DID PAT TILLMAN REACH OUT FROM THE GRAVE?

[kpete]

DID PAT TILLMAN REACH OUT FROM THE GRAVE?

Whatever Stanley McChrystal does with his life, panding to neocon extremists, the “book” and the tours that go with it or real retirement, the murder of Pat Tillman will follow him to the end of his days.

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

THE “TILLMAN STAIN”

McChrystal had been bloodied before, particularly by the Pat Tillman affair. Tillman was an amazing man, a top professional footballer who left a multi-million dollar career to become an Army Ranger. Far from being a typical “dumb jock,” Tillman was a brilliant scholar and student of philosophy. On April 22, 2004, Tillman was killed in Afghanistan. He was posthumously awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. The death, like every other tragedy from 9/11 to Terry Schiavo, was played for maximum publicity by the Bush administration, milked, not only to promote war but as blatant self aggrandizement for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, leaders whose military credentials were in serious need of a bit of polish.

General McChrystal issued a report siting enemy action for the death but later sent out a report indicating possible friendly fire as the actual cause. Chris Matthews of Hardall, on July 26, 2007 cited the killing as “fragging” a form of intentional homocide. Autopsy results indicated no possible rationale for Cpl. Tillman’s death other than a premediated murder, with multiple 5.56mm bullets striking the Ranger in a tight pattern. These were carefully aimed shots fired from only a few feet away, no other explanation is possible although many were given, and supported by the Army. The doctors who examined the wounds said “murder” but the Army had another agenda, one General McChrystal signed onto, one of deception.

What began to come out was that every word released by the Army under the watchful authority of General McChrystal was a lie, not just the murder being depicted as “enemy action” but every detail of the continually changing stories describing what now looks to be a political assassination. Cpl. Tillman had begun to openly discuss views “unfavorable” to the continuation of the war. Tillman was not the “George Bush” crusader robot he was supposed to be. He had disappointed. He was going to have to pay.

With the presence of a sniper team nearby, a fact previously withheld, the source of the virtual “firing squad” salvo that killed Tillman was obvious. What is also obvious is that Tillman was murdered at the direct orders of the highest authorities of the White House. One “dead Tillman” talking peace could have been worth a thousand “live Tillmans” in the field, if all of those threatened and coerced had only kept silent.

more:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/23/gordon-duff-the-afghanistan-circus-mcchrystal-leaves-the-center-ring/

[hedgehog]

1. It'd be cute if this did go up to Bush and the info came out.

[democrank]

2. K & R

[cliffordu]

3. Which begs the question WTF would be the purpose?

Why kill a high profile dude like him?

Just stupid.

And one more thingy -

Snipers in Afghanistan don't use the 5.56, as far as I know.

That's a standard grunt rifle round.

IT CAN be accurate at distance, but for real sniper work, the

7.62mm,(.308) and the .50 cal....

Some of the high zoot european rounds these days from what I read.

[grantcart]

5. Hey this whole thing is based on Chris Matthews expert view on the battlefield

And he did such a good job with that whole Vietcong thingy.



I am surprised that you didn't remark that the premise of the allegation is that there would be awhole host of oustanding American serviceman in the chain of command who would have been happy to participate in cold blooded murder.

Simple friendly fire is just too mundane.

[cliffordu]

9. Yeah, I didn't get that far because of how stupid the whole

fucking thing is.

Kick him in the junk?

Maybe.

Kill him up close and personal?

prolly not.

[mistertrickster]

63. I agree that it seems unlikely on the face of it. Did other soldiers come under fire too, that day?

I wonder where an accurate accounting of this can be found.

[sabrina 1]

16. What would be the purpose?

It was before the 2004 election. Pat Tillman had become disillusioned with the war and was communicating with some prominent liberal thinkers.

He was Bush' poster boy for the Great and Glorious War on Terror. A well-known football hero who by signing up to fight in the war, was the best free PR for their war they could have imagined.

