This charge should be dropped, and Major Golsteyn released. He was doing his duty as a soldier, and the charge is a travesty of justice. “Golsteyn said he killed the suspected Taliban operative because he was afraid the man would kill the tribal leader who had disclosed his identity to Golsteyn, Task and Purpose reported. The man had allegedly built a bomb that killed two Marines.”
So Golsteyn was acting to protect American troops and their allies. Is Barack Obama still President? Why is this man being charged?
“Green Beret Charged With Alleged Murder Of Taliban Bomb Maker,” by Grace Carr, Daily Caller News Foundation, December 13, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report):
The U.S. Army charged a Fort Bragg Green Beret with allegedly murdering a man who he suspected was a bomb maker for the Taliban.
Special Forces Maj. Matthew Golsteyn was charged with allegedly shooting and killing the suspected bomb maker in 2010, Task and Purpose reported Thursday. He was deployed with the 3rd Special Forces Group at the time of the alleged incident, according to Army Times.
Golsteyn has been charged with premeditated murder and could face the death penalty, Golsteyn’s attorney, Phillip Stackhouse, told the Times.
“Maj. Golsteyn is being charged with the murder of an Afghan male during his 2010 deployment to Afghanistan,” U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesman Lt. Col. Loren Bymer told Task and Purpose Thursday.
Golsteyn is a “humble servant-leader who saved countless lives, both American and Afghan, and has been recognized repeatedly for his valorous actions,” Stackhouse said of his client, the Times reported.
The Army revoked Golsteyn’s Silver Star in February 2015, pending an investigation into whether he killed the alleged Taliban bomb maker while serving in Afghanistan, according to The Fayetteville Observer.
The Army investigated the alleged incident but initially found no evidence proving Golsteyn had committed a crime. He was placed on “excess leave” during the investigation, and reinstated for active duty service after a board of inquiry June 2015 recommendation, Task and Purpose reported.
The investigation was reopened after Golsteyn admitting he killed the man during an October 2016 interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier.
Golsteyn said he killed the suspected Taliban operative because he was afraid the man would kill the tribal leader who had disclosed his identity to Golsteyn, Task and Purpose reported. The man had allegedly built a bomb that killed two Marines, Army Times reported….
Kilauea says
Why would anyone want to serve in a military that attacks its own members for fighting a war? This type of B.S. wouldn’t have flown during WWII in the Pacific Theater.
gravenimage says
+1
Ghislain Pilon says
Shame on justice !
J D S says
Yeah Kilauea……It appears that some parts of the Army is reversing what recruiters are trying to do……get people to enlist and reenlist.
b.a. freeman says
after 8 years of mr. obama’s treasonous presidency, J, it should surprise no one that traitors and/or tools were put into command slots of the military. our fellow citizens serving in the military are drawn from our citizenry, more than half of whom are OK with the brownshirt tactics of antifa. they seem not to be protesting that free speech is being shut down, so we should not be surprised when officers who have long been far from the battlefield, or worse yet, who have become traitors themselves, decide to gut the military to prepare free people for leftist control. how better to prepare us than to remove the good troops from their ranks?
infidel numero uno says
This is an outrage!! Those responsible for this miscarriage of justice should themselves be brought up on charges and summarily released from the service after serving the longest sentences possible in Leavenworth. Maj. Matthew Golsteyn should be receiving highest honors for his action in ridding the Earth of an evil mooseslime scumbag.
Renate says
I don’t think a Green Beret would do such a thing, but even if he did, who could blame him?
gravenimage says
Killing a known murderer of American soldiers in order to protect the life of an informant? I don’t see why he wouldn’t have done this. This seems just.
Renate says
I was referring to “premeditated murder”.
eduardo odraude says
Not entirely clear from the story if this was an execution of a disarmed captive, or if it was a killing of someone who was running away, or someone who was about to try to use a weapon, or if the execution was unavoidable because trying to detain and bring the man back to a US army holding cell would have been too dangerous for some reason at that moment. But it sounds like this may have been the execution of a disarmed captive and the circumstances may have given far too little justification for an execution.
Obviously it would be wrong and illegal for an American soldier to engage in cold-blooded execution of a captive except in very specific circumstances (for example, if it would be too dangerous to let him go AND also too dangerous to try to carry him away so he can be held as a prisoner. “Too dangerous” would have to be nailed down as to its specific meaning, of course, since otherwise one could justify any execution by a sufficiently elastic definition of “too dangerous.”)
