This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/us/politics/major-matt-golsteyn-trump.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Trump Says He Will Review Case of Soldier Charged With Murdering Afghan Man Trump Says He Will Review Case of Soldier Charged With Murdering Afghan Man
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Sunday that he would examine the case of a Special Forces soldier charged by the Army last week with murdering a suspected Afghan bomb maker nearly nine years ago.WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Sunday that he would examine the case of a Special Forces soldier charged by the Army last week with murdering a suspected Afghan bomb maker nearly nine years ago.
“At the request of many, I will be reviewing the case of a ‘U.S. Military hero,’ Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, responding to a segment on Fox News. “He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas.”“At the request of many, I will be reviewing the case of a ‘U.S. Military hero,’ Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, responding to a segment on Fox News. “He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas.”
Major Golsteyn acknowledged the shooting both during a C.I.A. job interview and in a 2016 segment on Fox. The case has become a cause among some conservatives who believe that the Army should not charge one of its own soldiers for killing someone believed to be an enemy.Major Golsteyn acknowledged the shooting both during a C.I.A. job interview and in a 2016 segment on Fox. The case has become a cause among some conservatives who believe that the Army should not charge one of its own soldiers for killing someone believed to be an enemy.
The shooting happened in February 2010, days after a roadside bomb killed two Marines who had been working with Major Golsteyn’s Green Beret team during the battle for the city of Marja in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, according to court documents obtained by The New York Times. American troops captured the Afghan man, who was found with bomb-making material, but then released him. It is unclear how Major Golsteyn tracked him down after his release.The shooting happened in February 2010, days after a roadside bomb killed two Marines who had been working with Major Golsteyn’s Green Beret team during the battle for the city of Marja in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, according to court documents obtained by The New York Times. American troops captured the Afghan man, who was found with bomb-making material, but then released him. It is unclear how Major Golsteyn tracked him down after his release.
The Army opened an investigation after Major Golsteyn told the C.I.A. about the shooting in 2011. The Army closed the case without charging Major Golsteyn, but stripped him of a Silver Star, a high honor for Special Forces soldiers.The Army opened an investigation after Major Golsteyn told the C.I.A. about the shooting in 2011. The Army closed the case without charging Major Golsteyn, but stripped him of a Silver Star, a high honor for Special Forces soldiers.
In a November 2016 appearance on Fox News, Major Golsteyn again said he had shot the man. Later that month, the Army opened a second investigation.In a November 2016 appearance on Fox News, Major Golsteyn again said he had shot the man. Later that month, the Army opened a second investigation.
Major Golsteyn signed a memo acknowledging his murder charge on Thursday. A preliminary hearing has not been scheduled, according to a spokesman for the Army Special Operations Command.Major Golsteyn signed a memo acknowledging his murder charge on Thursday. A preliminary hearing has not been scheduled, according to a spokesman for the Army Special Operations Command.
Mr. Trump’s comments on Sunday were the latest instance in which he has raised the possibility of intervening in a legal matter handled by the executive branch. Last week, he threatened to stop a Justice Department effort to extradite and prosecute a Chinese tech executive on suspicion of fraud related to Iran sanctions if it helped buttress trade negotiations with China. And on Sunday morning, Mr. Trump tweeted several times about the special counsel investigation, which he has repeatedly condemned.Mr. Trump’s comments on Sunday were the latest instance in which he has raised the possibility of intervening in a legal matter handled by the executive branch. Last week, he threatened to stop a Justice Department effort to extradite and prosecute a Chinese tech executive on suspicion of fraud related to Iran sanctions if it helped buttress trade negotiations with China. And on Sunday morning, Mr. Trump tweeted several times about the special counsel investigation, which he has repeatedly condemned.
“This is a very bad thing for the president to do,” said Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian and law professor at New York University. “It’s never a good thing for the president to involve himself in a judicial proceeding. His job is to ensure that the system of justice is protected, not to be a thumb on the scale.”
