# Green Beret officer's Silver Star revoked as Army cites investigation



## Ravage (Feb 5, 2015)

http://www.stripes.com/news/army/gr...s-investigation-1.327766#.VNL-XvuieC4.twitter








> Soldiers, friends and family members of the 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) filled an auditorium at Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sept. 15, 2011, as 30 soldiers from the group were honored -- among them was Capt. Matthew L. Golsteyn who received a Silver Star for his actions in Afghanistan in February 2010. The Army, however has decided to revoke the award from Golsteyn.



WASHINGTON — Capt. Mathew L. Golsteyn was leading a Special Forces team in Afghanistan in 2010 when an 80-man mission he assembled to hunt insurgent snipers went awry. One of their five vehicles sunk into mud, a gunshot incapacitated an Afghan soldier fighting alongside the Americans, and insurgents maneuvered around them to rake the soggy fields with machine-gun fire.

Golsteyn, already a decorated Green Beret officer, responded with calm resolve and braved enemy fire repeatedly that day, according to an Army summary of his actions. He received the Silver Star for valor for his actions on Feb. 20, 2010, during a 2011 ceremony at Fort Bragg, N.C. Top Army officials later approved him for an upgrade to the prestigious Distinguished Service Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor in honoring heroism in combat by U.S. soldiers.

In a rare reversal, however, Golsteyn, now a major, no longer has either award. The Special Forces officer was later investigated for an undisclosed violation of the military's rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bombmaker, according to officials familiar with the case. The investigation closed last year without Golsteyn being charged with any crime, but Army Secretary John McHugh decided to not only deny him the Distinguished Service Cross, but to revoke his Silver Star, too.

McHugh cited a provision in Army regulations that state that if facts become known that would have prevented a medal from being awarded, it can be revoked. The Silver Star was approved by a top commander in Afghanistan — Gen. David Rodriguez, then the three-star deputy commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan — according to Golsteyn's lawyer, Phil Stackhouse.

"I firmly believe that had he known about the derogatory information that was founded by the aforementioned investigation, he would have never awarded Major Golsteyn the Silver Star," McHugh said in a Nov. 17 letter to Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R.-Calif., who has advocated on Golsteyn's behalf. "Accordingly, I have decided to revoke the interim Silver Star that Major Golsteyn received for this action."

The decision is still shrouded in mystery due to the secretive nature of the Army's investigation into Golsteyn, who spent extensive time working with U.S. Marines in and around Marja in Helmand province. An online Defense Department database of top valor awards still included Golsteyn's Silver Star as of Wednesday afternoon and said the information was current as of Jan. 30.

A spokesman for McHugh's office declined to comment on Wednesday, and said the Army was preparing a response to questions posed by The Post on Tuesday.

Hunter, a former Marine officer and veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, alleged in the Daily Beast on Tuesday that the Army "went to extraordinary lengths" to investigate Golsteyn, threatening his fellow soldiers and offering them immunity. In a Dec. 4 letter to Army Human Resources Command, Hunter said the decision appears to be "retaliatory and vindictive."

"The Army has been unable to present substantive evidence while an overwhelming number of first-person accounts provided to Army investigators uphold Matt's record as a top-level operator," said Hunter's letter, which was released by the congressman's office to The Post.

Golsteyn's lawyer said the investigation into the Army officer's actions was launched in 2011, less than a year after he received the Silver Star. He remains assigned to Army Special Forces Command at Fort Bragg, and is in the process of determining what to do with his future.

"In the summer of 2014, we were certainly under the impression that everything was done and complete," said Stackhouse. "The revocation of his valor awards came out of left field to us."

The decision also raises the question whether the military should strip troops of awards they have earned if they are found to do something wrong later.

On the day in question, Golsteyn assembled his unit after his base had come under sniper fire from a Dragunov rifle, according to an Army narrative of his actions. He directed his troops to launch an assault across 700 meters of open fields, but an armored truck known as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle sank into mud under gunfire after about 175 meters.

Under heavy machine-gun and sniper fire, Golsteyn ran about 150 meters to the trapped MRAP to retrieve a powerful 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, an anti-tank weapon. While moving under gunfire, he coordinated a medical evacuation for the wounded Afghan soldier, and then opened fire with the Carl Gustav, said the Army narrative, obtained by The Post.

"Captain Golsteyn was alone running in the open through enemy gun fire that had over 80 men pinned down, and from the crow's nest on top of [Forward Operating Base] McQueary, it looked like Captain Golsteyn was alone fighting 30 enemy fighters out in the poppy fields," the award narrative said.

Enemy reinforcements continued to arrive on the battlefield, so Golsteyn organized airstrikes by both a F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and a Predator drone. No American or coalition troops were killed in the battle despite a barrage of enemy fire that lasted four hours, the narrative said.

Golsteyn has been critical of the mission he was assigned in the past. In the 2011 Bing West book "The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan," he is quoted as saying that the Americans were considered insurgents in Afghanistan who were "selling a poor product called the Kabul government."

West later wrote in a review of a book about another Special Force soldier, Maj. Jim Gant, that the careers of Gant, Golsteyn and a third Green Beret, Dan McKone, were "terminated," assessing that the Army failed them without elaborating on Golsteyn's case. West could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Golsteyn wrote about his assignment in Afghanistan in a June 2014 academic paper for a class at Fayetteville State University. The paper, published online, covers his 2010 deployment and says that his team — known as a Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha, or A-Team — operated in multiple two- and three-man teams across the area they were assigned. Over time, local tribesmen grew to trust them, especially after three weeks of fighting in Marja, he added.

"We enjoyed repeated interactions with the local populace because we lived with them, fighting for them as well as alongside them," Golsteyn wrote. "In a 60 day period, our medical clinic run by Green Berets with several Marine medics treated approximately 1,000 local Afghans. We executed multiple helicopter casualty evacuations for civilian victims of [improvised explosive devices] in addition to being the first responders to the scene in nearly every case."


----------



## Mac_NZ (Feb 5, 2015)

Army looks like a sulky petulant child right now, who didn't get their own way and decided to take away someone's toy.  I'll be rather interested to see what the nature of this investigation was.


----------



## AWP (Feb 5, 2015)

So he did this heroic thing and was awarded, but later did some unmentionable act and had an award pulled? In that manner? 

Pardon me while I wait for the Paul Harvey moment...


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> So he did this heroic thing and was awarded, but later did some unmentionable act and had an award pulled? In that manner?
> 
> Pardon me while I wait for the Paul Harvey moment...


That's the back story, but they won't reveal what the investigators were looking for.
He'll retire as a Major, write a non-vetted book and make lots of money.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 5, 2015)

I have to wonder what the point of this post is?