If the soldier in this story, Golsteyn, executed a captive and there were insufficient extenuating circumstances, then he should be punished in some way, though how much punishment might vary immensely from almost nothing to a long prison term, depending on what exactly happened.
We shouldn’t abandon all morality and limits and law just because a soldier is on our side. If you want to loosen up the laws for soldiers, if you want to loosen up the military rules of engagement, fine, go ahead and work on that through the legislative and legal process of changing such things, but US citizens, including soldiers, must stay within whatever the US law is, or be punished if they break the law, taking into account extenuating circumstances when determining the severity or lightness of punishment.
gravenimage says
Yes–the details are not entirely clear.
Dave says
Any plan to attack the enemy will be called pre-meditated murder.
somehistory says
I read this a few days ago, and wondered how they could charge him based on the fact that his “confession” was to a news guy, not to the military authorities. If not a military issue, but civilian, his “confession” could not be used as evidence. To be admitted, it has to be to law enforcement and after being given the Miranda warning.
Military law may be quite different, but he was in a “war” and shouldn’t that matter? Self-defense, defense of another and war…all make for calling it “justified.”
Hope his attorney knows the law inside and out and can “argue” well.
Mac-101 says
Why would he have admitted this to anyone? What goes on in Afghanistan STAYS in Afghanistan!!!!
somehistory says
IDK why he told. Perhaps he was asked about his medal, or some other thing that triggered the confession. Perhaps he thought the issue was over since he hadn’t been charged. People sometimes blab things they would’t say otherwise when asked by a news person .
Mac-101 says
As an ole 18B4V I sure never would have said anything but it was in a fire fight or that he was attacking me, or even better I do NOT recall!
Terry Gain says
A confession to anyone is admissible. Only those in authority need to give a Miranda warning.
somehistory says
some interesting information about confessions and being admissible.
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-confessions-and-the-constitution
MARTEL SOBIESKI says
HE SHOULD BE GIVEN A MEDAL!!!
somehistory says
The one they gave him was taken away.
gravenimage says
Disgusting.
vlad says
#me too 🙂
Dave says
Trudeau should give him $10 million. Oh, no he is on the wrong side.
Jean Terry says
I heard about this this morning and was appalled. He killed someone who was making bombs to kill as many people as possible. It is a war and he did the right thing. Are there still Obama officials working for our government looking for people to prosecute? That is what I wonder. I bet the prosecutor’s have never even seen a battle.
I want to follow this and everyone should write letters to the president or the Pentagon about this.
gravenimage says
Green Beret charged with premeditated murder of Taliban bomb maker
…………………..
Why is he being charged? Not only had the Taliban bomb maker already killed Americans. but Major Golsteyn also acted to protect an informant.
Release this man and give him a medal.
Alec Rawls says
Since when is killing an enemy soldier murder?
eduardo odraude says
If you execute a disarmed captive and there is nothing in the specific military circumstances that provides a legal justification for your doing so, then that is murder or manslaughter or some similar extremely serious crime.
Do we really want our soldiers, whenever they please, to have the right to execute disarmed captives? That seems like a really bad idea for all kinds of reasons.
Indiana Tom says
We did it 24/7 with the SS and the Japanese prisoners in WW2. Of course that was a tit for tat thing.
gravenimage says
Actually, Americans did not kill German and Japanese prisoners of war–you are mistaken.
nicholas tesdorf says
Major Golsteyn should be awarded a medal instead of being charged with murder. The U.S. military must still be riddled with O’Bummerites.
Indiana Tom says
Charging Army soldiers with murder in Muslim battle lands is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
How many people had I already killed? There was those six that I know about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my face.
Shit … charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do? But, I really didn’t know what I’d do when I found him.
Bezelel says
I think, that the people accusing this soldier should have to go to Afghanistan and show us that they can do a better job. Any takers ?
WPM says
He killed a known terrorist who was planning on killing other American servicemen in a wartime setting. He save American servicemen,s lives , he also protected an informant whose information could save American lives .War cannot be run by a political correct elected officials back home looking for brownie points with progressive voters back home . If we cannot back our servicemen,s actions against known violent terrorist overseas in a war time setting how are we expected for them to protect us at all .
eduardo odraude says
No one on this thread seems to care about the distinction between killing someone in combat, and executing a disarmed captive.
Do we really want our soldiers to have the right whenever they please to execute disarmed captives?