But when he saw it up close and began to talk about his disillusionment, that was a problem for them, especially before the election.

I don't know what happened, I do know that they lied and attempted to use him to help get Bush re-elected even after his death by telling a fairy tale about how he died. They never counted then on the integrity of his family, who did not want lies told about their son.

Would they be stupid enough to silence him? They were stupid enough to destroy his personal possessions, uniform, journal etc and publish a false, Hollywood type fairy tale about he died. They were stupid enough to start this war.

It may be that it was an accident they knew would look bad for them especially considering how high profile he was. Not the picture they wanted painted of the military or of their (former) poster boy hero. So McCrystal helped cover it up.

Or it could be something more sinister, who knows? But they lie and they do stupid things, since you ask, so anything is possible and since the truth has not been told to the satisfaction his family and friends, people will speculate. Which is why integrity is so important. Once trust was destroyed, we are free to ask 'if they would lie like that, what else are they capable of'?

[Statistical]

49. Also....

IF you were a block-ops tillman sniper killing team..... :rofl:

Utterly stupid but lets say for the sake of argument you are and you have orders from President and you intend to carry them out and you routinely and expertely engage in asssination attempts......

DOESN'T ANYONE THINK THEY WOULD SIMPLY USE A RUSSIAN SNIPER RIFLE AND THUS LEAVE BEHIND "RUSSIAN/TALIBAN" BULLETS IN THE CORPSE?

If Tillman had died from 7.62x54mm Soviet from a long range sniper we wouldn't even be having this utterly stupid thread right now. Right?

[SpiralHawk]

4. McChrystal and the Republicons will bear this shame through eternity

and well they should for what they did to an honorable American hero, Ranger Pat Tillman.

[Butch350]

76. This article will be long forgotten by monday morning...

...or when football season begins. Americans attention span lasts about as long a horror movie.

[Schema Thing]

6. Gordon Duff is a fiction writer who isn't fit to mention Pat Tillman's name.

[hootinholler]

7. My glib side says

Just like Powell carries Mai Lai.

I think the jury is still out on McC having ill effects.

-Hoot

[Ron Green]

8. This is good stuff, but geez, I wish the guy had a proofreader.

It's painful to see material this important diminished by misspellings and typos.

[Fading Captain]

10. This is bunk

Do people read this stuff before they recommend or comment?

[PBS Poll-435]

22. .

:)

[Oregone]

11. "Tillman was a brilliant scholar and student of philosophy"

Ok...Im not here to piss on Tillman. But if this were the case, its tough to reconcile it with the fact that he got conned into being a national propaganda symbol in an imperialistic war. He became the poster boy of the late American fascist movement and ended up as fodder.

[gratuitous]

13. That certainly caught my eye, too

A circle like that is tough to square.

[sabrina 1]

18. Well, he didn't want to be that symbol. He specifically

asked that he be treated like every other soldier as he was aware that that might happen. I think he sincerely did believe it was his duty, as he said, since he had been given so much by this country, not to leave the fighting to others. He was a person of real integrity and did read a lot and was a very deep thinker. He was a bit admirer eg, of Noam Chomsky and had expressed his intention to meet with him when he returned home.

That exploded the heads of people like Hannity who refused to believe it btw.

It was the fact that he was a thinker, that caused him to become disillusioned while in Iraq and to gravitate to people like Chomsky. So I really don't find that statement to be that unbelievable.

[Oregone]

19. "I think he sincerely did believe it was his duty"

Exactly...not entirely the mark of brilliance. I would have more respect for his intellectual ability had he just lit a joint and watched the world burn around him.

[sabrina 1]

21. I was amazed at how many people responded to 9/11

with support for war as the solution. I know many Liberals who were as certain that this was the way to deal with terrorism as Republicans.

