Green Beret who beat up accused child rapist can stay in Army
Source: Army Times
The Army has reversed course and decided to allow a Green Beret to stay in uniform, months after his reprimand for roughing up an accused child rapist in Afghanistan.
Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland found out last August that he was to be booted out of service, a casualty of the Army’s Qualitative Management Program, an involuntary separation measure for soldiers with black marks on their records. Since then, the soldier has been fighting to remain in the Army.
The Army Board for Correction of Military Records reviewed Martland’s case and decided to remove the soldier from the QMP list, confirmed Army spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry Pionk in an emailed statement Thursday night.The board's action "will allow him to remain in the Army," Pionk said.
Martland has admitted he lost his cool on his 2011 deployment to Konduz province, Afghanistan. That's when he and his captain struck an Afghan local police officer — one who had allegedly confessed to raping a boy and then beating the child's mother for telling authorities. Martland said that he and the detachment commander, Capt. Daniel Quinn, received a “relief for cause” from that 2011 deployment for the assault, according to documentation provided to Army Times.
Read more: http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/28/green-beret-who-beat-up-accused-child-rapist-can-stay-army/83679604/
This Afghan even laughed about the abuse when originally confronted.
Martland should have never been threatened for standing up for the child & his mother
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
iandhr
(6,852 posts)The asshole laughed when confronted about the sexual of a child?
He should absolutely be allowed to stay in the military.
underpants
(182,734 posts)He was deployed to Afghanistan and being upper level brass regularly met with local chiefs. He knew exactly what the little boys who attended to things were going through. It is a sad weird part of the culture. It made him sick but he knew what his role was. I haven't talked to him about this case but he struggled with this dilemma all the time.
Good decision. I was in the Army during the drawdown after the first Gulf War. I saw several really good NCO's facing removal because of stupid mistakes they made when they were Privates. I also saw horrible do-nothing types skate through because they'd literally just stood in place their whole careers.
mark67
(196 posts)Not an expert, but I remember this was a very disturbing part of the culture...they had a saying that "women were for marriage but young boys were for sex..."
underpants
(182,734 posts)He was way up in the mountains or out in the country. Something like that.
He said half of him just wanted to kill them but he knew that he just had a role to play.
EX500rider
(10,835 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)He wasn't there on a mission to save kids.
He was there to train a fighting force and the moment he stomped that guy, he lost the ability to do so and so did every GB who came after him for quite a while.
I say key him stay but not anywhere he had to make those kinds of choices.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)If they saw it happening with there own two eyes.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)He didn't see it happen with his own two eyes.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)A severe beating is the very least pedophiles deserve.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)But apparently some here are cheering it on while at the same time condemn torture of prisoners which is also a war crime.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Allegedly confessed?
Extrajudicial punishment.
US soldiers now serving as judge, jury and executioner of alleged perverts around the world.
Sounds legit.
christx30
(6,241 posts)for the child in this case. Would you rather see the harm continuing to be done to the innocent, rather than see the criminal face some kind of consequences for his actions? The pervert felt so safe in committing his crime, he laughed when he was confronted. He felt no fear of consequences. He knew that legally, there was nothing that was going to happen to him.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Uh they confessed to being a child molester right before I shot them.
Heck now Obama can add suspected child molesters to his drone kill list.
The Global War on Terror was so 2000s. We're up to the Global War on Child Molesters now. Brace yourselves it's gonna be a long one.
7962
(11,841 posts)“Our (Afghan Local Police) were committing atrocities and we were quickly losing the support of the local populace. The severity of the rapes and the lack of action by the Afghan government caused many of the locals to view our ALP as worse than the Taliban. If the locals resumed supporting the Taliban, attacks against U.S. forces would have increased dramatically,”
From the original story last year.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/17/green-beret-sexual-abuse-afghanistan/
or should we not stop genocide either, since there isnt a JURY available.
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #10)
Post removed
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Your accusing him of defending child molesters is not only a fallacy, it's disgusting.
christx30
(6,241 posts)is letting it continue to happen.