Yes, I can imagine some very narrow circumstances where such an execution might be legal. For example, if it would be suicidal to let the prisoner go, and it would also be suicidal to try to detain him in situ, and it would also be suicidal to try to carry him back to a US army base to be held as a prisoner. In such circumstances, an execution might be legally justifiable.
But apart from such extenuating circumstances, we shouldn’t be defending a soldier if that soldier executed a disarmed captive. If too many people believe that kind of thing is okay, then the US is destined to become a third world country, where law, reason, principles, and limits don’t matter much to people.
somehistory says
It is my understanding, from reading another source of the story, that this guy was afraid that the guy who was about to be released was going to go right back to the bomb building and killing members of his squad.
He didn’t wish to just allow the guy to walk away and pick up where he left off. Not much different than shooting a sniper from a distance, or dropping a bomb onto a jeep or truck full of enemy soldiers.
They don’t have jails and cops manning them. Perhaps I have personally misunderstood the situation. But it sounds like a defense of his team is what drove him. And the military let him go until he told FOX what he had done.
Killing is not something I would not do…unless my family was under immediate threat…or if a child, even one I do not know, was needing a rescue and death of the offender occurred.
It just seems that the military sends these men, and women, into a terrible situation and then expects them to always be perfect, always making decisions as if they are sitting around a table in a “war room” smoking cigars and drinking wine. And do not those guys in the “war room” make mistakes in judgment/
Each person must live with their decisions and answer to our Creator. But the military,the government, doesn’t really play fair when it comes to war.
eduardo odraude says
I understand this soldier might be innocent. I also understand there are some few extreme and difficult emergency combat circumstances where an execution of a prisoner might be legal. Bottom line: if this soldier broke US military law, he should be punished, while the degree of punishment should of course take into consideration extenuating circumstances, if there are any. If he did not break the law, then of course he should be exonerated. But in any case soldiers should not be permitted, just whenever they wish, to execute disarmed captives. Such executions should be an exception allowable only in a few, specific circumstances defined by the law.
somehistory says
Since they didn’t charge him until after he went on the t.v. and said what happened, they likely would not have charged him if he had not told the country that he did it. The military has a “rep” to keep with the public.
And sometimes, they prosecute when they shouldn’t, such as when the soldier tried to protect the young boy from the moslim who was raping him.
I don’t favor people killing and getting away with it when it is clearly murder. There are many factors to consider.
You had just commented on other’s comments and saying we were not understanding the facts of the military personnel killing unarmed citizens. I was just responding to what you said as your first comment.
Each case is different and each should be judged on all of the facts and circumstances. No one, military, cop, or citizen should ever be given carte blanche when holding a gun.
gravenimage says
Yes–I remember the disgusting case where an American soldier was in trouble for trying to protect a boy from being raped by our Afghan “allies”. *Ugh*.
eduardo odraude says
somehistory,
It sounds like we are basically on the same page. Namely, everyone should be subject to the law, including the law that we do not execute unarmed captives.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Somehistory and Eduardo.
eduardo odraude says
welcome, gravenimage.
Indiana Tom says
It is my understanding, from reading another source of the story, that this guy was afraid that the guy who was about to be released was going to go right back to the bomb building and killing members of his squad.
He didn’t wish to just allow the guy to walk away and pick up where he left off. Not much different than shooting a sniper from a distance, or dropping a bomb onto a jeep or truck full of enemy soldiers.
American soldiers would shoot and destroy soldiers that were retreating or could potentially be recycled
Read.
With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge Fun at Peleliu and Okinawa
Visions From a Foxhole by Bill Foley. Fun with the SS in the Vosges.
Roll Me Over by Raymond Ganter..Fun in the Ardennes.
GreekEmpress says
Has anyone started a fund for his legal expenses yet?
Dave says
Probably not, but there might be a fund for the Afghani bomber’s family. Turdeau could contribute taxpayers money.
eduardo odraude says
Here’s a portion of an Army Times story about this:
eduardo odraude says
It seems that in my quotation of the Army Times story above, my insertion of “Golsteyn” in brackets was incorrect. I now see that in referring to “the accused”, the Army Times writer did not mean Golsteyn. The Army Times writer meant rather the accused Taliban bomb-maker.
somehistory says
He evidently wanted to join the CIA. These guys…spies…are known for killing. Are all of the persons they kill “armed” at the time?