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 5, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I have to wonder what the point of this post is?



It looks a bit more rounded at the end to me, as opposed to any kind of point.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 5, 2015)

There isn't a point, there's not even any addition of discussion by the OP.  Might as well have been a RSS fed linkspam.


----------



## AWP (Feb 5, 2015)

Is the Report feature broken or otherwise unavailable?


----------



## pardus (Feb 5, 2015)

Mac_NZ said:


> Army looks like a sulky petulant child right now, who didn't get their own way and decided to take away someone's toy.  I'll be rather interested to see what the nature of this investigation was.





Freefalling said:


> So he did this heroic thing and was awarded, but later did some unmentionable act and had an award pulled? In that manner?
> 
> Pardon me while I wait for the Paul Harvey moment...



I'm very curious as to WTF happened with all this. I'm sure it will all come out at some point in time.

The Pom's used to revoke VCs back in the day (can't be done presently), I recall one winner in the 1800's who later had it revoked for stealing a cow.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 5, 2015)

I work there and I haven't heard jack and squat about this case.  Looks like I'm about to put on my investigator hat over the next couple of weeks.  I'm sure a lot of guys familiar with him or his ODA have moved on.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 6, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I have to wonder what the point of this post is?



Look who the OP is, and it will make sense.   But there still won't be a point that isn't anatomically bonded to the superior aspect of the OP's cranium centered along the midsagittal plane.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 6, 2015)

This is my first post after a long interval here. I learned about this from two diferent articles, one from Congressman Duncan Hunter and the other from a Marine that seems to know Golsteyn. I found them interesting and *totally infuriating* if this is the way things played out. But being an outsider I have no way of knowing.
Nevertheless, here are the links for anybody interested.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ust-their-generals-and-they-have-a-point.html

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/afghanistan-war-hero-stripped-of-silver-star/

Now, I can understand if a medal is withdrown because the recipient was found guilty of some criminal act. But being acquitted and having your valor medal withdrawn seems totally unjust. And the fact that this same officer was a critic of the war effort in Stan in Bing West's book make this case even more fishy!


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 6, 2015)

Judgement day for the armchair commandos is coming, they know it and are doing everything they can to set themselves up financially.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 6, 2015)

I just heard about this on a Marine website. Bing West is a fellow brother from the Combined Action Program who's written extensively about OIF/OEF.  Sounds like the Army is throwing Golsteyn, Gant and McKone under the bus for their criticisms of policy in OEF. Golsteyn must have rocked the boat in West's book.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 9, 2015)

This case has taken an interesting turn of events recently.  Apparently, Maj. Golsteyn was interviewing for an Agency job and at some point derogatory information came up.  Officials at Langley shared this with the Army, who now not only are stripping Golsteyn of his DSC, but his Special Forces tab.  To a lay person like me, this case seems incredibly bizarre.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...led-to-criminal-investigation-of-green-beret/


> *CIA job interview leads to criminal investigation of Green Beret*
> A Green Beret officer who was stripped of a prestigious valor award and dropped from the Special Forces fell out of favor with Army officials after the CIA shared information it gathered about him while he was going through screening for a potential job, according to officials familiar with the case.
> 
> Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn was investigated by the Army Criminal Investigation Command for an undisclosed violation of the U.S. military’s rules of engagement in 2010 that resulted in the death of a known enemy fighter and bombmaker in Helmand province, Afghanistan, according to the officials. The Army closed a lengthy investigation last summer without charging Golsteyn with any crime, but Army Secretary John McHugh revoked a Silver Star that Golsteyn had been awarded for heroism on Feb. 20, 2010, during the iconic Battle of Marja.
> ...



The Washington Free Beacon is also reporting that the Army has begun proceedings to kick him out of the Army.  It's difficult to get a read on this story.  At first glimpse, it seems like the Army was very upset over his comments to Bing West and railroaded him over that, but this new information from the agency suggests that whatever he did could have been incredibly bad.  I posit this question to SF members of the site: what kinds of crime does a soldier have to commit not only to get an prestigious award revoked, but also their tab?  Is there a possibility that this isn't just a case of Big Army (or someone higher up) having it out for him because of his comments?

EDIT: As an aside, I came across a critique of this case from an interesting site called Veterans Today, who bills the case against Major "Goldsteyn"(sic) as "...retaliation against Jews in the military as part of the president’s personal war on Israel."


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 9, 2015)

The Army comes out looking very stupid the way they are going.
They need to release the allegation against him and justify their actions.
CIA loses too, they just don't know it yet.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 9, 2015)

@Deathy McDeath I have no idea what constitutes such swift and aggressive action to take his awards and his tab (aside from any major felony).  No one where I work is talking about this and I can't find a single guy who worked with him.  I'd have an easier time getting teeth from a rabid tiger.  The only thing I know is he is being set in position for removal from military service.  That decision rests with the CG.   His name is no longer on the Silver Star recipient list. 

The Battle of Marja is legendary here.  A lot of commanders and men saw their stars rise after it, and rightfully so.   

Whatever happens, I hope the truth wins the day.   The tragedy is not only his career ruined but an entire cohort of his peers and subordinates may never know the real story.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 10, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> Whatever happens, I hope the truth wins the day.   The tragedy is not only his career ruined but an entire cohort of his [B]peers and subordinates may never know the real story[/B].



And like GI Joe says, "Knowing is half the battle".


----------



## Gunz (Feb 10, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> At first glimpse, it seems like the Army was very upset over his comments to Bing West...


 
Publicly critisizing higher command usually gets a reprimand or an invitiation to resign. But stripping someone of his SF tab? That indicates he might have done something to bring discredit or disgrace to Special Forces. Over the years we've seen some dubious charges leveled against fighting men, some politically motivated, so the Major gets the benefit of the doubt in my book. The Army better have it's shit together on this one because they've already convicted him.

They've managed to treat the Bergdahl affair with more tact.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2015)

Yeah, Paul Harvey...

You don't strip a tab for something minor or without a protracted investigation. Then he lost the Silver Star over this?



> Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn was investigated by the Army Criminal Investigation Command for an undisclosed violation of the U.S. military’s rules of engagement in 2010 that resulted in the death of a known enemy fighter and bombmaker in Helmand province, Afghanistan, according to the officials.


 
Some of you know the guy I'm talking about, no I won't repeat his name, but he was threatened for a 15-6 over smoking a guy with an RPG. While I think that's patent BS, it shows how sacred the ROE have become. When you need a lawyer's approval to pull the trigger? Sad. In other words, maybe the charge against the Major is sufficient, but without facts I'd give him the benefit of doubt because a "ROE violation" ranges from the small to My Lai 2.0; it is incredibly vague. Gant...he flaunted his violations, hung a neon sign around his neck, and even if you don't agree with his dismissal I'd like to think no one can condone the manner in which he "informed" everyone about his story and big, bad Mother Army.

