"Green Beret compares U.S. military inaction in Afghan rapes to Penn State scandal"

RallyPoint Shared Content — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:25:31 -0400

From: The Washington Post

A Green Beret who may be pushed out of the Army for beating up an alleged child rapist sees a parallel between the U.S. military’s failure to stop child rape in Afghanistan and a scandal at home: The abuse of children in the Penn State University football program.

Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland, a former college football player, made the comparison in a letter sent to Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R.-Calif.) Tuesday night and released to The Washington Post. It comes as he faces the possibility of involuntary separation for his actions in September 2011, when he and his commanding officer, former Capt. Dan Quinn, acknowledge they beat up an Afghan police commander who they say laughed about raping a boy in Kunduz province.

“I chose the morally right decision because moral law transcends all boundaries and organizations,” said Martland, who was a walk-on on the Florida State University football team before joining the Army. “I learned about the moral right from the Christian values and beliefs of Coach Bobby Bowden at Florida State University. We all learned about the moral right during the Penn State football program’s child sex abuse scandal.”

Martland added that he began facing discipline from the Army beginning in late 2011, around the same time former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky faced charges for raping numerous children and university officials were cited for failing to act on the allegations years earlier. Sandusky ultimately was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse.

“Ironically, I was fighting being kicked out of the Army while watching daily public outrage about the child abuse occurring at Penn State and the leniency in dealing with that issue,” Martland said. “Legal law comes from man is fallible. Although well intentioned, it can fail us at times.”

The letter marks some of Martland’s first comments made public since his case emerged in August when Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R.-Calif.) began advocating on behalf of Martland. The Green Beret has since received growing support, including from the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization and Rep. Max Thornberry (R.-Texas), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Martland was selected to be removed from the Army this year as a result of his actions in Afghanistan four years ago. Army officials said Wednesday they will give him 60 days to file an appeal with the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records after Army Secretary John McHugh met with Thornberry and discussed the issue.

The decision, first reported by Army Times, gives the soldier a chance to make his case to a panel headed by a one-star general, as the Army faces increasing scrutiny from members of Congress and other critics about its handling of the case.

Martland was selected for involuntary separation from the Army through its Qualitative Management Program, which has been used to thin the Army’s enlisted non-commissioned officer corps as the Army shrinks following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials said in a statement that McHugh agreed to postpone Martland’s discharge “out of respect for Chairman Thornberry’s continued support for our military, and his personal appeal” in a meeting with McHugh on Tuesday. But the statement added that the Army has no choice but to reduce the size of its ranks, and considers the Qualitative Management Program that identified Martland as a candidate for separation “vitally important” to make sure the Army retains “only the best qualified soldiers.”

Thornberry also pressed the issue Tuesday in a letter to McHugh, saying he had observed undisclosed procedural errors in Martland’s case and believes he deserves time to retain counsel and prepare a defense.

Thornberry added that numerous other instances have emerged in which U.S. service members and veterans say they observed Afghan troops sexually abusing children, only to be told by their superiors to let it go.

“Separately, I will note that the 2011 incident, and subsequent reports of other service members’ attempts to stop sexual abuse in Afghanistan raise a larger point of concern: that military personnel have a viable and responsive reporting system that will have real impact when confronted with human rights abuses in Afghanistan and elsewhere,” Thornberry’s letter said. “I am not satisfied that the policies in place are robust enough, or that our men and women in uniform find them reliable.”

Martland said in his letter to Hunter on Tuesday that he felt “thrust into a situation where I had to make a decision. “There was no real right answer and no real wrong answer,” he added. “The morally right action conflicted with the legally right action.”

Gen. John Campbell, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, has disputed that there is any formal policy for U.S. troops to stand down if they see sexual abuse occur while deployed. Rather, they are expected to report it to their own commanders, who in turn will report it to the Afghan government, he testified during a Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

“Why is there an understanding by some troops that you don’t intervene when it’s [the Afghans’] culture?” asked Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D.-N.Y.) “Are they poorly trained, or just unknowledgeable or do you think commanders [are] getting it wrong in the field?”

Campbell responded that senior Afghan officials know sexual abuse is criminal conduct.

“They understand that they have to do something about it. And they want to hold people accountable,” the general said. “Are there going to be people that disregard that in Afghanistan just like you would have maybe in any other country? Yes.”

Hunter, a frequent critic of Army leaders, said in a phone interview Wednesday that the Army has not used common sense in handling Martland’s case, and sees the sexual abuse issue as much broader.

“In the end, it’s about the lack of courage and leadership in the U.S. military at the highest levels,” said Hunter, a former Marine officer. “Counterinsurgency means winning the hearts and minds. How do you get the local population to trust you when you’re allowing children to be raped on your bases?”

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R.-Fla.), who has sponsored a resolution with Hunter to have Martland reinstated, said in a letter sent to McHugh on Wednesday that postponing the soldier’s separation is a good start, but the service needs to fully reinstate him.

“Sgt. Martland is a hero — not a villain — and he should be treated as such,” Buchanan’s letter said. “Driving Sgt. Martland out of the Army for standing up for American values is a national disgrace. It’s bad enough if we were ignoring this type of barbaric and savage behavior, it’s even worse if we are punishing American heroes who try to stop it.”

In an earlier statement released by Hunter’s office, Martland described how he and Quinn confronted the police commander.

“After the child rapist laughed it off and referenced that it was only a boy, Captain Quinn picked him up and threw him. I proceeded to body slam him multiple times,” said Martland, a former fullback on the Florida State University football team. “I kicked him once in the ribcage [sic] after one of the body slams. I put my foot on his neck after one of the body slams, but did not kick him or punch him in the face. I continued to body slam him and throw him for 50 meters until he was outside of camp. He was never knocked out and he ran away from our camp.”

