RANGER AGAINST WAR: Open Season <

Friday, September 21, 2007

Open Season

If we are not terrorized, then in a crucial sense,
we have defeated terrorism

--Fareed Zakaria, How to Restore America's Place in the World

__________

A military hearing convened last week at Ft. Bragg considered the evidence against two Special Forces soldiers charged in June with premeditated murder in the killing of Nawab Buntangyar, a suspected Afghan "enemy combatant."

"The case revolves around differing interpretations of the kind of force that the Special Forces team that hunted and killed the man, Nawab Buntangyar, were allowed to use once they found him, apparently unarmed (Green Berets Face Hearing on Killing of Man in Afghanistan)."

The American Special Operations Command has labeled Butangyar an enemy combatant, and the attorneys for Captain Staffel, who ordered the shooting, allege Butangyar organized suicide and roadside bomb attacks. But just what is an "enemy combatant" in a UW/GW environment? Is he an enemy as in "criminal," or is he a soldier, as in "combatant"?

If he is a soldier on a battlefield, then he is an "enemy" combatant by definition. And there is nothing new about soldiers confronting on the field of battle, so why a new definition? What facts and deeds are enlisted in forming that pastiche definition?


The Army's Criminal Investigation Command determined in April 2007 the shooting was "justifiable homicide." But how can shooting an unarmed man in a foreign country be justifiable homicide?


Soldiers may kill an enemy, but the concept of homicide is outside the military purview. If Buntangyar was an enemy, then he may be killed. However, that is if there is a state of belligerency or of war. Since there is no declared war in Afghanistan, it is a UW/GW environment, and in such settings, the host nation's rules provide the guidelines.


In a premeditated action, Capt. Staffel, upon hearing of Butangyar's location in a home, "ordered a seven-man team to investigate the tip," and ultimately, ordered Master Sgt. Troy Anderson to kill the man with a head shot.


Mark Waple [civilian lawyer representing Capt. Staffel] "said Mr. Buntangyar had already been 'vetted as a target' by American commanders,
an enemy combatant who could be legally killed once he was positively identified."

What is this legally killed designation? U.S. soldiers are not killers, even if the adjective legal is tacked onto the concept. If the target is a real, live bad guy, then let the local police arrest and detain him. Then let an Afghan court adjudicate his case.

U.S. soldiers are not target selectors, judges and juries. Shooting unarmed personnel -- even if they are terror suspects -- is in and of itself a terror tactic. Because a soldier is a Green Beret in Afghanistan does not confer upon him the right to shoot to kill without expending all other efforts to capture the target.

American combat power is being expended in Afghanistan to form a democratic government, and democratic governments do not gun down their citizens in the street. "Do as we say, not as we do."

In addition, U.S. or NATO forces should not be given the authority to designate Afghan citizens as "enemy combatants." This should and must be an Afghan government responsibility. Killing Afghans in Afghanistan is not the correct formula for binding the citizenry to the government.


"Confirming [Capt. Staffel's order] order, Sergeant Anderson fired once, killing Mr. Buntangyar. The American team drove to the village center to explain to the local residents, 'This is who we are, this is what we just did and this is why we did it,' [attorney] Waple said."

This is who we are, what we did and why? Swell idea, but did that win any converts to the newfangled concept of democracy? Not bloody likely.

Incidentally, this incident demonstrates the arbitrary nature of justice meted out via the barrel of a rifle. The lesson will not be lost on these people, and the cycle of violence will march on.

Like we said in the Republic of Vietnam: If you kill for money, you are a mercenary; if you kill for fun, you are a psychotic. If you kill for both, you are Special Forces!

Labels: ,

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too bad nobody got a photo of that headshot...the one of a Vietnamese officer shooting a young VC prisoner shook America up. And why didn't that master sergeant tell the 'good' Captain to do his own fucking killing? That order should have been seen for what it was---illegal! This barrel of fun needs SHUT DOWN!

Therefore: http://shutitdown101707.blogspot.com/

I think I will lock my husband in the bedroom that day!

Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 12:00:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

labrys,

That would have been a champion photo. A picture says a 1000 words, and Americans do so love their images.

I believe the MSGT would have been in his rights to decline that order. That would have been superlative protest. But what if he's thinking about those three soldiers who wrote the NYT opinion piece, who are now dead (2) or grievously injured?

What if the thinking is down to, it's them or me, even when the situation lacks immediacy?

Thank you for the link. Important to spread their msg.

--Lisa

Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 12:52:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Labrys, jim sending.

The MSG didn't refuse because he wanted to take the shot. These are SF soldiers running wild in the soldiers version of Disneyland!

Try running searches on google with key words, SPECIAL FORCES, AFGHANISTAN,torture,murder,and see what you get. I've always felt that SF is America's foreign legion or SS equivalent.

I recd. my flash in 3/70... I know of what I speak. jim

Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 4:38:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Ranger,

My husband served with the 10th SFG at Devens (and in Bad Tolz, GERMany) and at 1st Group here at Ft. Lewis. He never got the flash...came to them via the intel community (where we two met), but I had known guys from SF in Viet Nam before him. I am well versed in the history, I figured the guy wouldn't have done it if he didn't want to take the shot. Yes, as my mate says....it has come down some from where it once was, regrettably. I have often commented they are all just building resume material to get hired at Blackwater.

Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 5:47:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Labrys, jim sends.i believe the cut occured w. charley beckwith. his influence turned the sf into mini animal houses containing mostly former ranger bat types.the introduction of sas type qualification selections was the kiss of death.further removing the lt. from the oda'sfurther degraded c&c and officer leadership. since the wo on the team was a former e7 type then the thinking on an operational level reflects enlisted values. this is not acceptable to this old dog.sf has become nothing more than mini ranger bns. for direct killing action. jim

Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 12:33:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, Charlie. Man...the shit that man got away with and the shit he set in motion. SAS qualification sorts of things...well, to be honest, some of the crap coming out now makes "our" SF sound more like those Soviet bastards we used to shudder to read about. The old 'SciFi' definitely isn't the same. I often wonder what a man I once loved, who put 6 years into Viet Nam thinks from where-ever he is now? To see the Green Berets so degraded into something as brutal as the Spetsnatz assholes...one more thing on the list of things to be mourned for and pissed off about!

Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 1:47:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

labrys,

Yes, we were rapiers, and now they've turned us into broadswords or battle axes.

jim

Monday, September 24, 2007 at 2:37:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home