GUILTY Afghanistan - US Soldier guns down 16 civilians, 2012 Kandahar massacre

[annalia]

The only one I was talking about is the individual accused of the atrocities. I personally doubt that bringing this particular individual into the US would have ensured he was going to be well and good.

What does it mean. bring him into the US? He was a US citizen, he lived here.

If he received an honorable discharge after his third deployment, due to his traumatic brain injury while on deployment, where should they have sent him?

 

[jjenny]

What does it mean. bring him into the US? He was a US citizen, he lived here.

If he received an honorable discharge after his third deployment, due to his traumatic brain injury while on deployment, where should they have sent him?

They should have sent him into the US. But I am not so sure we wouldn't have heard about this individual either way. I think this individual was going to have issues regardless of where he was.

 

[jjenny]

I just saw on CNN that they have the guy leaving the base on video and him coming back to the base on video.

The army is also leaking that alcohol was found in the bay area where this guy lived.

Really strange how they are leaking all this stuff out about him and events and still not telling his name.

I have no idea why they have not released his name either. He is an adult. They release names of adults accused of crimes here in the US all the time.

 

[michmi]

I have no idea why they have not released his name either. He is an adult. They release names of adults accused of crimes here in the US all the time.

Apparently they won't release the name until he is actually charged.

 

[MsFacetious]

I just saw on CNN that they have the guy leaving the base on video and him coming back to the base on video.

The army is also leaking that alcohol was found in the bay area where this guy lived.

Really strange how they are leaking all this stuff out about him and events and still not telling his name.

Anyone who knows the people from 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Strykers has probably got a good idea who this is anyway. :twocents:

Even though it's a lot of people and they've all deployed to Iraq three times... You take his rank. His age. His marriage. He has 2 kids.

Then adding in the brain injury, would likely tell you. I know a couple of friends who figured it out... then the family moved and confirmed it.

Why aren't they releasing his name?

1. Because they haven't charged him.
2. Because of his family I believe. Apparently they have concerns for their safety... which is sad. His wife and kids didn't do anything wrong.
They have moved his family onto base so anyone in the area who hadn't already, has likely figured out who they are after that.

I hope they aren't worried about retaliation from other soldiers. Those soldiers aren't leaking his identity... so I don't think they need to be.
I wonder if they are worried about Taliban or something, coming to the US and going after his family?

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it has to do with the family.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...irst-hearing/2012/03/13/gIQAZz2HAS_story.html

The U.S. military continued Tuesday to withhold the name of the suspect, saying it will not be released until he is formally charged.

"It's certainly unusual not to even release the name of a person who is taken into custody," Fidell said.
He said he thought, but had no official information, that it was being done for the safety of the soldier's family and concern there may be retribution against them.

 

[jjenny]

Since I presume they are planning on charging him they will have to release his name sooner than later.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Anyone who knows the people from 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Strykers has probably got a good idea who this is anyway. :twocents:

Even though it's a lot of people and they've all deployed to Iraq three times... You take his rank. His age. His marriage. He has 2 kids.

Then adding in the brain injury, would likely tell you. I know a couple of friends who figured it out... then the family moved and confirmed it.

Why aren't they releasing his name?

1. Because they haven't charged him.
2. Because of his family I believe. Apparently they have concerns for their safety... which is sad. His wife and kids didn't do anything wrong.
They have moved his family onto base so anyone in the area who hadn't already, has likely figured out who they are after that.

I hope they aren't worried about retaliation from other soldiers. Those soldiers aren't leaking his identity... so I don't think they need to be.
I wonder if they are worried about Taliban or something, coming to the US and going after his family?

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks it has to do with the family.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...irst-hearing/2012/03/13/gIQAZz2HAS_story.html

The U.S. military continued Tuesday to withhold the name of the suspect, saying it will not be released until he is formally charged.

"It's certainly unusual not to even release the name of a person who is taken into custody," Fidell said.
He said he thought, but had no official information, that it was being done for the safety of the soldier's family and concern there may be retribution against them.

From day one they brought the family onto post and at some point they are going to have to release his name.

What I think is going on is the army wants to get their story out there while this is a hot news item and not have anyone talking like friends and family saying this does not sound like him or telling how really messed up he was.

It will all come out but it will not come out while the story is top in the news.

 

[Nova]

If it were not "nice" why exactly would anyone plea legal insanity? Maybe it's not super nice but I don't doubt it beats prison. We also don't set a duration of time legally insane individuals spend in the hospital which means they can be let out after a short period of time if doctors deem them "cured." I am in favor of sending these legally insane individuals into prisons after doctors deem them cured instead of setting them free.