I always saw it as being used as an excuse to start a war somewhere. Most people were frightened by the attack and some, however reluctantly, made the mistake of trusting the Bush administration to do what they thought was right. I think he couldn't conceive of anyone being that evil and he, foolishly, trusted his government. He grew emotionally and intellectually once he saw what was going on there. Some people never do.

I agree with you, and I wish he had not had such faith in the goodness of his fellow Americans. He would be alive today. He paid the ultimate price for that mistake, maybe more so because it was known he had realized it.

[SoxFan]

24. Pat Tillman is 1,000X the human being you will ever be

He understood that a sense of duty and patriotism transcended partisanship and politics. He understood that at a time of crisis, the heavy lifting should be shared by all, not carried solely by the lower economic strata.

But some of you will go on smugly looking down your noses at those of us who went down to the recruiting station and raised our hands. Fine. Take the easy way out.

[Oregone]

26. You don't know me, and if what you say is true, I disagree

"sense of duty and patriotism transcended partisanship and politics"

Duty and patriotism are merely human constructs created to manipulate a populace to fight for the interest of the elite. A brilliant scholar would understand that, and probably see themself as a world citizen with duty only to pursuing truth (or pleasure for the hedonist).


"He understood that at a time of crisis, the heavy lifting should be shared by all..."

Why now...that implies that heavy lifting being a necessary action is an accepted premise.


"some of you will go on smugly looking down your noses at those of us who went down to the recruiting station and raised our hands"

Sorry, yes. That is the case. I understand if you were simply looking for employment or a good benefit package, but beyond that, don't fool yourself.


"1,000X the human being you will ever be"

Applying arbitrary, varying values to human life doesn't seem like the mark of brilliance.

[SoxFan]

29. Oh, so now you know why I enlisted?

This is rich.

I guess Wes Clark, Beau Biden, and John Kerry have to be thrown out and replaced with Enlightened Philosopher Kings and Queens.

[Oregone]

31. I know nothing about you

But I hope you signed up for the food, pay and bennies.

Im not trying to turn this into a you vs me pissing match. Im talking about a rather serious matter actually, and wondering if an high-level intellectual could actually be victims to Bush's propaganda, which was very fascist (a word I do not invoke often).

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death

[AlbertCat]

54. "You don't know me,"

Nor did he know Pat Tillman....

Your detractor doesn't know what he's talking about.

[mistertrickster]

65. +1. My son was in Iraq. When duty calls, thank God we still have Americans who answer. nt

[Oregone]

67. What is duty?

Can we see it? Can we measure it? Can we prove it exists?

If not, what is the value of "feeling" it and believing in it? What is the value of having this feeling motivate an action?

[mistertrickster]

68. The issue is too complex to argue on a blog, IMHO. But it'd be nice if people who

put their lives on the line for others sitting in comfort at home don't have to be dissed.

[Oregone]

69. Discussing a complex issue isn't the same as an insult

Unfortunately, any issue regarding "duty" and the US military is considered virtual sacrilege, and discussion is often reciprocated with stone-walling attacks. This is sad, because authority has woven a narrative that really restricts exploring these issues constructively. Until we can peel back all these layers without hostility, they will exist and only act to boost the war efforts of the elite.

Questioning these concepts is not tantamount to attacking soldiers who "put their lives on the line for others", and the ability to do so should have no relevance to one's own military experience. Both those ideas are perpetrated by authority to stifle debate.

[mistertrickster]

66. dupe deleted nt

[SoxFan]

23. Yes, because all soldiers are just dumb fucks incapable of thought

[Oregone]

25. Strawman

Thats not what Im saying. Rather, more along the lines of:

Brilliant scholars and students of philosophy don't end up dying for imperialistic causes on a battlefield.

Shouldn't this brilliance insulate one from propaganda and emotional manipulation that uses patriotic mediums? Can someone steeped in philosophy actually also be an active player in such a conflict by their own choosing, rather than an unattached observer of human behavior?

I just don't know.