The only good part of this article is no one's really talking. For once no one is leaking the details. Otherwise, this thing is a bucket of fail and will remain so until more facts are available. Owing to a lack of details taking a side right now is asinine.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> The only good part of this article is no one's really talking. For once no one is leaking the details. Otherwise, this thing is a bucket of fail and will remain so until more facts are available. Owing to a lack of details taking a side right now is asinine.



Since when do the details of this kind of case not get leaked if it's so sensational that the guy is stripped of his Tab and has awards revoked?  It's sad that that has become a barometer, but hasn't it by this point?  There's ALWAYS an "official who asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to discuss the situation/case/operation".  It is too early to take sides, but there's just something that seems off about this case.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2015)

CDG said:


> Since when do the details of this kind of case not get leaked if it's so sensational that the guy is stripped of his Tab and has awards revoked?  It's sad that that has become a barometer, but hasn't it by this point?  There's ALWAYS an "official who asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to discuss the situation/case/operation".  It is too early to take sides, but there's just something that seems off about this case.


 
I agree, but it also makes me wonder how people know what's going on.

Americans like the underdog or the guy who stood up to the system, paid for that courage, and who was ultimately vindicated. When these stories pop up I'm skeptical because how much of our conclusions are based on fact, how many actual facts are we given, and how much our conclusions are based on emotion or predispositions of distrust in "the man?" That's one reason I try to separate emotion from the decision-making process.

I view our military and civilian leadership as self-serving moral and ethical cowards and while I don't put anything past them, revoking a SS/ DSC and then his SF tab? I have a hard time believeing this is solely about an interview in Bing West's book, but will wait for further details.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 11, 2015)

Bing West weighs in:


_"In any war, there will be confusing situations where reasonable men can reach different conclusions about what happened and why. But once the CIA and the Army used a single polygraph to launch a fruitless three-year investigation, the judgment of senior officials back in Washington was called into question."_

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...special-forces-hero-duncan-d-hunter-bing-west


----------



## Wench (Feb 12, 2015)

So...the implication being that two Marines were killed by a bomb, and in short order a bomb maker was killed outside the rules of engagement.

Bing West was embedded with them at that time.  I'm sure he would have picked up on something if he was halfway doing his job.  Now, years later, this officer stands accused and loses everything.  Seems like now would be a good time to say, "For what it's worth, I was there, I didn't hear anything like that and I was in a position to. Period."  NOT, "We may never know what happened in the fog of war."  Not really helping your boy out there with the dramatic prose, Bing.  Nor with the red herrings of aghast horror over the CIA clarifying what might have amounted to a murder charge if substantiated with his employer at the time it happened before they hired him.

To clarify--my comments are in regards to the last article by West that Ocoka posted, and not on the soldier himself or whatever action he may have taken.


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2015)

Latest article on the case: http://www.fayobserver.com/military...cle_7691ac70-f513-52ff-b561-a889ac4c717d.html

Some more details in this article that are starting to paint a slightly clearer picture.  Secretary of the Army states that he believes the incident would have directly led to MAJ Golsteyn not being awarded the Silver Star.  I don't recall seeing any link between the two before.  Also, the Army has initiated the separation process against MAJ Golsteyn.

Based on what I've seen, the MAJ was awarded the SS for exposing himself to enemy fire while helping an injured AFG commando and calling in airstrikes.  I don't see where in that a severe ROE violation could have occurred. It would have been one thing if he dropped a bomb in the wrong area and killed civilians or something, but that obviously wasn't the case.  I think the Army really needs to come clean about this.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 14, 2015)

What I'm inferring from all this is that the Army isn't happy by _the manner in which _the POS  "insurgent bomb-maker" was iced.  And if that's the case maybe the Army is reluctant to release details for fear of igniting a Muslim backlash or an atomic circus in the media. If they charge the Major with a crime, it becomes public.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 7, 2015)

New details in this case: it appears as though Maj. Golsteyn confessed during a polygraph to capturing an IED maker, killing him, burying, unburying, and then later tossing his body into a burn pit.  

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/06/golsteyn/


> *DOCUMENTS: GREEN BERET WHO SOUGHT JOB AT CIA CONFESSED TO MURDER*
> 
> On September 14, 2011, the CIA sent an alarming message to the Pentagon: a decorated U.S. special operations commando admitted during a job interview with the agency to hunting down and killing “an unknown, unarmed” Afghan man.
> The claim triggered an investigation that spanned years and saw U.S. Army Major Mathew L. Golsteyn stripped of his Silver Star. While the admission has been reported in the press, the Army’s investigation into the alleged killing has been largely conducted in secrecy.
> ...




This bit from the middle of the article really jumped out at me:



> Military law experts interviewed by _The Intercept_ said that the confession alone was not enough to criminally prosecute him, *so Army officials took the only route available to them — an administrative reprimand — to punish him.*
> 
> Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey Addicott, the former senior legal advisor for U.S. Army Special Forces, says the “Army acted correctly” in the case. The Geneva Conventions and corresponding Army regulations “require that whenever we receive information about a grave breach of the law of war we must investigate and take appropriate action,” wrote Addicott in an email to _The Intercept_. “The admission by the Captain that he had killed an unarmed unlawful enemy combatant in his custody (the 2001 AUMF would classify the person killed as such) and buried the body required further investigation.” Addicott, who currently runs the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University in Texas, says the military would need “additional evidence” to obtain a conviction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
> 
> ...



What a strange case this has become.


----------



## Brill (May 7, 2015)

Grave breach of law and punishment is reprimand?

They clearly had ZERO evidence other than the statements made during his poly.  So did it happen at all?


----------



## pardus (May 7, 2015)

lindy said:


> Grave breach of law and punishment is reprimand?
> 
> They clearly had ZERO evidence other than the statements made during his poly.  So did it happen at all?



I find it very hard to believe that someone would make something like that up during a poly exam with the CIA, and not show as lying while doing it.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 7, 2015)

lindy said:


> Grave breach of law and punishment is reprimand?
> 
> They clearly had ZERO evidence other than the statements made during his poly.  So did it happen at all?



Or it is just that it is inadmissible.


----------



## DA SWO (May 7, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Or it is just that it is inadmissible.


That is my take.
I have met LTC (R) Addicott and think he and the other retired JAG hit the nail square on the head.  
All they can do is QMP him out, but it will follow him forever and I'd bet his employment opportunities go down significantly.


