Former Green Beret charged with murder for killing suspected terrorist

December 15, 2018 By Rick Moran

A former American commando has been charged with the murder of an Afghan terrorist who was suspected of killing two Marines when a bomb went off in a market. Maj. Mathew Golsteyn has admitted to tracking down and killing the suspected bomb-maker and destroying his remains.

Golsteyn was charged after an investigation that began following an interview about the incident with Fox News. He had his silver star stripped when, during a lie-detector test for CIA employment, he admitted to killing the suspect. .........But the former commando's lawyer said Golsteyn had been "betrayed" by the Army.

Golsteyn explained in a 2016 interview that he killed the suspect, who had been turned over by Afghans cooperating with the US, because the man was likely to cause more violence.   "There's limits on how long you can hold guys," he told Fox News for a special report titled "How We Fight."   "You realize quickly that you make things worse. It is an inevitable outcome that people who are cooperating with coalition forces, when identified, will suffer some terrible torture or be killed.".............Technically, Golsteyn is probably guilty in that the rules of war grant some protection to the bomb-making suspect. But in hostile territory, with invisible hands raised against you, the "rules of war" mean little. Sure, the two Afghans who brought the suspect to the U.S. military might have just picked someone off the street or turned in someone they had a grudge against. But what if they had the right guy? ............ Read more

My Take - Okay, I agree there's a lot about this that's disturbing, but assuming this guy really was the terrorist they were looking for, then what's the difference between his execution and the execution of Osama Bin Laden?

Military people who've been trained to kill people and destroy property are now expected to think and act like diplomats, or worse yet, like attorneys. They're really good at killing people, and they’re really good at destroying a lot of real estate, but they're not trained to be diplomats, and warriors definitely don't think like attorneys. 

Furthermore, most of them aren't any good at the protocols or thinking of either of diplomats or attorneys, and most of them aren't interested either. That's why they're warriors, not diplomats, and not attorneys! However, it's the warriors who win wars, not diplomats and certainly not attorneys, both of whom, as groups, have the moral fiber of goats.

Diplomats only extend the time it takes to destroy the enemy, while applauding themselves in a bell-shaped echo chamber of likeminded head nodders. And attorneys create the logical foundation to justify their scurrilous deals.

The deals made with Stalin toward the end of WWII, which led to the cold war and all the problems we’re faced with today is an example, and WWII was nothing more than an extension of WWI. The diplomats are responsible for all the issues and problems of WWI, which ended in 1918, to continue for 100 years, and the mess they created won’t end any time soon.

This is just one small sample of what's wrong with this whole mess. But that sample is being repeated over and over again, and that makes it a large mess, not a sample any longer.

If leaders are going to go to war expect war.  If war bothers the leaders, don't go to war,  Don't go to war acting like it's strategic diplomany.  If leaders don't really believe in or support a war they're sending young men off to fight and risk their lives for, then don't do it.  But when you put these young mens lives in harms way, don't fail to support them. 

Of course that may be asking a lot from politicians, diplomats and attorneys, as that would require a backbone made of something tougher than Jello.  A mental framwork and thinking that's clear and understandable.  And a moral foundation that's stable and solid.