[SoxFan]

28. Pseudoprogressive twaddle

But I guess since I wore BDUs for ten years, I'm too stupid to matter.

Read up on just war theory.

Study the life of George Marshall.

Or just stay insulated in your own little cocoon.

[Oregone]

30. So a brilliant scholar and philosopher is vulnerable to emotional manipulation and state propaganda?

Is that what you are suggesting?

And yes, I'm putting forth that those who signed up to fight directly in response to 9/11 and the subsequent media & political campaigns were victims of "emotional manipulation and state propaganda"

[trotsky]

41. Your prejudice against soldiers is astonishing.

There are below-average grunts, and there are geniuses all out there. Just like in a lot of workplaces, and even on DU.

[Oregone]

43. Thats how you are attempting to frame it

Its not prejudice against soldiers that I show, but rather, respect for scholars & philosophers. It is tough for me to accept that brilliant, well-studied minds of liberal sciences would be victim of Bush's post 9/11 fascist propaganda. OTOH, I'm not stating only below-average idiots would be, as those creating Straw Men would try to insist. The opposite of "Brilliance" is by no means "below-average"; rather, it can be everyone else up to that pinnacle.

This shows how the propaganda is lingering. You cannot so much as invoke tough questions regarding military service at this time without people painting you out to be a villain. Its pure anti-intellectualism.

[trotsky]

46. The only framing going on is by you.

What you are essentially saying is that, "Only stupid people would be willing to fight in Afghanistan."

This shows how the propaganda is lingering.

Oh, of course. I'm an ignorant moron too, falling for the propaganda.

[Oregone]

48. "What you are essentially saying is"

That you are creating Straw Men Arguments


"Only stupid people would be willing to fight in Afghanistan."

No, but rather, a very few considered brilliant scholars and philosophers would not have been willing to engage in that conflict.

Do you believe that everyone besides brilliant scholars & philosophers are "stupid people"? I don't. Its sad if you believe that.

[trotsky]

50. You're not even forming coherent sentences now.

No, but rather, a very few considered brilliant scholars and philosophers would not have been willing to engage in that conflict.

"a very few" ... "would NOT have" (fought) Say what?

Figure out exactly what it is you want to say, and state it, please.

[Oregone]

52. Its quite coherent

Exceptional minds steeped in philosophy would not have fought in this war

Everyone besides those few considered to be a "brilliant scholar and student of philosophy" are not below-average or stupid.

What is it you are trying to do, aside from misconstrue my words?

[trotsky]

55. "Exceptional minds steeped in philosophy would not have fought in this war"

Bullshit. I'm sorry that you think this. It is a terribly elitist POV.

[Oregone]

56. Well that is the premise I was putting forth to debate

And after a slew of attacks and straw men, your only real refutation is "Bullshit". So much for a civil discussion

Meh.

[trotsky]

58. Oh you put forth plenty of strawmen of your own.

And yes, my response to elitist judgmental claptrap is going to be a simple "bullshit." You didn't back up your claim whatsoever, so I feel no need do any more.

[Oregone]

60. "You didn't back up your claim whatsoever"

True, but we didn't really get to initiate a civil debate. I will say, from the outset, I can think of only a few notable philosophers who may have willingly engaged in conflict (most notably Socrates and Rawls). There were others like Descartes, but writings suggest he enjoyed the travel and down time more than the duty and conflict.

On the other hand, if you throw a dart at the grand philosopher name sheet, you will most likely hit a pacifist or a draftee. And with the post-modern rise of existentialism and humanism, more contemporary scholars would have quite a different view of citizenship and duty than earlier philosophers (Rawls being an exception of course).

By in large, I just can't find a slew of historical examples of philosophers I could *guess* would drop everything in Bush's America and sign up and fight in Afghanistan for reasons beyond travel and employment (oh yes, philosopher is another word for the chronically unemployed).