----------



## Brill (May 7, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Or it is just that it is inadmissible.



Curious as to "that". Sad to see this happen to the Regiment nevertheless.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 7, 2015)

lindy said:


> Curious as to "that". Sad to see this happen to the Regiment nevertheless.



I was saying that his poly is inadmissible in any court. But an admission was enough for the army to lose its head. I am sad for the Regiment as well.


----------



## Etype (May 10, 2015)

This is a case of the ends don't justify the means.

HOWEVER,  let's face it- we are WAY too fixated on the means and more or less unconcerned about the ends in modern conflict.

That goes for this case, others, and the overall approach to how we handle Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.


----------



## DA SWO (May 10, 2015)

I just wonder why he applied for the CIA with that in his background?

He could have kept quiet and retired as a Major (or LTC) without saying anything.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 10, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> I just wonder why he applied for the CIA with that in his background?



Just based on this part of the story:_ "In the transcript, CPT Golsteyn stated that he knew it was illegal but was not remorseful as he had solid intelligence and his actions protected the safety of his fellow teammates.”, _it seems clear to me that he genuinely believed he was right, and may have actually told the story during the CIA interview because in his mind, he was trying to show them the lengths he would go to "do what was right".  I can only try to imagine what was going through the interviewer's minds as they were listening to this unfold in front of them.


----------



## pardus (May 10, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Just based on this part of the story:_ "In the transcript, CPT Golsteyn stated that he knew it was illegal but was not remorseful as he had solid intelligence and his actions protected the safety of his fellow teammates.”, _it seems clear to me that he genuinely believed he was right, and may have actually told the story during the CIA interview because in his mind, he was trying to show them the lengths he would go to "do what was right".  I can only try to imagine what was going through the interviewer's minds as they were listening to this unfold in front of them.



If that's the case then he's a naive fool.


----------



## benroliver (Sep 14, 2016)

Lol the intercept is always on the ball.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 14, 2016)

One of their reporters contacted me a few months back.  They were writing a story related to something I published back in 2008 or so and wanted to interview me about it.  I politely declined.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 14, 2016)

I never understood how "they" can pull something after you make 1 mistake.
It just doesn't add up.....:wall:


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 15, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> One of their reporters contacted me a few months back.  They were writing a story related to something I published back in 2008 or so and wanted to interview me about it.  I politely declined.



Smart decision.


----------



## benroliver (Sep 15, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> One of their reporters contacted me a few months back.  They were writing a story related to something I published back in 2008 or so and wanted to interview me about it.  I politely declined.



Gotta hand it to them, at least they take journalism seriously.  The MSM on the other hand..  :wall:


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Gotta hand it to them, at least they take journalism seriously.  The MSM on the other hand..  :wall:



Wait what?


----------



## benroliver (Sep 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Wait what?



At least the intercept attempts to report on real topics and not what kind of taco bowl Trump is eating in his tower like the main stream media.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2016)

benroliver said:


> At least the intercept attempts to report on real topics and not what kind of taco bowl Trump is eating in his tower like the main stream media.



What to you is the MSM?


----------



## Brill (Sep 15, 2016)

benroliver said:


> At least the intercept attempts to report on real topics...


----------



## benroliver (Sep 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What to you is the MSM?



Any media that reports from an ideological bias.  The televised outlets are only the tip of the iceberg.  Most of the reading I do personally is from peer reviewed journals and historical texts as I cant stand much else.  I like the Intercepts work that includes links to the source material.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 15, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Any media that reports from an ideological bias.


You could argue that every media outlet has at least some ideological bias.  Why does "Mainstream media" have to be an epithet?


----------



## benroliver (Sep 15, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You could argue that every media outlet has at least some ideological bias.  Why does "Mainstream media" have to be an epithet?



Agreed on the degree of bias, I should have been more specific.  The mainstream media in particular has not just an political ideology bias, but a partisan one.  Fox news in particular, is the most obvious offender.  I would argue that Fox news and affiliates have done more damage to intelligent political discourse in this country than anything.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 15, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You could argue that every media outlet has at least some ideological bias.  Why does "Mainstream media" have to be an epithet?



Because they've earned that level of derision and scorn? Because their biases are that blatant? The guy makes a point, and he didn't even defend the Great Satan FNC. 

How does "pravda" translate into Farsi?


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 15, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Because they've earned that level of derision and scorn? Because their biases are that blatant? The guy makes a point, and he didn't even defend the Great Satan FNC.
> 
> How does "pravda" translate into Farsi?


حقیقت

"Because they've earned that level of derision and scorn" is not much of an argument.   That's essentially saying "They're bad because I say that they are."  The mainstream media encompasses a wide swath of news providers, and while I agree that some are not as good as others, I would take the word of the newspapers of record any day over Breitbart, ZeroHedge, NaturalNews or anyone else in the clickbait cottage industry.  Yes, a majority of studies conclude that there is a liberal bias in media.  But I argue that when compared to alternative media (such as the aforementioned sites), the mainstream media actually makes an honest attempt at some form of objectivity.  Take a look at MSNBC versus, say, Breitbart.  Does MSNBC have some bias?  Probably.  Does Breitbart have a bias?  Definitely.  Like, it's practically written into their mission statement.  At that point, you're just trading one bias for another, which suggests to me that people who distrust the mainstream media are not looking for "unbiased" media, but rather one that conforms to their own biases.  I'm aware that you could levy the same criticism against me because of my preference for the mainstream media, but there's one key feature that distinguishes the mainstream and alternative outlets.

I believe that the one feature that sets mainstream media outlets apart from its alternative, online competitors is simple: they have editorial departments.  Within each organization is a group of experienced journalists who can tell their staff writers that a story is great, if its bullshit, or it needs development.  And these outlets (the good ones, at least) won't put out a story that can't be hasn't, or can't, be verified.  The first thing I think of when I hear the clarion call of "WHY ISN'T THE MSM REPORTING ON THIS?!" is simply "Can it be verified?"  If not, they aren't very likely to run with it.  It's like an intel section: you don't jump at the first bit of juicy info that your source feeds you just because you think the CO will think it's sexy.  You make every attempt possible to corroborate or deny it.  Trumpeting single source info is something that amateurs do, and for the alternative media it's more often than not their raison d'etre.  Do I really need to point out how many "Pants on Fire" ratings that Allen West has received?
(Yes, I understand the irony of citing Politifact in a post about alternative media, but at the very least their Pulitzer gives them far more credibility than other fact-checking sites).