Life is replete with peril. Each person will have to answer for what he or she does. No one can answer for another. Each person should, therefore, be careful what he or she does. Whether or not their bosses, or the public, approve.
eduardo odraude says
They are not all armed, of course not. But even CIA assassins operate within limits and within legal authority of the US government and if they go outside that authority and get caught, they can be punished and they should be punished. We can have a law-based society, or we can have a society where each person makes up his own laws as he pleases (in other words, acts like a dictator who thinks he does not have to bother with the consultative democratic process by which law is made). Get enough of those little dictators, and you’ll get pervasive corruption and a real dictator too. Law and democracy are essential elements of Western civilization and any civilization worthy of the name.
eduardo odraude says
What spies are legally permitted to do will in some cases be different from what soldiers are legally permitted to do. But both categories must operate within the law as it pertains to them or else be punished for disobeying the law. (Note: I’m not saying that mere mistakes made in the fog of combat should be treated as crimes.)
Sam says
No American soldier should be charged for killing an enemy soldier. EVER.
eduardo odraude says
So there should be no penalty for executing a disarmed captive you have in handcuffs? Well, Muhammad executed 600 to 900 Jewish captives, according to the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad. But I don’t think we should follow that example.
Larry says
He actually acted within the Laws of War.
He shot a known unlawful combatant.
That’s what the Laws of War say you are allowed to do, and it should be done a lot more often.
Tim C says
THANK YOU. Can’t believe I had to go through ALL the comments before finding one that observes this. Multiples saying how we need to fight fair, observe the rules of war etc – when we are fighting an enemy that cares not one whit about doing so.
eduardo odraude says
Larry,
This was not merely a “known unlawful combatant.” There is nothing in the US military code that permits soldiers to execute a disarmed and handcuffed prisoner just whenever the soldier pleases.
Under US military law, that would in many circumstances (if not all) be a serious crime. If you think the law is wrong, then one can work to change it. But US soldiers should and for the most part do operate within US law. That’s a part of what makes them the most effective soldiers in the world. Without law, there can be no freedom, just dictatorship and chaos. Without a society governed by law and the freedom that makes possible, militaries become third rate.
gravenimage says
I don’t know what effect it will have, but President Trump is reviewing this case:
“Trump says he’ll review case of Matt Golsteyn, a veteran who faces murder charge”
https://mitchellrepublic.com/news/nation/4544241-trump-says-hell-review-case-matt-golsteyn-veteran-who-faces-murder-charge
The President Tweeted today:
At the request of many, I will be reviewing the case of a “U.S. Military hero,” Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder. He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas. @PeteHegseth @FoxNews
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 16, 2018
Bezelel says
That’s another reason I call Trump, My President
Mark T says
President Trump just announced that he will review this case!
Robert Carrillo says
This is a travesty..
If these “Rules of Engagement” existed during WWII, we would have lost the war in 15 minutes.
It’s bad enough that US politicians (Minnesota in particular) are letting the Somali “community” steal Hundreds of Millions of taxpayer dollars EACH YEAR, and deliver those assets (organized crime – money laundering – racketeering), which ARE FUNDING SOMALI TERRORISTS (isis – Boko-Haram – Al-Shabaab), and who ARE killing US and NATO Troops… Thus, exchanging money and POWER, (the death of our troops) for VOTES..
..NOW we have this?
Mary C. says
Give this hero a medal!
t.f. says
Protest with huge signs in front of every Army/ Navy/ Marines/ Air Force/ ROTC recruiting office; THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU JOIN TO FIGHT THE ENEMY. YOUR COUNTRY WILL F… YOU AND WONT REWARD YOU.
dunroamin says
This case is similar to that of Sgt Blackman in the UK, aka Marine A, shamefully imprisoned for finishing off a wounded Taliban prisoner. It follows the same pattern as UK persecution of NI veterans while IRA torturers & murderers walk free. We can describe it as follows: send your brave troops to fight a brutal enemy then prosecute them for doing their job.
jeffrey dale aitken says
Give Maj. Goldsteyn back all the honors, rank, and money that he earned while serving us as a Green Beret.This is yet another indictment of the Obama/Clinton administration. “Honor and Betrayal” – the prosecution of Navay Seals McAbe and Keefe based on the word of a known terrorist -and ’13 Hours”, which made clear the inactoin of Obama and Clinton resulting in American deaths in Lybia, are other examples of Obama’s willingness to destroy our military and infact destroy our Democracy. Obama was instrumental in all three of these cases. This is no work of fiction it is the destruction of our Constitution as THE law in America by a sitting President and his Secretary of State. WAKE UP PEOPLE..