

Driving toward Ster Kalay in two government vans, the Americans called the Afghan national police and border patrol officers to assist them, Mr. Waple said. Mr. Buntangyar had already been “vetted as a target” by American commanders, as an enemy combatant who could be legally killed once he was positively identified, Mr. Waple said.

After the Afghan police called Mr. Buntangyar outside and twice asked him to identify himself, they signaled, using a prearranged hand gesture, to Sergeant Anderson, concealed with a rifle about 100 yards away, Mr. Waple said.

From a vehicle a few hundred yards farther away, Captain Staffel radioed Sergeant Anderson, Mr. Waple said. “If you have a clear shot,” he told the sergeant, “take it.”

Confirming the order, Sergeant Anderson fired once, killing Mr. Buntangyar. The American team drove to the village center to explain to the local residents, “This is who we are, this is what we just did and this is why we did it,” Mr. Waple said.

The highest-ranking witness called to testify at the soldiers’ hearing Tuesday will be General Kearney, though it is unclear whether he will comply with the request.

Also scheduled to testify is Sgt. First Class Scott R. Haarer, a paralegal on General Kearney’s staff last October who, as part of the military justice procedure, signed the forms that charged Captain Staffel and Sergeant Anderson with murder.

In a notarized statement, Sergeant Haarer told defense lawyers last week that he would not have accused the soldiers of any crime if he had known that the Criminal Investigation Command had determined that the shooting was justified.

[SuperBootie]

Originally Posted by AirCommando

It´s the job of the Green Berets to kill "suspects"? I don´t think so. I mean, it´s enough to be a "suspect" for getting killed by the US military? Think about it.
However, I´m not accusing nobody, it´s just for the "Trigger-Happy-Gun-Hoh-let´s-kill-all-enemies-of-our-county-blokes".
There´s no excuse for "killing a little bit too much but who cares".
Anyway, this is my opinion without considering all the details of the article. Let´s investigate, if they´re inncocent, good. If not, it´s a true crime and must be punished. There´s no question about "military immunity". A lot of people misunderstand that rule. But I agree, Afghanistan and Iraq are dirty wars and to cross "the line" can happen every day. However, all have to respect the ROE. That´s the difference beween a bunch of terrorits in sandals and the military from a civilized country.
Without blaming nobody, just my two euro cents.

I am sorry Sir but you have again projected everything I dislike about some of our European cousins. You say read the details....OK how about this one then. He was on the Official Capture or Kill list. This by definition is a tacit ROE declaration. As an officer one must then decide based on the objective realities on the ground what is possible without unwarranted and reckless danger to your own command. He did, he saw an opportunity to remove a dangerous player on the XPD list, and carried out his orders.

I have just returned from Afghanistan. Therefore, have a reasonable understanding of what this Officer and Senior NCO were looking at and obviously more than a duplicitous and combat inexperienced JAG out to make a name before his evolution to private practise.

I am sorry Air Commando if I have misinterpreted your intent or points. But I totally and utterly defend the actions of my US colleagues. I have operated under similar orders and now that those orders are being attacked by a rabid PC loving press and a weak and effete military command. I indeed feel a little concerned for my next adventure. Who will support my actions if not the commander who originally issued the order authorising it.

[OldRecon]

Well why do the authorities make such a fuzz about this case?
Just another dead dog and perhaps missed opportunity for som humint "extraction".
Had he handcuffed the guy and then shot him in the back of the head at point blank, it would have been another matter entirely though.

If we assume the guy had been taken alive, on the face of it would the subsequent interrogation treatment of him have been any less "criminal" than taking him out entirely with a headshot from 100 yards away?
I guess the ragheads still aren't treated with kid-glowes when pulled in for questioning. Particularly not if they're assumed "hot shots"?

At first glance thing this whole thing look like a farce.
Some intel guy in the wings who got pissed with the subject being killed?

[AirCommando]

@SuperBootie and OldRecon
I went to the ´Stan many times..(and a lot of other ****ty places in the world).....I can speak from my operational military side and also I speak as a normal citizen, tax payer, voter and so far. Of course, I´m a full "9/11-generation-person" and I perfectly agree with the "pull-the-gloves-off" policy against terrorist, but I don´t agree with a "full-license-to-kill" for our western military. Even if the military is my "job-giver" and even if I have to handle ****-operations in A-Stan. There´s something that a lot of our "Dumbarse" comrades don´t have and don´t understand: Ethics. A lot of armies teach how to kill pefectly but they don´t teach how to heandle this power with our western ethics. That´s the point and because of that our western military is a civilized one and is not a handfull of Hillbilly Rednecks with shotguns or Hajis with sandals and AK. Ehtics in the way "when", "why" and "how" you kill, make the difference beween 21st century, standing, modern armed forces and a bunch of looters. It doesn´t matter if they are terrorists, murders or whatever and they don´t respect the "Convention de Genève". We have to do it. That´s the difference between us and "them". Of course, I agree with a lot of anti-terrorism actions and operations but I don´t agree with "Carte blanche" for everybody. Anyway, many western elite units think to be "true-killer-heros"....they are not. They really not understand their own business. They are Special Forces Operators with high morale, professionalism AND ethics. And our (and yours) western ethics teach that´s not cool, funny or good to kill "suspects" only because they´re "suspects". What the hell means the ROE "capture or kill" ???????? It means "If you can, capture him" and not "kill him because you are to lazy" and not "kill him because he´s a bad guy". Sure, less bad guys are around, better it is, there´s no question about that. Did we shot a lot of war prisoners back some years? Yes, we did. How call that now? War crimes, right? Ok, what the hell it´s cost to pull not the trigger in such case? Nothing! And we have a stupid murder charge less. Sometimes using the brain is better than to pull the trigger.