Now, in a case where a news outlet gets a story wrong, or omits some detail, they at least have the wherewithal to issue corrections, retractions, and apologies if necessary.  Most recently, the New York Times had to issue two corrections to the news story about Gary Johnson's "What is Aleppo?" fracas.  That's bad, right?  Well, compared to Breitbart's corrections, which are the editorial equivalent of the "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" non-apology, they're incredible journalism.  Hell, I don't think ZeroHedge, Allen B. West, WorldNewsDaily or any of those guys even issue corrections.  They can manufacture stories out of whole cloth and nobody can take them to task for it.  Do I even need to start on the staggering amount of diarrhea that drops out of Alex Jones' mouth on a daily basis?  Or the medicinal woo that comes from Huffington Post?
ETA: I just now saw that HuffPo corrected a story regarding Donald Trump Jr. that didn't even bother to change the headline

This is not to say that alternative media doesn't have an important place in the news landscape.  After all, Matt Drudge broke the Lewinsky story after Newsweek decided to sit on it.  But the wholesale rejection of the mainstream media because of bias issues is short-sighted, at best, and dangerous at worst.  I firmly believe that most mainstream outlets work hard to attempt to preserve objectivity, something that really can't be said of the majority of alternative sites.  They have little to no quality control, and can put out practically any story to fit a preconceived viewpoint.  The "MSM" may be imperfect, but it does not deserve to become a proverbial four-letter word.

For the record, I think FNC does a much better job than CNN.


----------



## benroliver (Sep 15, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> For the record, I think FNC does a much better job than CNN.



It is a fact that they do not do a better job. Also, those right wing outlets you listed are not subject to journalistic integrity.  They are political commentary and entertainment, not news.  Unfortunately the average person doesn't understand the difference.

Mainstream outlets do not attempt to preserve objectivity lol, especially the right wing.  The mainstream media deserves every bit of criticism because their focus is sensationalism.

John Stewart sums it up fantastically here, its quite funny actually.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2016)

benroliver said:


> It is a fact that they do not do a better job. Also, those right wing outlets you listed are not subject to journalistic integrity.  They are political commentary and entertainment, not news.  Unfortunately the average person doesn't understand the difference.
> 
> Mainstream outlets do not attempt to preserve objectivity lol, especially the right wing.  The mainstream media deserves every bit of criticism because their focus is sensationalism.
> 
> John Stewart sums it up fantastically here, its quite funny actually.



So to be clear you mean 24/hr news networks?


----------



## AWP (Sep 15, 2016)

When I think "mainstream" I don't think of Breitbart, Drudge, HuffPo, etc. To me, "mainstream" encompasses outlets like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and other mass market, internationally reporting agencies. I would include traditional newspapers in that group, Washington Times, the Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, etc., and even include some of the major agencies like the AP and Reuters.

My 1/2 Dhirham or whatever.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2016)

I think the 24 he news networks are garbage... all of them. The papers, not so much.  Obviously many are doing the click bait thing, but they are also almost the only ones doing real investigative journalism. They also do a pretty good job fact checking, particularly the Washington Post.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Sep 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So to be clear you mean 24/hr news networks?



Sounds to me like he just means Fox.  Plenty of bullshit to go around, all things being equal.  And when it comes to the 24 hr networks, it's all pretty damn equal.


----------



## AWP (Sep 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think the 24 he news networks are garbage... all of them. The papers, not so much.  Obviously many are doing the click bait thing, but they are also almost the only ones doing real investigative journalism. They also do a pretty good job fact checking, particularly the Washington Post.



I think they can, but the editorial process and bias can/ does creep into some reporting. I'm not saying all, but some papers and some articles.

I used to date a print reporter who worked for a medium-sized market/ newspaper, one of the largest in FL at least. While she worked the Business section she had horror stories of editors changing or outright removing stories based upon political or business bias. It happens, but I doubt if any of us could claim knowledge of a percentage.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 16, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Any media that reports from an ideological bias.  The televised outlets are only the tip of the iceberg.  Most of the reading I do personally is from peer reviewed journals and historical texts as I cant stand much else.  I like the Intercepts work that includes links to the source material.



OK. So, you don't consume any news programming?  No news station or newspaper that I know of is peer reviewed.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Sep 16, 2016)

benroliver said:


> It is a fact that they do not do a better job.



Also, a "fact" simply according to you is an opinion without proof to support your "fact".  You keep going after Fox and media with a perceived right leaning agenda, whatever outlet that may be, and then continue on about mainstream media.  Which leads me to believe that your opinion is that any outlet that may have a conservative lean, large or small, is your definition of MSM.  

Essentially it seems to me, as @Deathy McDeath hinted, that you seem to discredit anything that doesn't fit your personal political views.  If that's the case, you're literally practising the same thing you accuse those outlets of doing.  

I'm conservative.  So generally I check Fox News first.  When I see a story of interest, I then flip to CNN, and then MSNBC, to see if I can find the story, and if so, to get their take on things.  I use these three because they're the broadest forms of media in America.  I begin the basis of my opinion on what I've seen/read from the big three.  Then I continue to the smaller outlets (granted after the big three, these days, I tend to immediately come here but that's because this place is great for two sides to most major stories from educated individuals).  This tends to allow multiple viewpoints and sources, and ends in a better informed conclusion.  If your neglecting any perceived conservative outlets, because you're liberal, all your getting is exactly what you'd like to hear.  That's a pretty half assed opinion in my view.


----------



## AWP (Sep 16, 2016)

I have a silly method for gathering news: I utilize a number of varied sources, all with a bias. I compare the stories that interest me and then cross check those with other sites if they are important enough. Relying on one news source (which is all to common IMO) is a bucket of fail and everyone deserves the intellectual Darwinism that inevitably results.

No, I shouldn't HAVE to become a junior intel analyst to follow the world, but that's life. People who bitch about the media, regardless of their political bent, need to "put in work" unless they are content with the bullshit served to them on a platter. You don't learn a damn thing by sticking with similar sources. You have to broaden your horizons if you want knowledge. Conservatives who won't look at MSNBC or CNN are no better than liberals who won't read Fox or Breitbart.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 16, 2016)

Yepp....


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 16, 2016)

Apropos of this discussion, I'm currently analyzing this paper for a quantitative methods class
Predicting Online Political Participation - The Importance of Selection Bias and Selective Exposure in the Online Setting

Kind of ironic.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Apropos of this discussion, I'm currently analyzing this paper for a quantitative methods class
> Predicting Online Political Participation - The Importance of Selection Bias and Selective Exposure in the Online Setting
> 
> Kind of ironic.




Two things people do: 1.) Watch TV all day, including news; seldom changing the news source.
                                         2.) Blurt stuff out on Facebook.


----------



## benroliver (Sep 16, 2016)

BuckysBadger24 said:


> Also, a "fact" simply according to you is an opinion without proof to support your "fact".  You keep going after Fox and media with a perceived right leaning agenda, whatever outlet that may be, and then continue on about mainstream media.  Which leads me to believe that your opinion is that any outlet that may have a conservative lean, large or small, is your definition of MSM.
> 
> .