“The president,” Mr. Naftali added, “does not believe in separation of powers. Intervening by definition means that you don’t believe in separation of powers.”
Other presidents, he noted, have kept their distance. For instance, he said, President George W. Bush did not intervene in the case of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the American military prison at Abu Ghraib. “Imagine if W. had started to defend people charged with crimes of Abu Ghraib,” Mr. Naftali said.
It was unclear how Mr. Trump might proceed if he does act, but he could use his pardon power or attempt to pressure or intervene in the prosecution. Mr. Trump also has a history of reacting to television news segments in tweets, and then failing to follow up.
Mike Berry, a reservist Marine Corps judge advocate, said Mr. Trump’s tweet about Major Golsteyn did not cross the line for what is known in the military as “undue command influence” over legal proceedings.Mike Berry, a reservist Marine Corps judge advocate, said Mr. Trump’s tweet about Major Golsteyn did not cross the line for what is known in the military as “undue command influence” over legal proceedings.
Undue influence “would typically require statements expressing an opinion as to guilt or innocence, or desiring a particular outcome or sentence,” Mr. Berry said. “Saying ‘I will be reviewing’ doesn’t meet that standard.”Undue influence “would typically require statements expressing an opinion as to guilt or innocence, or desiring a particular outcome or sentence,” Mr. Berry said. “Saying ‘I will be reviewing’ doesn’t meet that standard.”
It was unclear how Mr. Trump might proceed if he does act, but he could use his pardon power or attempt to pressure or intervene in the prosecution. Mr. Trump also has a history of reacting to television news segments in tweets, and then failing to follow up.
A senior Afghan official said on Sunday that the possibility of Mr. Trump’s pardoning Major Golsteyn had not yet come up for discussion in the Afghan government. But a pardon would complicate a back-and-forth that the United States has been in with the International Criminal Court over potential investigations of American service members accused of war crimes in Afghanistan, the official said.A senior Afghan official said on Sunday that the possibility of Mr. Trump’s pardoning Major Golsteyn had not yet come up for discussion in the Afghan government. But a pardon would complicate a back-and-forth that the United States has been in with the International Criminal Court over potential investigations of American service members accused of war crimes in Afghanistan, the official said.
It could also heighten fears among many Afghans that rogue American service members will never face justice in the United States.It could also heighten fears among many Afghans that rogue American service members will never face justice in the United States.
“Major Golsteyn admitted to what appears to be a summary execution,” Patricia Gossman, the senior researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said on Sunday, adding that “it is vital that the investigation go forward and the process not be jeopardized by the president’s tweets.”“Major Golsteyn admitted to what appears to be a summary execution,” Patricia Gossman, the senior researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said on Sunday, adding that “it is vital that the investigation go forward and the process not be jeopardized by the president’s tweets.”
“There have been far too many cases of suspected killings by U.S. Special Forces units in Afghanistan where the results of investigations are never known, and no one is prosecuted, all of which has contributed to a culture of impunity within the forces, and in Afghanistan,” she said.“There have been far too many cases of suspected killings by U.S. Special Forces units in Afghanistan where the results of investigations are never known, and no one is prosecuted, all of which has contributed to a culture of impunity within the forces, and in Afghanistan,” she said.
In the “Fox & Friends” segment on Sunday, which was largely sympathetic to Major Golsteyn, Phil Stackhouse, Major Golsteyn’s lawyer, said that a prosecutor had “intimated” that the Army has new evidence in the case, but that Major Golsteyn did not admit anything in his 2016 Fox News interview that the Army did not already know.In the “Fox & Friends” segment on Sunday, which was largely sympathetic to Major Golsteyn, Phil Stackhouse, Major Golsteyn’s lawyer, said that a prosecutor had “intimated” that the Army has new evidence in the case, but that Major Golsteyn did not admit anything in his 2016 Fox News interview that the Army did not already know.
“What new evidence could there possibly be from 2010?” Mr. Stackhouse said.“What new evidence could there possibly be from 2010?” Mr. Stackhouse said.