Modern philosophy just doesn't really teach us we should exist to follow an authority, or believe an authority, or even recognize an authority. It doesn't even teach us we should act upon beliefs, no matter how noble and benign, or even believe for that matter. Its really tough to comprehend that a student of philosophy would see themselves as part of Something (because of where they were geographically born), that they had a Duty for this Something, and that they know enough Truths to even properly act upon that Duty in an ethical manner.

[trotsky]

73. Hold on, I'm adjusting to where you just moved the goalposts.

You originally took issue with this particular phrase: "Tillman was a brilliant scholar and student of philosophy"

Now you've backed off into looking at the famous philosophers of history and trying to examine their willingness to fight, and somehow coming up with the ... wait for it ... STRAW MAN that others are suggesting Tillman was on their level.

And you STILL continue to frame the war in Afghanistan as solely a Bush admin propaganda campaign. What about the Taliban? Do you think they should have been stopped? What about harboring the guy who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks? What about the support we got from NATO and other allies? Did they all go along with it because they were duped by Bush cronies? Must not be any TRUE philosophers in the Oregone tradition in any of those countries. :shrug:

[Oregone]

75. Well now...

A scholar and student of philosophy would look to philosophers who based their lives on their philosophy for examples, no? I mean, philosophers' lives were manifestations of philosophy, so then I ask, wouldn't a student of such philosophy also have a life that manifests in such a manner? Those notable people saw the world in a different way, and thought in a different manner, all influencing their actions. A student of them is aware and capable of doing the same (but yes, it is a leap to assume he actually did just that). On the other hand, the author of their piece was constructing quite the pedestal...


"What about the Taliban?"

What about them?


"Do you think they should have been stopped?"

Not by me. I have things to do.


"What about the support we got from NATO and other allies?"

Well, honoring alliances doesn't mean they agree with the war. It may mean they are honoring an "obligation" to ensure mutual defense if attacked by a non-NATO member. That is how treaties essentially work. It can also result in economic aid and beneficial trade agreements


"Did they all go along with it because they were duped by Bush cronies?"

They don't have to be duped. They can understand the ridiculous nature of a war, but see their non-participation as being far less in their interests. They are nations, not people, right?

[haele]

72. Can we stop arguing "either/or" constructs?

There were also a very few considered brilliant scholars and philosophers who had previously been considered progressive or pacifist who initially supported the war - and torture.
The reasons anyone embarks or refuses to embark on an action, no matter their intelligence or dedication, are always myriad - and much is based on their own reactions from their personal background. It's an easy thing to say "it was patriotism" when discussing why someone as intelligent, educated, and lucky as Pat Tillman enlisted, but it's not the whole reason he did. (And, of course, once he did enlist, he was locked into that decision) And since he's dead now, anything we say about the underlying reasons as to what drove him to enlist is pretty much hearsay, even if he initially claimed a particular reason as his primary motivation at the time.
I could give you at least sixty different reasons why I enlisted - and subsequently re-enlisted - back in 1977; even so, if you looked at my hippie upbringing background, you couldn't believe that I would have willingly worn a uniform and gone in the life direction I have for the past 32 years.

One could just as easily say that any brilliant philosopher who would sit back, light a joint, and watch the world burn is nothing but an intellectually lazy cynic.

But since I was growing up in the midst of both the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement and that I'm still the "office hippie intellectual pinko" on a break before the last boring meeting of the morning while working in a government facility today, I wouldn't say that. I've seen that people don't always act on what they consider their convictions the same way, even on the same day. It's never clear-cut, and there's always a different set of opposing forces shaping how someone reacts.

Peace. This intellectual spit-ball contest is going nowhere.

Haele

[CBR]

32. Stay Classy! nt

[PSzymeczek]

35. I don't think Pat Tillman got conned.

I think he was an idealist and became disillusioned.

[AlbertCat]

57. I think he was an idealist and became disillusioned.

BINGO!