I specifically said Fox was the worst not the only.  It would take you 30 seconds on google to look up the polling data and studies on Fox.  Regardless, you shouldn't need an independent study or polling data to figure it out.  It only takes a few minutes of Hannity.  

Most of the mainstream outlets have a liberal lean, so how is it that I could only consider Conservative media mainstream? Don't talk to me like I am an idiot.


----------



## benroliver (Sep 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I have a silly method for gathering news: I utilize a number of varied sources, all with a bias. I compare the stories that interest me and then cross check those with other sites if they are important enough. Relying on one news source (which is all to common IMO) is a bucket of fail and everyone deserves the intellectual Darwinism that inevitably results.
> 
> No, I shouldn't HAVE to become a junior intel analyst to follow the world, but that's life. People who bitch about the media, regardless of their political bent, need to "put in work" unless they are content with the bullshit served to them on a platter. You don't learn a damn thing by sticking with similar sources. You have to broaden your horizons if you want knowledge. Conservatives who won't look at MSNBC or CNN are no better than liberals who won't read Fox or Breitbart.



The echo chamber effect works on the best of us from time to time.  Personally I love reading Breitbart, makes me laugh.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Sep 16, 2016)

benroliver said:


> I specifically said Fox was the worst not the only.  It would take you 30 seconds on google to look up the polling data and studies on Fox.  Regardless, you shouldn't need an independent study or polling data to figure it out.  It only takes a few minutes of Hannity.
> 
> Most of the mainstream outlets have a liberal lean, so how is it that I could only consider Conservative media mainstream? Don't talk to me like I am an idiot.



Okay.  I get what you're saying and I did overshoot on accusing you of that.  Not in any way trying to talk to you as if you're an "idiot".

But it's hard not to see a large bias in your posts that you're presenting as completely given fact.  I'm aware of the studies you're talking about.  People who only watch a certain network's news coverage are asked a number of questions about domestic affairs, and those that only watched Fox News scored lowest by a relatively narrow margin over the rest of them.  That would seem to mark Fox News as the "worst" of the 24 hr networks according to this study.  Those people that only watch one network for all of their news aren't putting in any effort to actually get as close to the objectionable story as possible (I don't think, as stated earlier in this thread, that it's possible to get a fully objectionable story with no bias from any mainstream outlet.  Network, newspaper, or otherwise).  There's little those people can be told, and their ignorance can be their bliss of they so choose.  Of course, the flip side is that these people sadly constitute the majority of the voting population.  As I recall, the number of correct answers in that study is embarrassingly low on all fronts.  But you would appear to believe that this proved that Fox News is the most opinionated liars of them all.  Which I do understand.

However, there's also another study that ranks MSNBC as the most heavily opinionated network by a massive margin based on a scale of 100%.  That same study ranks FNC and CNN as pretty close to even at near 50/50 in terms of %opinions v %news with CNN at 46 v 54 and FNC at 55 v 45.   MSNBC came out at 85 v 15 opinion/news reporting.  Google turns that up pretty quickly as well.  

Pew Study Finds MSNBC the Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far

So, now there's one study claiming FNC viewers are the least informed of all major networks, and another claiming that MSNBC barely even reports the news at all.  It's hard to put weight in any one of these stupid studies proving one for fact over the other, by virtue of them both existing, in my opinion.  That's where my earlier comment of "fact" vs your opinion enters.  

Adding to my view of bias is you saying "one shouldn't need polls or independent study.  One just needs to watch Hannity".  I see him as quite interchangeable with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, or Piers Morgan back when that knob still had a job with CNN.  Each network has their own major figurehead (dickhead) fighting for the networks agenda.  See, I flip through all of them because a lot of times the story is reported on one of those networks first.  It tends to follow on the remaining ones.  Most of the times there's a slant when the story is broken as it generality pertains to politics, but it gives a decent head start on what the actual story is.  From there you can begin fact checking with the more reliable sources, generally, for me, starting with a USA Today, Washington Post, ect. in the next mornings edition. Or, for that matter, with whatever source you prefer.  That's the benefit to me of checking all of the major networks.

 The 24 hr networks are certainly all filled with opinionated bullshit, but each one has its own value.  If you're ignoring one, it would seem you're putting too much stock in those yahoos running the talk shows and not in the story that gets them started.  And at times, where one fails to give the proper story because of an agenda, another one can be found to get it correct.  But atleast you're hearing about the story.  I don't believe any of the 24 hr news networks are completely full of shit and always lying and twisting stories 100% of the time.  If you don't like any of them, that's fine, that's your call, but saying one is infinitely worse than the rest is an exercise in futility IMHO.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 16, 2018)

**** UPDATE****

*US special forces soldier has been charged with an Afghan man's murder *

"US Army Special Operations Command spokesman Lt Col Loren Bymer said in a statement: "Major Matthew Golsteyn's immediate commander has determined that sufficient evidence exists to warrant the preferral of charges against him."

He allegedly told interviewers that on 22 February 2010 he and another soldier had taken an alleged Taliban bomb-maker off base, shot him and buried his remains, reports NBC News. 

The admission led the Army Criminal Investigation Command to investigate Maj Golsteyn in 2011.
In April 2014, he got off with an official reprimand because of lack of evidence.

Two years later, Maj Golsteyn spoke on a Fox News special report, titled "How We Fight", about how he killed the suspected bomb-maker. He told the anchor he shot the man because he was concerned he would kill Afghan informants if released.

Maj Golsteyn was placed on leave, but has since been recalled to active duty, according to Army Times.
He is charged with premeditated murder, which carries a possible death penalty.

WHY would you talk about it again to the media?!?!?

US soldier 'admits murder in job interview'


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 16, 2018)

I wonder what new information they got, to feel they can charge him.

If I'm remembering this case correctly, he was removed and stripped because they didn't have any info to go forward with charges.


----------



## Topkick (Dec 16, 2018)

An article dated today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...-charge/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c07688049746

The Trump hating WAPO is quick to point out "unlawful command influence" but I'm glad the CinC is involved.


----------



## pardus (Dec 16, 2018)

Trump should keep his nose out of this.


----------



## Topkick (Dec 16, 2018)

pardus said:


> Trump should keep his nose out of this.



Why?


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 16, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Why?



His comments as CIC have an effect on the outcomes of trials. 

Bergdahl likely got a softer sentence in his case, purely because of Trump. The judge for that trial allowed the President's tweets and statements on the case to be used as mitigating evidence.

Some legal experts expect those same tweets to be used during Bergdahl's appe if his discharge.