The Joker kills whomever he wants to with no police intervention, but Batman is in the wrong.
7962
(11,841 posts)Probably should have been.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)am mistaken and you are into that kinda thing.
7962
(11,841 posts)Not positive, but very possible. Or at least get a few guys to turn him into hamburger. Some criminals are worse than others.
Sorry I'm not strong as you are to look the other way when atrocities are committed
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)The sicko will rape again in the backwards culture.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Yaaa!!!! Go team 'Murika"!!!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
eissa
(4,238 posts)Given the fact that rape of any kind in that region is considered the victim's problem and the perpetrators are rarely, if ever, brought to justice. Glad Martland gave that POS what he deserved, and happy he'll remain in the service.
7962
(11,841 posts)One thing the military is supposed to do is step in when they see things going wrong.
eissa
(4,238 posts)for reasons that I cannot fathom for the life of me. Instead of worrying about "vigilante justice" how about thinking of the victim here and the life-long trauma he and his mother will have to deal with?
Tempest
(14,591 posts)He took it upon himself to take action AFTER THE FACT.
You support a war crime. So shut the fuck up about torture.
christx30
(6,241 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)if you're going to tell that other poster to "shut the fuck up" about it.
NO war crime was committed. Period.
procon
(15,805 posts)What do you think is going to happen to that woman now?
You're happy the soldier gets to stay in the military, but he did not help that woman or her son. The only they he did is beat up the abuser after the deed was done, and now he won't even have to undergo the consequences, but that woman and her son sure will pay the price for his actions.
840high
(17,196 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Is being exported to other nations. One can only hope with this enablement that firing squads are allowed next. USA ! USA!
Oh why even bother
procon
(15,805 posts)He broke the law. Evidently he broke many laws, including laws in Afghanistan, military laws, international laws, and US laws, so why does he get a free pass? The provocation is not a factor, if he did the same thing in the US he'd be in jail. He couldn't control himself and reacted emotionally, lashing out like a common thug instead of remaining professional and abiding by his training.
The incident likely will make things even more difficult for his fellow soldiers that remain in the area. He gave the military a black eye, and the cravenly ArmyBoard gives the impression that soldiers can now break the law with impunity if they raise a big enough public stink about it.
branford
(4,462 posts)There's a reason why prosecutorial discretion exists and juries across the country have voted "not guilty" for far worse (e.g., jury nullification).
People here also make the distinction that in the USA, conduct like this is investigated and punished, and not remotely tolerated by the general public when it becomes known. The American federal and state governments by both custom and law seek justice for the sexual assault of children. This most certainly cannot be said for Afghanistan.
Simply, I imagine the Army, and by implication, the current administration, had no desire to suffer the political blow-back from Congress and the general public of punishing a decorated Green Beret who struck an Afghan local police officer who believed (likely correctly) that he would face no negative repercussions for raping a boy and then beating the child's mother for telling authorities.
Even though I'm a litigation attorney, I know that sometimes rules are meant to bent and broken (that's one of the reasons why we have juries). In this instance, the soldier's conduct was probably the closest thing attainable to American "justice" given the circumstances, and the vast majority of people believe nothing would be accomplished by involuntarily separating the soldier from the career he loves and has excelled.
procon
(15,805 posts)Why do we bother to have laws at all if those charged with upholding it are busily working to undermine it and allow mob rule to prevail.
That soldier took an oath to preserve the Constitution, yeah? Don't attorneys take a similar oath because that's the foundation of our justice system. We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws, but here you are -- a sworn officer of the court --saying just chuck it all out and give this man special treatment because he beat up someone that western societies find loathsome and the law doesn't apply to him.
That's just wrong on so many levels.
branford
(4,462 posts)This is reflected in our Constitution and related jurisprudence. For instance, as I already indicated, one of the reasons we have juries is for defendants to be judged by their peers, who may at their discretion disregard the letter of the law if they believe it serves the interests of justice (see, jury nullification).
