Truth About Tillman ... Murder's Not 'Friendly Fire'

[unhappycamper]

Truth About Tillman ... Murder's Not 'Friendly Fire'
by RJ Eskow | Aug 2 2007 - 11:30pm


Once again, the Administration is pulling the old magician's trick of misdirection, this time in the Pat Tillman case. And once again, the press is falling for it. Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers focused on "what they knew and when" -- to borrow the Watergate phrase -- rather than the core issue at the heart of the Pat Tillman matter, which is this:

Pat Tillman was almost certainly murdered, and fratricide is not "friendly fire."

~snip~.

Friendly fire is commonly understood to mean the accidental death of a U. S. soldier through weapons fired by U.S. or allied troops. (See this definition.) The facts in the Tillman case make friendly fire highly unlikely. He died from three bullet holes grouped together in his forehead, fired from a M-16 that was no more than ten yards away.

Three bullet holes. In the forehead. From a M-16. That was ten yards away.

That's not "friendly fire." That's murder. (Unless Cpl. Tillman stood up in the path of another soldier's fire, took three hits precisely in the forehead, then fell before being hit again.)

As abhorrent as it was for the Administration to delay telling the family, the handling of the fratricide question was even worse. A killer's trail went cold. Now we may never know the truth.


more

[cureautismnow]

1. Yes, not-so-friendly fire is murder.

The killer should be brought to justice.

[zeemike]

2. It's fire but it ain't friendly

But this murder is not without precedent. In Viet Nam it was called "Fragging" and mostly directed at leaders who were too Hung ho for the troops they led.
And Tillman was there to fight the good fight and be a hero like he was on the game field.

[zbdent]

3. It's "pre-emptive friendly fire"

[Richard Steele]

4. This point needs to be driven home every time the Tillman case is discussed.

This was murder. Not an accident, MURDER.

5th rec.

[cascadiance]

5. We need to bring not only the murderer to justice, but also ALL who conspired to cover it up!

Any kind of conspiracy to either:

a) plan from higher up to in fact "off" him for his political views or for whatever other reason, as some have speculated might have happened.
b) plan from higher up to conceal that in fact a murder took place, or the circumstances of the killing were distorted for other agendas.

Anyone guilty of the above conspiracies should also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It might not necessarily go all the way to the top to Bush and/or Rumsfeld, but Bushco's claim of executive privilege is either trying to hide what Bushco knows and is responsible for, or they are afraid to expose those in the above kind of conspiracies from being punished and taken out of the military's command structure. As I noted before, the latter might be the true motivation, since even though Bushco might have felt that they've successfully got blocks in place to prevent impeachment through to 2008, that part of such a plan very likely could include declaring martial law and cancelling elections. If they don't have control over the military (which might be taken away by full prosecution of this conspiracy), they might not have that option, whether they've stopped impeachment or not, and then they'd be subject to criminal prosecution upon leaving office for any other misdeeds that they have already committed or are about to commit.

Note that Dave Lindorff had some mysterious things happen to his web site when he tried to post similar concerns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1496163&mesg_id=1496163

The best thing we can do here is to DEMAND that full investigations be conducted and be transparent to the public, to ensure that the entire responsibile chain of command for this incompetent or complicit coverup of what happened be punished to the fullest extent possible.

[wryter2000]

6. Thank you

I'm about to scream about this one. Friendly fire is an accident. This is murder or fragging.

[superkia]

7. I like how they answer the questions.

I watched some of the questioning on CSPAN and the only thing I got from them was something like : Oops sorry someone made mistakes. Thats it, no answer to this day. So if we are in trouble with the law, all we have to do is say I don't know what happened but someone made a mistake and it will just go away? How have they not got to the bottom of this on their own and found out who changed that witness statement and who made what they call a mistake? They are the United States Government and they don't look into matters this important? Why does this make no sense at all to me?