----------



## Topkick (Dec 16, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> His comments as CIC have an effect on the outcomes of trials.
> 
> Bergdahl likely got a softer sentence in his case, purely because of Trump. The judge for that trial allowed the President's tweets and statements on the case to be used as mitigating evidence.
> 
> Some legal experts expect those same tweets to be used during Bergdahl's appe if his discharge.


Fair enough, but I wasn't referring to his comments. I agree that he should STFU about the specifics of the case. But he's the CinC, he was asked to review the case, and before a brother gets hanged, I'm glad he's going to review the case.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 16, 2018)

Cookie_101st said:


> His comments as CIC have an effect on the outcomes of trials.
> 
> Bergdahl likely got a softer sentence in his case, purely because of Trump. The judge for that trial allowed the President's tweets and statements on the case to be used as mitigating evidence.
> 
> Some legal experts expect those same tweets to be used during Bergdahl's appe if his discharge.



He plead guilty and received a lesser sentence, only a fool would ask for another trial.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 16, 2018)

pardus said:


> Trump should keep his nose out of this.



I agree that the President does not need to get involved at this time. The officer in question admitted to murder. Twice. That's not how we do things in the military. And, as Commander in Chief, President Trump should not involve himself in the military legal process at this time.

I suppose he could always issue a pardon in this case if he figured there was a serious miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Crusader74 (Dec 16, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> I agree that the President does not need to get involved at this time. The officer in question admitted to murder. Twice. That's not how we do things in the military. And, as Commander in Chief, President Trump should not involve himself in the military legal process at this time.
> 
> I suppose he could always issue a pardon in this case if he figured there was a serious miscarriage of justice.



Why would the Major admit he murdered the taliban bomb maker knowing full well he could face criminal charges?


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 16, 2018)

Crusader74 said:


> Why would the Major admit he murdered the taliban bomb maker knowing full well he could face criminal charges?


Guilt?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 16, 2018)

Crusader74 said:


> Why would the Major admit he murdered the taliban bomb maker knowing full well he could face criminal charges?



I don't know for sure, but ego might be a contributor.   In each case, I think he thought that he wouldn't get in trouble.


----------



## Crusader74 (Dec 16, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't know for sure, but ego might be a contributor.   In each case, I think he thought that he wouldn't get in trouble.



I don't understand. He has ruined his life


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 16, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> He plead guilty and received a lesser sentence, only a fool would ask for another trial.



My phone seemed to eat words on my post. 
Bergdahl is (or was, I haven't seen anything since June)appealing the dishonorable discharge, not the rest of his pubishments.


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 16, 2018)

Crusader74 said:


> Why would the Major admit he murdered the taliban bomb maker knowing full well he could face criminal charges?



Because he doesn't believe it was murder. He felt that he made the appropriate decision.

But taking dude off-post to execute/bury him, then coming back so you can burn the body, is a clear cut picture of "I'm trying not to get caught because I know what I did was wrong".


----------



## Topkick (Dec 16, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> I agree that the President does not need to get involved at this time. The officer in question admitted to murder. Twice. That's not how we do things in the military. And, as Commander in Chief, President Trump should not involve himself in the military legal process at this time.
> 
> I suppose he could always issue a pardon in this case if he figured there was a serious miscarriage of justice.



If it's so black and white, I'm curious to know who asked the President to review the case and why.


----------



## Cookie_ (Dec 16, 2018)

Topkick said:


> If it's so black and white, I'm curious to know who asked the President to review the case and why.



The biggest named person I've seen speak about this is Rep Duncan D. Hunter(R) who, as the Army Times points out, has been championing this case for a while.

Unrelated to this specific story, but you may know his name as the marine vet who was indicted on conspiracy and wire fraud charges a few months back.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 16, 2018)

Crusader74 said:


> I don't understand. He has ruined his life



Has he? He know has something he's probably wanted for a long time: attention. He's writing books, going on news broadcasts... after his plan to join the CIA washed out, this seems to be Plan B. Assuming he dodges jail, this is probably putting him on the path to a political career.

IIRC, he confessed to the crime the first time during a polygraph test he took as part of his application to join the CIA. They turned him in, there was an investigation, he had some admin actions taken against him but no jail time.

Then, during an interview, he admitted it again, possibly because he believed double jeopardy was attached.

At any rate, who can say why anyone does anything?  There are several documented cases where people *confess to "war crimes" that they never even committed*.

As far as why he did the crime itself, it's amazing what people will say or do when they think they're operating in the absence of consequences.  There seems to be a lot of that in the SOF community right now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 16, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> IIRC, he confessed to the crime the first time during a polygraph test he took as part of his application to join the CIA. They turned him in, there was an investigation, he had some admin actions taken against him but no jail time.



This is "that" guy???  I remember discussing him here.  it was like, "yeah, I killed him!  I did my job and I'd do it again!"

This was what I remember comparing him to....channeling his inner Col. Jessup.


----------



## Crusader74 (Dec 17, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> Has he? He know has something he's probably wanted for a long time: attention. He's writing books, going on news broadcasts... after his plan to join the CIA washed out, this seems to be Plan B. Assuming he dodges jail, this is probably putting him on the path to a political career.
> 
> IIRC, he confessed to the crime the first time during a polygraph test he took as part of his application to join the CIA. They turned him in, there was an investigation, he had some admin actions taken against him but no jail time.
> 
> ...



But like the CIA, I 'd say no one will touch him with a barge pole.


----------



## MikeDelta (Dec 17, 2018)

Hard to say if the truth will come out in the wash or not and it’s unfortunate that the Major bull horned his actions...especially if they were misconstrued. However I hard agree that the ROE have reached new heights of absurdity. 

In 1991 an officer briefed us in country and we received a one-sided card for ROE, end of story. 

Recently a soldier in the 3rd Army shared with me his deployment booklet and the ROE was several pages long. I wasn’t surprised, I’d describe the feeling more as being disgusted. 

I guess this is an old drum I’m beating...rant over, my .02


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 17, 2018)

Crusader74 said:


> But like the CIA, I 'd say no one will touch him with a barge pole.



See "Oliver North."  Given enough time and the right audience, there's a job for him....


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Why?



Due process. How can you review something that hasn't been decided yet?



Marauder06 said:


> I agree that the President does not need to get involved at this time. The officer in question admitted to murder. Twice. That's not how we do things in the military. And, as Commander in Chief, President Trump should not involve himself in the military legal process at this time.
> 
> I suppose he could always issue a pardon in this case if he figured there was a serious miscarriage of justice.



Exactly!
_IF _there is a conviction in this case, then the POTUS/CIC can review the case. Opening his trap now is akin to Obama spouting off about "racist police killings" hours after a legal, but yet un-investigated  police shooting took place.