Similarly, we have a adversarial criminal justice system. When I or any other attorney represent a client, no less in a criminal matter, I'm obligated to zealously defend and advocate their interests and positions alone, not seek some form of "fairness" or "justice." In fact, placing anything about my clients interests in a case would likely constitute malpractice.
I believe you are overreacting to the incident and aftermath. The sky is not falling, there's no risk of anarchy in the streets, and our justice system prevails as well as could be expected by someone run by human hands.
Notably, nothing done with respect to the soldier is contrary to any law or legal doctrine. Prosecutors and similar authorities are normally not obligated to seek punishment if they believe justice would not be served. Under these circumstances, as the comments by most attest, people are generally pleased with this outcome. In fact, rather than a breakdown in law and order in Afghanistan, maybe the fear of harsh vigilante justice will be the very encouragement the government and local authorities need to more objectively and deliberately deal with the problem of sexual assault of children and a culture that largely permits something so abhorrent.
procon
(15,805 posts)and it has nothing to do with law and order in Afghanistan. It's not as if this man saved lives or did something selfless, to the contrary, his thoughtless actions probably endangered the lives of the boy and his mother, as well as other civilians, and put Americans at risk for retaliation and revenge attacks.
That board succumbed to heavy pressure coming from rightwing politicians to let the soldier off the hook and overturn the first decision that gave him the boot. They acted not because he did something right, but because of adverse public opinion that had more in common with vigilantism than anything to do with laws.
Now you're encouraging vigilantes to threaten government authorities with violence instead of pursuing legal and legislative changes, I think we're done here.
branford
(4,462 posts)They did not have to pursue the most severe penalty, or any penalty at all, as the OP clearly demonstrates.
There's a difference between law and justice, and not every infraction needs to or should be pursued. While you may certainly believe the soldier should have been separated from the military, the majority of other people clearly disagree.
Keep in mind that the political pressures well exceeded mere sympathy for the soldier striking a known pedophile. As you note, the solider and many other military members and civilian consultants are heavily involved in training and supporting the Afghani military and government, to say nothing of the many billions of American taxpayer dollars funneled into the country to ensure reforms. It's widely known that the sexual assault of children and women is often tolerated, excused or ignored in Afghanistan, but rarely discussed here to due the outrage it would engender and the public questioning why we are helping these people without doing anything to stop such atrocious conduct. The soldier quite wisely has attempted to garner as much notoriety and media attention as possible. It's no doubt true that the American public is sympathetic, but our military and civilian administration most certainly also don't want to repeatedly discuss the myriad of very sensitive issues that would have lead to the soldier's discharge, particularly with all the lingering political discontent concerning our involvement in the country and region.
The Afghan government and local authorities similarly don't want to discuss how a local police officer raped a child and assaulted his mother with apparent impunity, no less deal with the political and military implications if anyone under their authority attempts any reprisals.
I'm also most certainly not encouraging vigilantism. The suggestion is absurd. People respect a criminal justice system that properly and fairly deals with offenses. A defective or nearly non-existent system is what encourages vigilante justice. If the Afghans legitimately sought to identify and punish child rapists and let it be known such conduct would never be tolerated, the soldier's reaction might have been viewed in a far different light. Simply, context matters. Hopefully, the attention and embarrassment from this entire incident will indeed foster legislative and cultural change in Afghanistan, although I am not particularly optimistic.
7962
(11,841 posts)I know I wouldnt vote to convict. There was no doubt what happened; it wasnt just a rumor.
As for making it MORE difficult for soldiers, it actually prevented that from happening. Here's a quote from the original story from one of the other soldiers in the area explaining why something needed to be done:
“Our (Afghan Local Police) were committing atrocities and we were quickly losing the support of the local populace. The severity of the rapes and the lack of action by the Afghan government caused many of the locals to view our ALP as worse than the Taliban. If the locals resumed supporting the Taliban, attacks against U.S. forces would have increased dramatically,”
mahina
(17,638 posts)Response to 7962 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)people are claiming its difficult to imagine anyone actually feeling bad for him.