(But that is akin to being conned)

[Chulanowa]

37. I never heard of him until he was already dead

I don't think he had much say in his sudden idolization.

[Oregone]

44. Ah. You must of been living in a hole.

Very popular he was

[Ex Lurker]

38. He didn't sign up as a propaganda ploy, and steadfastly avoided publicity

He refused to grant interviews or allow his picture to be taken. The PR campaign started after his death, without his permission.

[rhett o rick]

42. For not being "here to piss on Tillman." you're doing a damn good job.

Let me see if I can decipher your point. If Tillman was "a brilliant scholar..." he shouldnt have gotten "conned" into supporting the war. So you are saying that he either wasnt "a brilliant scholar.." or he knew he was supporting a fascist movement. Which is it? You are pissing on him in either case. It also strikes me that you are using one of the two arguments to rationalize away his death, "fodder" as you call it.

You dont address the possibility of his being murdered, possibly at the direction of the WH. He didnt deserve being murdered and then having it covered up. And he doesnt deserve being "pissed on".

[Oregone]

45. I'm not rationalizing away anything

I'm simply attempting to discuss a contentious point of the article in a more abstract form; and by abstract, it doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with this specific individual. Can a brilliant scholar and philosopher end up being a chess piece due to fascist propaganda used to spearhead an imperialistic war? What do you think? Yes or no?


""fodder" as you call it"

I invoked the word as a contrast to the pedestal the author of this article was creating. Whether or not that build up was actually absolutely true, or rather, used for dramatic effect, the end result was death


"You dont address the possibility of his being murdered"

No, I don't. I don't know if its true or not. Ive wondered for a long time. Thats not entirely relevant to the tangent I'm curious about, and quite disturbing if true.

[rhett o rick]

51. Do I thnk a "brilliant scholar...." can be duped? Of course. But to me that's not the issue.

The OP was embellished, certainly, but since this is an important story that has been successfully shut down by our oppressors, I forgive the author.

[Oregone]

53. No, its not the issue

I'm sorry, but reading the OP caused me to go on a tangent; a tangent that seems to cause knee-jerk anger.

I didn't bring it up to refute the main point, shut-it-down, or ignore it. If anything, Ive bumped the thread for others.

I just think its important to be fully accurate. Especially in matters of war and death. Embellishing those who sacrificed their lives in wars is something that can work both ways, and often is used on the other side, in a fascist attempt to promote service to the state. Clearly, it wasn't being used here in that manner.

[GliderGuider]

61. "Smart people" are just as susceptible to emotion and propaganda as anyone else.

I think Dr. Paul MacLean's "Triune Brain" hypothesis has a lot to say about this.

The brain has three structures -- from oldest to newest they are the reptilian complex that governs behaviors like aggression, dominance, territoriality, and ritual displays, the limbic system that is responsible for emotions related to herding behaviour, and the neocortex that is responsible for all intellectual activity.

The interesting part of the story is that the older the brain structure, the more profoundly it influences our emotions and behaviour. This means that the reptilian complex has the most influence on our behaviour, and the neocortex has the least. Patriotism is a very slick combination of reptilian and limbic influences ("They are threatening your country/family/way of life!" combined with "Everyone feels like this, you should too!")

This all implies that "even" great thinkers can be influenced into aggressive behaviour by appeals to patriotism. In this situation the neocortex is usually reduced to providing post-facto intellectual justifications for emotionally driven decisions already taken by the older parts of the brain.

This is the reason why authoritarian regimes that depend on aggression to maintain power usually use strong appeals to patriotism to consolidate their support base. The reptilian/limbic combination is enough to take intellectual considerations out of the loop for most people, and is why you often find prominent intellectuals supporting fascist regimes. I maintain that you can gauge a nation's slide into authoritarianism by looking at increases in official appeals to patriotism.