----------



## Topkick (Dec 17, 2018)

pardus said:


> Due process. How can you review something that hasn't been decided yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's fair. But, I do think it'll be more difficult to impact the case, assuming Trump believes the Major was treated unfairly, after a conviction. Then, as @Marauder06 stated, Trump could issue a pardon.


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2018)

Topkick said:


> That's fair. But, I do think it'll be more difficult to impact the case, assuming Trump believes the Major was treated unfairly, after a conviction. Then, as @Marauder06 stated, Trump could issue a pardon.



It's simple. If Trump interferes now, he is screwing up the legality of the case which is wrong, if he waits until a possible conviction, and pardons, then it's totally legal and appropriate.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 8, 2019)

Update...Lead Investigator in the Golsteyn case pleads guilty to charges of stolen valor...this gets interesting. Lead investigator in Green Beret murder case pleads guilty to stolen valor charges


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 8, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> Update...Lead Investigator in the Golsteyn case pleads guilty to charges of stolen valor...this gets interesting. Lead investigator in Green Beret murder case pleads guilty to stolen valor charges


A Purple Heart?  That's fucked.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 9, 2020)

Army general denies request by officer pardoned by Trump to have his Special Forces tab reinstated



> The decoration for retired Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn was denied in December by Lt. Gen. Francis M. Beaudette, the commander of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, two defense officials said on Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. The Army followed by asking an administrative board that reviews personnel decision to consider several decisions involving Golsteyn, the officials said.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 9, 2020)

Florida173 said:


> Army general denies request by officer pardoned by Trump to have his Special Forces tab reinstated


Here we go again.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 9, 2020)

Ah, it seems LTG Beaudette is ready to retire...


----------



## Viper1 (Jan 9, 2020)

Just because he was pardoned doesn't mean the action didn't occur. Perhaps the pardon was just, perhaps it was not. Either way it happened and MAJ Golsteyn has to live his life, and the rest of us have to do our jobs. 

 I never heard his name mentioned at Fort Bragg, and don't even know which BN he served in. I was in 3rd GRP five years, and was there when the charges were first filed, his medals revoked, etc. I understand many support him and many don't. In any case, the CG has made a decision.


----------



## AWP (Jan 10, 2020)

You call this a scandal? Hold our Tridents...


----------



## Gunz (Jan 10, 2020)

I'm guessing the "administrative panel" could overturn the CGs decision? And if they don't...well, Trump blocked the move to take Gallagher's Trident pin.


----------



## Box (Jan 10, 2020)

The difference is - his tab and award were revoked a LONG TIME before the POTUS pardoned his criminal behavior.
The 3rd SFG revokes SF Tabs all the time.    In 3rd group, tab revokation is like a hobby.  There was a time when you couldn't get through an entire deployment without "somebody" getting fired.  There were tabs revoked just for fucking up on the ride home !!!
Golsteyn's tab was revoked over 5 years ago - this didnt happen weeks after the pardon as a way to circumvent the pardon from the POTUS.

The attempted narrative that LTG Beaudette has just recently done this as a snub to the POTUS is all hype.  When the Navy tried to take away the other guys Trident - it was AFTER the pardon. The "perception" that it was done as the Navy's way of getting some street justice was an easy one to infer based on all of the little snippets being made in the press.

This guys shit was taken away 5 years ago.  Getting his shit taken away should have been the end of the discussion - this idiot got off light.   Lets pretend for a second that I know NOTHING about the military...
...am I to believe a Captain (at the time) in the US Army Special Forces thinks it is OK to burn a body up?
_*Seriously - lets just pretend for a moment that I was never a medic and I was never in the 3rd SFG - hell, lets pretend I was never ever in the military so I only know what I read on the interwebz -I don't know 'stuff' so I have to ask people that serve:*_

*- was burning a human body - for ANY reason - in Afghanistan during that time frame 'acceptable"* 
somebody tell me because I apparently dont know what the standard of practice was at that time.  Who knows maybe this is a believable story and his acts are common practice - and an Army Captain is well within his authority to make such choices.  Maybe this bad guy really was killed in a violent ambush and then his body was dragged off to be burnt to prevent disease - its probably done all the time...
...isn't it?

Maybe - just maybe - this guy was a shit sack from day one.
Maybe - just maybe - this guy fucked up - tried to cover it up - and got caught.
Maybe - just maybe - he actually got off light and avoided criminal charges under the guide of having his tab pulled - his award revoked - and getting invited to leave if he would just go away quietly and keep his mouth shut.   Who knows - anything is possible.

Unfortunately he couldn't keep his mouth shut and he talked about it in public - he talked about during a poly' looking for a job that he shouldn't have had anyway - he talked about it VERY publicly as if he was telling the Army to get fucked.
...THEN when everyone was forced to acknowledge - his shit went to a REAL trial.  Instead of getting "SF fired" he got hit with criminal charges - and suddenly he is poor pitiful oppressed little guy - begging for mercy.

Sometimes, the easiest way out of a hole is to stop digging - this guy never learned that shit.
Now he is yapping again trying to generate enough public sympathy to get his tab back when he should just be glad that the POTUS intervened - otherwise this fine example of an honorable American hero might very well have ended up in prison for a long time.


I fully support that the POTUS - for that matter,* ANY* POTUS - can pardon folks that are guilty of colossal fuck ups.  Presidents have been giving pardons to shitsacks for generations.  Shitsacks that should have been hung in the town square get pardoned all the time.
That doesn't mean I am not disappointed when these shitsticks get pardoned.
The thing is - I am not all that disappointed in the POTUS (any POTUS) giving a pardon to this turd - or the other turd for that matter...
...I am disappointed that turds like this are smart enough to beat our selection and training processes in the first place.
...I am disappointed in our peer networks that allow these turds to flourish

Just my two cents - I could be wrong


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 10, 2020)

Box said:


> Unfortunately he couldn't keep his mouth shut and he talked about it in public - he talked about during a poly' looking for a job that he shouldn't have had anyway - he talked about it VERY publicly as if he was telling the Army to get fucked.


This is THAT dude?


----------



## Box (Jan 10, 2020)

This is _THAT_ dude


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 10, 2020)

He needs to finish his career and move on.


----------



## Box (Jan 10, 2020)

His career is already over.   he has been out for quite some time now (years actually) - he just hasn't gotten enough attention over the incident.
Like I said - some folks just wont stop digging the hole they are standing in.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 10, 2020)

He’s got nothing to lose.  This is win-win for him; he can’t get in trouble over the guy he HE ADMITTED TO MURDERING and even if he doesn’t get his tab back, it keeps his name int he news for a potential political run and the inevitable book.


----------