My husband (a psychotherapist) has worked in both prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane. The latter are not like rehab facilities in Malibu. He says both are so bad he couldn't begin to say which is "better".

But defendants plead insanity because a successful defense usually means they will get treatment (including medication) that will probably be denied them in a regular prison. And in a few cases, it may mean a chance they will get out in the distant future rather than not at all. (But cases where killers are given a few pills and then let go are really rare nowadays, more a Hollywood cliche than a reality.)

Even the ancient Babylonians recognized the reduced culpability of insane persons in the Hammurabi Code. Are you suggesting we should be less civilized than those who cut off the hands of thieves thousands of years ago?

 

[Nova]

They should have sent him into the US. But I am not so sure we wouldn't have heard about this individual either way. I think this individual was going to have issues regardless of where he was.

I don't see how we can know that. The pressures of life at home would be completely different and he may have reacted to those different pressures in a very different way.

 

[jjenny]

I don't see how we can know that. The pressures of life at home would be completely different and he may have reacted to those different pressures in a very different way.

I don't pretend to know anything. It is only my personal opinion.

 

[Nova]

I don't pretend to know anything. It is only my personal opinion.

That it is your opinion does not exempt it from critical replies.

We know for a fact that life in a combat zone is unusually stressful. We have recognized mental disorders that result from that experience.

So if someone breaks down under combat conditions, we can't automatically extrapolate to what he or she would have done in a different context.

 

[jjenny]

That it is your opinion does not exempt it from critical replies.

We know for a fact that life in a combat zone is unusually stressful. We have recognized mental disorders that result from that experience.

So if someone breaks down under combat conditions, we can't automatically extrapolate to what he or she would have done in a different context.

The individual was described as having difficulty reintegrating and having marital problems. So I presume it would have been stressful for him either way. I agree he shouldn't have been send back into combat. The military deemed him fine and I really doubt he was.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

This is the hospital he would have been treated at when he came home to Ft. Lewis.

Funny this story just broke last week.

.........................................................................

The Madigan investigation has attracted national attention, triggering a broader Pentagon review of how the military medical staff diagnoses PTSD.

The Army has been waging a campaign to help reduce the stigma that some soldiers feel if they seek mental-health treatment.

But some medical professionals have alleged that PTSD is being over-diagnosed. Patient medical records reviewed by The Seattle Times indicate considerable disputes both within the Army, and between the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs, over how to diagnose PTSD.

As soldiers fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was considerable concern that the condition was being underrated as soldiers went through the medical retirement system.

Within the military, the financial stakes of PTSD screening dramatically increased after a 2008 congressional overhaul of the disability system resulted in a 50 percent disability rating for anyone leaving military service with that diagnosis. That rating is well above the threshold required for an Army medical retirement.

After the law changed, several soldiers attempted to make false or exaggerated claims of PTSD for personal financial gain, according to a Feb. 16 memorandum by Dr. Paul Whittaker, a Madigan physician who serves on the medical board that examines soldiers under consideration for medical retirement.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ptsd-reversed030812/ptsd-reversed030812/

 

[michmi]

I wonder if they are worried about Taliban or something, coming to the US and going after his family?[/B]

This is very possible, it wouldn't even have to be "Taliban" coming here and retaliating--anyone who has an issue with the US being over there and this event in particular could decide to retaliate against the family.

And frankly, the other soldiers over there are in grave danger too, because you can bet this isn't going to go without some retaliation. They don't need the actual soldier who did it--anyone would suffice to them.

 

[Nova]

The individual was described as having difficulty reintegrating and having marital problems. So I presume it would have been stressful for him either way. I agree he shouldn't have been send back into combat. The military deemed him fine and I really doubt he was.

Good point and I agree.

 

[Cazzie]

On NPR (National Public Radio, probably the "All Things Considered" program), they said that his base (Lewis McCord) of Seattle has had a high incidence of problems, here and in deployed areas. Here, many suicides, and suicides on the highways, a bank was robbed by military personnel, I think they said domestic violence including torture (!)...

I didn't hear the whole story but it may be at their website.

 

[MsFacetious]

On NPR (National Public Radio, probably the "All Things Considered" program), they said that his base (Lewis McCord) of Seattle has had a high incidence of problems, here and in deployed areas. Here, many suicides, and suicides on the highways, a bank was robbed by military personnel, I think they said domestic violence including torture (!)...