I have no idea whether any of this applied to Pat Tillman, but it certainly means that no matter how great a scholar he was, he was in theory just as vulnerable to patriotic appeals as the rest of us.

[Oregone]

64. Thanks. Good response

[EOTE]

12. One question.

Well, there are probably more questions than this one, but it stuck out at me.

They seem to suggest that this sniper team was the obvious culprit in Tillman's death. But before that, they mention that he was shot from only a few feet away. If that was the case, why would a sniper team be necessary? Wouldn't it have been far more covert if they sniped him from a distance? Seems rather odd to me.

[tom_paine]

14. FINALLY, someone with the guts to speak what has been obvious for quite some time

Tillman was murdered. The entire history of the incident reads like a bad crime novel in which sloppy criminals give everything away.

Let us never forget the one key element here that prevented it. To paraphrase another's quote: "Regular criminals dream of committing the Perfect Crime. State Criminals dream of fully controlling the Crime Scene to eliminate any evidence."

Let me also add to that State Criminals dream of full media control so they can commit crimes in plain sight, be exposed and STILL be in no danger of consequences.

Poor Tillman - he never had a chance the moment he walked into the Bush Mafia's Clutches where he could be assassinated at will. Of course, being the decent, honorable man he was, he probably could not conceive that the US Military had been taken over by such low criminal thugs.

That happens alot to Liberals - we have trouble understanding Authoritarian Evil, sop it kills us while we are still navel-gazing and trying to figure out if what we saw is true, if the Authoritarians could possibly be as heartless and conscience-less as they seem.

Hint: They are.

[Raksha]

70. I am one liberal who finally woke up, and I'm not sure how.

But I fully comprehend authoritarian evil. Which is not to say I "comprehend" it. because I still can't wrap my mind around what it would mean to have no conscience, but I do understand that there are people with no concience and a LOT of power.

Re "That happens alot to Liberals - we have trouble understanding Authoritarian Evil, sop it kills us while we are still navel-gazing and trying to figure out if what we saw is true, if the Authoritarians could possibly be as heartless and conscience-less as they seem.

Hint: They are."

It's kind of lonely to tell you the truth. I KNOW my family and friends aren't stupid, but they simply don't comprehend this kind of evil, when it comes to understanding the behavior of either the Bush Mafia or the Israeli Likudniks. They persist in thinking there is some kind of noble or at least necessary end being pursued by cruel and ruthless means. I can't seem to get them to understand that the end is every bit as amoral as the means.

ONLY when you have some comprehension of the total evil of the psychopathic mind does something like the murder of Pat Tillman become comprehensible. It appears that Pat Tillman himself finally woke up, but he woke up too late to save his own life. By the time it happened, he was already in the iron jaws of the trap and nothing could save him.

[HelenWheels]

15. Best Tillman book

"Where Men Win Glory" by Jon Krakauer. I learned so much about Pat. I never knew the depth of this man before I read this. What a wonderful man he was and what a tragic end he had.

[JDPriestly]

36. Who was with Pat Tillman when he died? When he was killed?

Someone was. Someone knows first hand precisely what happened.

I wonder whether that person is still alive. I wonder if that person will ever come forward.

There may have been more than one person with Pat Tillman when he died. If so, where are they? Will they come forward? Or are they too cowardly to tell the American people what really happened?

This story will not end until all the facts are known.

[happyslug]

62. and those facts will NEVER be known for there is no statute of Limitations for Murder

And, from what I have read, while it is probable that only one person shot Tillman, every person in his section (Squad in US army terminology) saw it happened, who did it and why AND NONE OF THEM ARE SPEAKING. That implies one thing, all of them were involved and that means more then saying "I saw nothing" after the fact. I suspect someone in the unit cracked and Tillman, not having the training to handle such a situation, berated the killer who then lashed out at Tillman by killing him. That fits the facts, Tillman was killed by a three round burst at relatively close range (Believed to be less then 50 feet, it is hard to keep a three round burst, firing with a hand held rifle, within a man size target at ranges greater then that). Everyone in the squad saw it being done and immediately covered up the incident. For example one way to change the ballistics of a Rifle is to fire a lot of rounds through it. The Squad members may have each taken turns shooting the weapon that killed Tillman so that by the time anyone could have checked out the rifle, the ballistics would have changed enough to make a match impossible. Each member of the squad could have taken turns shooting the rifle with their own ammunition thus accessories after the fact.