Martland and Quinn were pulled from their positions after the incident. Quinn left the military, but Martland was allowed to continue serving until the Army started downsizing its force.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/07/green-beret-compares-u-s-military-inaction-in-afghan-rapes-to-penn-state-scandal/?postshare= [login to see] 747888

Green Beret compares U.S. military inaction in Afghan rapes to Penn State scandal

The Army delayed the decision after an appeal by the House Armed Services Committee chairman.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 9:30 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:30:24 -0400

This entire story needs National attention.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 10 at 2015 11:57 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:57:49 -0400

“In the end, it’s about the lack of courage and leadership in the U.S. military at the highest levels,” said Hunter, a former Marine officer. “Counterinsurgency means winning the hearts and minds. How do you get the local population to trust you when you’re allowing children to be raped on your bases?”

Exactly.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Oct 10 at 2015 1:10 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:10:10 -0400

While I overall agree with his position, he needs to shut up to the press while his appeal is working it's way through, else he's gonna burn some bridges.

Response by MSG Alfred Aguilar made Oct 10 at 2015 7:32 PM

MSG Alfred Aguilar — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:32:37 -0400

I agree, in this case those who do not act are complicit.

Response by Sgt Janet Neukirch made Oct 15 at 2015 5:47 PM

Sgt Janet Neukirch — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:47:36 -0400

Yet a so called soldier can defect tothe Taliban, come back and face no charges.....WTH!

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Nov 8 at 2015 1:06 AM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 01:06:01 -0500

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member Great topic, only if we have orders under the SOFA agreement imagine.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 8 at 2015 2:58 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:58:49 -0500

Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland is a case in point.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/01/green-beret-who-beat-afghan-man-over-childs-rape-faces-discharge.html

Green Beret Who Beat Afghan Man Over Child's Rape Faces Army Discharge

A Green Beret and his allies say the fact that he "stood up to a child rapist" while serving in Afghanistan shouldn't be grounds for kicking him out of the Army.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 8 at 2015 3:00 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 03:00:53 -0500

Apparently not

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Nov 8 at 2015 8:26 AM

PVT Robert Gresham — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:26:05 -0500

This is the type of disgusting policy decision that made me leave the Military, CW4 Private RallyPoint Member. The very thought that I would be unable to to take action against such an obvious Human Rights violation of this magnitude really turns my stomach. If the Military are unable to protect the weak from harm, with Command support, then it shows how far we has fallen in our quest to "free the oppressed".

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 12:59 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 12:59:52 -0500

This has a long answer, I'll try to be brief.
So the deal is that there is a perception that it is "cultural" to abuse young boys. This is right and wrong. The cultural angle is that because women are tightly guarded by their families and later husbands, there are not the normal outlets for men. This leads to a tolerated concept of a "Kuni", or "receiver" in Dari. Men in power use that authority to force local boys into sexual servitude for a period of time. The local people hate the practice. It is viewed as a kind of tribute. The selection process would turn your stomach. It is often a violent act. A relatively recent development is that instead of taking one boy at a time, higher level officials will take more than one as a kind of status symbol, and to share with guests. It is at this level that US forces and Afghan officials come into conflict.
The official line is that this matter is against Afghan law and that the enforcement of this law is a matter for Afghan officials. US forces, should they observe this are to report it to Afghan authorities to enforce. Where recent cases went wrong for the Soldiers involved is disappointed in the non-response of Afghan authorities, they took matters into their own hands. I would buy any of those men a drink for taking action, but they were wrong in the context of their authority and the political reality on the ground.
Reality is that there are some really unsavory characters that have taken official positions in the Afghan government. Switching them out would only empower wannabe unsavory characters. Unless we plan on governing the hinterlands - and we don't and never really have - transitioning requires that at some level the Afghans will have to police themselves.
The US SF Soldiers that intervened caused a political problem. Nearly all of these Afghan officials owe their positions to their connections via tribe or economics. Arresting one causes embarrassment and ripples through the fractious fabric of Afghan politics, so the natural tendency is to blame the accuser and sweep it under the rug.
In short, arresting these dudes is destabilizing, when the whole point is stability operations. In trying to do the right thing, on the local level their actions created instability.
As unpalatable as it sounds, that is reality on the ground. Normal, rational Western logic does not apply to Afghanistan.
The "Afghan solution", if they are willing, is to finally be fed up with the practice, rise up and say no, and beat the living crap out of that official if he tries to retaliate or force the issue. Afghans when roused to anger are a force to be reckoned with.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 1:25 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 13:25:29 -0500

I never received writen or verbal orders while in Afghanistan banning me from addressing the issue.

While operating with NDS forces conducting medical exams on recent detainees with snatched up a child (about 10 years old) told, via my translator, to my NCO and What was happening to him. The child's face and body was badly bruised and had minor lacerations. How he acquired these I never got an answer. I reported it out PSG who in turn took it up the chain. I do doubt anything changed for that 10 year old though.

Also other times when we were living and supporting the ANA remotely, they had a few boys. While we never (or atleast I) never heard anything during my time our translator again clued us into the background talk of the soldiers. PSG again reported it up, no idea if any change came down.

Ultimately it is the political gray area that hinders so many aspects of the conflict. The concept of holding a boy-kuni is an afghan issue/culture so senior leaders midis ate the problem of dealing with it by pushing it off on "afghan law" (we know how effective that is) doing so discredits and discounts the internal moral struggle the American service member who is on the ground encountering it. I never witnessed it first hand taking place or heard the action through the night. had I though (as well as most of my plt I know) simply couldn't have been idle on the issue. I would be in levonworth most likely having made good on "threats" made about the issue to our ANA counterparts pertaining to practice of holding a kuni.