1
1
0
From "The Guardian"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/green-beret-mathew-golsteyn-murder-conspiracy-discharge
Ex-Green Beret accused of 'murder and conspiracy' fights for his career
A US army officer who was stripped of a medal for heroism under fire and his right to call himself a Green Beret is fighting for his military career, after accusations he tracked down and killed a suspected bomb-maker in Afghanistan.
Though a criminal investigation failed to find remains of his alleged victim and did not result in charges against Major Mathew Golsteyn, he has been targeted for possible dismissal from the army and the consequent loss of veteran’s benefits with a less-than-honorable discharge.
A Fort Bragg hearing before three higher-ranked special forces officers could meet later this month to weigh arguments from Golsteyn’s attorney over why he should remain on active duty.
“My hope is that Golsteyn will receive a fair and impartial hearing. Based on the army’s actions and decisions thus far, I regret to say this won’t be the case,” one of the soldier’s defenders, US representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, wrote on Wednesday to army secretary John McHugh. Army brass have kept Hunter updated on the case.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Wouldn't it be simpler to just lock him up and not allow him to participate in his trial (or even in any meaningful human interactions) until such time as he agrees to plead Guilty? Or would that be a denial of a fundamental right?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/green-beret-mathew-golsteyn-murder-conspiracy-discharge
Ex-Green Beret accused of 'murder and conspiracy' fights for his career
A US army officer who was stripped of a medal for heroism under fire and his right to call himself a Green Beret is fighting for his military career, after accusations he tracked down and killed a suspected bomb-maker in Afghanistan.
Though a criminal investigation failed to find remains of his alleged victim and did not result in charges against Major Mathew Golsteyn, he has been targeted for possible dismissal from the army and the consequent loss of veteran’s benefits with a less-than-honorable discharge.
A Fort Bragg hearing before three higher-ranked special forces officers could meet later this month to weigh arguments from Golsteyn’s attorney over why he should remain on active duty.
“My hope is that Golsteyn will receive a fair and impartial hearing. Based on the army’s actions and decisions thus far, I regret to say this won’t be the case,” one of the soldier’s defenders, US representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, wrote on Wednesday to army secretary John McHugh. Army brass have kept Hunter updated on the case.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Wouldn't it be simpler to just lock him up and not allow him to participate in his trial (or even in any meaningful human interactions) until such time as he agrees to plead Guilty? Or would that be a denial of a fundamental right?
Murder
UCMJ
Constitution
War Crimes
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
0
0
0
Yes, he should be if the article 32 hearing votes in favor of the Government. This is a strange case, If Im not mistaken, this guy was recalled to active duty from retirement. He needs a fair trial, and if found guilty punnished IAW Millitary Law. I would like to make another comment, I was stationed with a unit that was part of Naval Special Operations. I was a Corpsman, I WAS NOT an operator of any type, although, we got the high speed sunglasses, camel backs, blackhawk packs, the knives, carried a pager, the government passport, a special ID, and a Government American Express...all on the tax payers dime. To be honest, we were gone all the time, but only in supporting roles (no snake eating for us) In all honesty we were completely out of control, our conduct, mine included, would never have been tolerated on the blue side of the Navy. After I left there, and went with the Marines for the next three years, I had to straighten up, which I was happy to do. I Knew many SEALS, SBU types, and others who were much worse behavior wise than us. The "hands of policy" reguarding speciall warfare types is rediculous. There conduct will improve when they have to wear all there uniform parts, shave there face, and cut there hair, just like everyone else. IMHO, this guy, along with the SEAL who stabbed the prisoner in the neck did so because they are treated with kids gloves, and on a daily basis not held to any but there own standards...which in regards to behavior are lacking. Just my opinion
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Beyond a violation of rights. This post barely warrants analysis. His confession is likely admissible at trial - likely no Miranda issues because there's no indication he was in custody at the time of the confession. Here's the deal, he's not on trial. He's going before an administrative board because there's not enough evidence of a crime. If you detain him until he confesses, I don't need Miranda to free him, I'd use violation of his due process rights under the fifth amendment.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG (Join to see) - Staff; You have grasped the essence. The question is whether there has been a "violation of rights".
In watching the reaction of the WebWorld in similar situations, there is generally a vast outpouring of (in essence) "We don't care what he did - he didn't do it to an American and so everyone should get off the back of this 'Brave, Patriotic, American, Soldier Who Is Defending Freedom' (or some equivalent label)."
BTW, if he is transferred outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States of America then - according to the precedent that has been established by the governments of the United States of America [under BOTH "Republican" and "Democrat" administrations] - he can be "detained" (which isn't the same thing as being either "arrested" or "incarcerated") under whatever rules and regulations governing that "detention" the "detaining authority" (which isn't the same thing as "the government") chooses to establish and for whatever period of time the "detaining authority" determines before being brought before a "tribunal" (which isn't the same thing as a "court") for a "hearing" (which isn't the same thing as a "trial") for a "determination" (which isn't the same thing as a "verdict") under whatever rules of procedure the "detaining authority" wishes to use and to then have whatever "disposition" (which isn't the same thing as a "sentence") as the "detaining authority" determines (which isn't the same thing as "imposes") implemented (which isn't the same thing as "imposed").
As a Paralegal Specialist, you should be well aware of the importance of the EXACT words used in any legal document because initial impressions can be quite misleading if you don't understand what is actually being said.
You could analogize the situation to deciding to pet a skunk because in the dim light it looked a lot like a cute black and white striped cat. Neither the root of the decision or the original action was "wrong" but the end result most definitely wouldn't have been what was intended.
In watching the reaction of the WebWorld in similar situations, there is generally a vast outpouring of (in essence) "We don't care what he did - he didn't do it to an American and so everyone should get off the back of this 'Brave, Patriotic, American, Soldier Who Is Defending Freedom' (or some equivalent label)."
BTW, if he is transferred outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States of America then - according to the precedent that has been established by the governments of the United States of America [under BOTH "Republican" and "Democrat" administrations] - he can be "detained" (which isn't the same thing as being either "arrested" or "incarcerated") under whatever rules and regulations governing that "detention" the "detaining authority" (which isn't the same thing as "the government") chooses to establish and for whatever period of time the "detaining authority" determines before being brought before a "tribunal" (which isn't the same thing as a "court") for a "hearing" (which isn't the same thing as a "trial") for a "determination" (which isn't the same thing as a "verdict") under whatever rules of procedure the "detaining authority" wishes to use and to then have whatever "disposition" (which isn't the same thing as a "sentence") as the "detaining authority" determines (which isn't the same thing as "imposes") implemented (which isn't the same thing as "imposed").
As a Paralegal Specialist, you should be well aware of the importance of the EXACT words used in any legal document because initial impressions can be quite misleading if you don't understand what is actually being said.
You could analogize the situation to deciding to pet a skunk because in the dim light it looked a lot like a cute black and white striped cat. Neither the root of the decision or the original action was "wrong" but the end result most definitely wouldn't have been what was intended.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The question here comes down to evidence. There is no physical evidence so his statement can be little more than bravado and embellishment. I see stuff like this a lot. I know this one vet who claims he was on the team that got Bin Laden, but that is funny since he is an Army maintenance NCO. There must be physical evidence to convict for murder even with a confession. However, the Captain in question could be charged with Conduct Unbecoming based on the statements alone.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google