I didn't hear the whole story but it may be at their website.

Oh yes... JBLM has had lots of issues. I hear about them because I have a couple of friends there. They are not happy about being there.
Here are the ones I remember off the top of my head and can link to. There are more of course, but not that I can link to right this second.

Suicides went up 25% in 2011.

In 2010 a soldier who left the base shot and injured a cop in downtown Salt Lake, the soldier was killed.

In 2010 a former soldier held three people at gunpoint in a restaurant demanding mental health treatment.

Four JBLM soldiers were convicted in the deliberate thrill killings of three unarmed Afghan civilians in 2010, several convicted of lesser offenses.

In January 2011 a former soldier killed a park ranger at Mt Rainier before dying in the cold.

March of 2011 - A Lieutenant Colonel threatening to blow up the capitol and hiring a hit man to kill his wife and commanding officer.

March 2011 - Staff Sergeant kills 9 children, 7 adults as they sleep in Afghanistan.

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_20153397

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017741698.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...se-hunkers-down-under-international-attention

This is very possible, it wouldn't even have to be "Taliban" coming here and retaliating--anyone who has an issue with the US being over there and this event in particular could decide to retaliate against the family.

And frankly, the other soldiers over there are in grave danger too, because you can bet this isn't going to go without some retaliation. They don't need the actual soldier who did it--anyone would suffice to them.

Absolutely, they have already threatened to behead our soldiers. They already attacked the area where the shootings occurred.
That upsets me almost more than anything.
How many other soldiers are going to die because this guy was over there and shouldn't have been?

 

[Cazzie]

I guess "we've" asked for these problems by training people to be killing machines. (Yes, I know they are trained for far much more than that, as well.)

Perhaps their psyches cannot handle what they've seen, and have had to do but only within the rules of engagement...perhaps they feel said rules are too restrictive (enemy doesn't fight by any rules), and some of them snap and go outside, way way way outside, "the rules", including bringing violence home.

SIGH. Really tragic, all the way around.

 

[kline]

That it is your opinion does not exempt it from critical replies.

We know for a fact that life in a combat zone is unusually stressful. We have recognized mental disorders that result from that experience.

So if someone breaks down under combat conditions, we can't automatically extrapolate to what he or she would have done in a different context.

We also dont know 'that combat situations broke him down.' whatever caused him to do this may just be something inherant in him.
Whatever problems one has arent good enough reasons for murdering women and children.
Many in the military experience stressful situations and deal without slaughtering children .
Its amazing the number of people who if this were a civilian killer wouldnt care less about his damaged little psyche seem to want to extenuate this mans guilt because he's in the Military.
He's a child murderer and needs to pay for his attrocities like any other child murderer.
A good enough 'reason' doesnt exist.Nor should our other military men and women be smeared because of his actions.
Sadly its pretty inevitable others will pay for his actions.
.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

One member of an Afghan government delegation investigating the killings said Wednesday that the group has concluded the shooting spree was carried out by more than one soldier. Parliament member Sayeed Ishaq Gilani said the delegation had heard from villagers who said they saw more than 15 troops at the scene.

But it is unclear whether the soldiers the villagers saw were part of a search party that left the base to look for the U.S. soldier who was missing. The delegation is slated to formally release the results of its investigation later Wednesday.

.........................................................................


The official, who requested anonymity because he was discussing a private briefing, said that there were about two to three hours of footage covering the time of the attack but the U.S. military had only provided the video of the surrender. The Afghan delegation in Kandahar is asking for the U.S. to provide the full footage, the official said.


.....................................................................



On Tuesday, the delegation visited the two villages in southern Kandahar province where the shootings took place. Two villagers who lost relatives insisted that at least two soldiers took part in the shootings.


.............................................................


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...s-in-custody/2012/03/13/gIQAa7hcAS_story.html


It appears this went on for 2 to 3 hours from the time he was reported leaving the post to the time he surrendered.

The army wants to convince the Afghan government the guy acted alone but they only show them the part of the video showing him surrendering?

Why not show him leaving the base? Why not show the search party leaving the base?

Who was the search party? Were they members of his own platoon who worked under him?

Had they all been drinking and he left the post and the commander came into the bay and told them to go get their sergeant?

What was the radio traffic going back and forth from the search party to the fort? It is all recorded.

What were the orders given to the search party?

We are being fed a lie which the Army and government can do in war.