I´m sorry to be so emotional about that topic but I´m tired about all this "murder charges" against our western military personnel.
Again, I´m speaking generally and not straight about this case mentioned before and of course, I don´t want to blame nobody here.

[Chops]

Originally Posted by OldRecon

Had he handcuffed the guy and then shot him in the back of the head at point blank, it would have been another matter entirely though.

Why? I'm not baiting here- just intrigued. A 100 yard rifle shot at an unarmed man or a close range kill after the target's been restrained- what's the difference?

Don't get me wrong- the ODA guys shouldn't be getting dragged over the coals on this one- it sounds a clean shoot. Just wondering on your judgement call.

[khukuri]

Originally Posted by Chops

Why? I'm not baiting here- just intrigued. A 100 yard rifle shot at an unarmed man or a close range kill after the target's been restrained- what's the difference?

Don't get me wrong- the ODA guys shouldn't be getting dragged over the coals on this one. Just wondering on your judgement call.

A guy at 100 hundreds yards isnt a captive taken down, he can still get away. While the restrained guy is in your "possession"

Originally Posted by SOG

too bad we dont investigate and punish the media for being such ****-ups the same we do as our soldiers. it must be a real bitch having no accountability or credibility at work.

Once again people blame the "liberal" media... its not the media here but you own army's Lt. Gen. Francis Kearney who ordered murder charges. The media is just reporting what is happening.

[SuperBootie]

Originally Posted by AirCommando

@SuperBootie and OldRecon
I went to the ´Stan many times..(and a lot of other ****ty places in the world).....I can speak from my operational military side and also I speak as a normal citizen, tax payer, voter and so far. Of course, I´m a full "9/11-generation-person" and I perfectly agree with the "pull-the-gloves-off" policy against terrorist, but I don´t agree with a "full-license-to-kill" for our western military. Even if the military is my "job-giver" and even if I have to handle ****-operations in A-Stan. There´s something that a lot of our "Dumbarse" comrades don´t have and don´t understand: Ethics. A lot of armies teach how to kill pefectly but they don´t teach how to heandle this power with our western ethics. That´s the point and because of that our western military is a civilized one and is not a handfull of Hillbilly Rednecks with shotguns or Hajis with sandals and AK. Ehtics in the way "when", "why" and "how" you kill, make the difference beween 21st century, standing, modern armed forces and a bunch of looters. It doesn´t matter if they are terrorists, murders or whatever and they don´t respect the "Convention de Genève". We have to do it. That´s the difference between us and "them". Of course, I agree with a lot of anti-terrorism actions and operations but I don´t agree with "Carte blanche" for everybody. Anyway, many western elite units think to be "true-killer-heros"....they are not. They really not understand their own business. They are Special Forces Operators with high morale, professionalism AND ethics. And our (and yours) western ethics teach that´s not cool, funny or good to kill "suspects" only because they´re "suspects". What the hell means the ROE "capture or kill" ???????? It means "Capture him if you can capture him" and not "kill him because you are to lazy" and not "kill him because he´s a bad guy". Sure, less bad guys are around, better it is, there´s no question about that. Did we shot a lot of war prisoners back some years? Yes, we did. How call that now? War crimes, right? Ok, what the hell it´s cost to pull not the trigger in such case? Nothing! And we have a stupid murder charge less. Sometimes using the brain is better than to pull the trigger.

I´m sorry to be so emotional about that topic but I´m tired about all this "murder charges" against our western military personnel.
Again, I´m speaking generally and not straight about this case mentioned before and of course, I don´t want to blame nobody here.

And our (and yours) western ethics teach that´s not cool, funny or good to kill "suspects" only because they´re "suspects". What the hell means the ROE "capture or kill" ???????? It means "Capture him if you can capture him" and not "kill him because you are to lazy" and not "kill him because he´s a bad guy". Sure, less bad guys are around, better it is, there´s no question about that.

I understand completely what you are saying Air Commando, and you are expressing an ideal that I am sure that all elite units do in fact aspire to. I know from my own point of view I did not tolerate the de humanising of the indigenous Afghanis by the lads. I know it for them meant nothing calling them Turnips and Camel S****ers, it's just a laugh. I took flack, but I had a no slag down policy. Because I think once we start to say they are scum, but we are the Dog's testicles, we start to make the local population indistinguishable from the terrs. Then what exactly are we trying to acheive.

But the point I was trying to make and as you have A'stan and probably other operational experience. Once the command authority has given the orders and ROE then the fate of the subject is determined by the commander in the field. Note I said that he alone must make the determination whether the capture of the subject doesn't recklessly endanger his command. I would also agree that any live terr is infinitely more valuable alive in custody than dead fertilising the barren soil. However, we are able to apply two major tools that were unavailable to the Commander and SNCO, hindsight and time. We were not there, neither was this fool of a JAG. One sees conflict very differently when one is there and taking the decision. I feel that we must support these two bloody couragous individuals and look more to the oder generator if their has been any misconduct. A vague order is an abomination as to god as my old teacher at CTCRM stressed!

It is a fine and noble endeavour to try and enforce ethics to the military machine, in fact, it's vital in many ways. However, when we apply our focus on disparate acts because it is they are the only ones we can get to.....then a disservice is done to the victims of genuine abuse.

In intended to come and appologise this morning for my unwarrented hostility to you Air Commando. Perhaps the anger I feel about this particular case blinded me to your obviously sincere intent. One thing in mitigation, I operated alongside and made many friends in Task Force Dagger, and so these two individuals need to be separated from your because we are lazy comment. OK matey?