Given NO ONE from his squad has come out to say what happened I suspect ALL of them are being quite, most have seen an attorney by now and been told to keep quite. I also suspect his superiors in at company level also participated in the Cover up, maybe even losing the records of who had what rifle on the day of the killing. I suspect for the same reason squad covered it up, Tillman was TO AGGRESSIVE even for the Special Forces Unit he was in. Thus the shooter seems to have support at company level. Once the Company decided to cover it up, there was not much anyone higher up could do. Any evidence will be at company level and any First Sargent would have long destroyed any relevant records to the incident (including shooting the rifle some more, even if that meant just taking everyone to the range to shoot their rifles) and told the people who saw the killing to be quite or all of them would go to jail.

Notice, no actions at higher level was needed to cover up this incident (unlike My Lai where the Massacre was part of a Battalion level Operation including a demand from the Divisional Commander for a body count and was seen by people of another command, i.e. the Helicopter crew supporting the ground operations). This is the type of incident any good First Sergeant can bury and bury deep making sure no officer has any first hand knowledge of who did what. If anyone above the First Sargent starts to ask question, all the First Sergeant has to do is tell everyone to claim they right NOT to incriminate themselves. Given that by that time there would be no way any investigator could determine who was and was NOT the shooter, given immunity would be dangerous (i.e. if the person you gave immunity to, claim to be the killer, you can NOT use that statement against him OR against any other member of the Squad, simply put such a grant of immunity gives the shooter a get out of jail card). Thus unless the investigator can determine who was the actual shooter, granting immunity could lead to punishing the other members of the Squad (For NOT reporting the killing to their Commander) but leaving the Killer go free.

These are the road blocks in any investigation of Tillman's death, and unless the Government wants to give everyone involved, including the shooter, immunity, what really happened will never come out.

[JDPriestly]

77. There is a simple answer -- the prosecutor indicts the entire

squad. Someone will talk. Someone always does. This murder has not been solved because somebody higher up does not, did not, want to solve it.

Felony murder. If a murder is committed while you are committing a crime you are as guilty as the person who actually committed it.

Accomplice before and after the fact.

Conspiracy. And several other charges specific to the military.

The prosecutor just hasn't done his or her job yet. Pat Tillman's mother needs to keep prodding on this. The truth will be known -- unless all the squad members have since died or disappeared somehow.

[happyslug]

78. On what Charge? The Prosecutor MUST have some evidence to do so.

One of the "Problems" with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is you need something call EVIDENCE before you can arrest anyone. This includes evidence that the person arrested violated a known crime. Not possible violated a law, DID violate the law. Furthermore the right to remain silent is absolute under the UCMJ (as it in Civil Courts and the former Articles of War).

Thus you can NOT indict a soldier who says NOTHING. The law PRESUMES he would have denied having any knowledge (if he denies knowing and does know, that is a crime, but if he pleads the fifth, the law PRESUMES he could have said he said he saw nothing). In simple terms unless the Prosecutor has some evidence that a soldier KNOWS something and did NOT tell his superiors AND that soldier had NOTHING to do with the Murder, then and only then can THAT soldier be Charged (or if the Prosecutor has EVIDENCE who did the actual Shooting, then that person can be charged with Murder). I have NOT seen anything that shows that any ONE soldier fits that set of facts. You can NOT be indicted for being NEAR a crime. You can NOT be indicted for MAYBE being involved. The prosecutor MUST have evidence connecting a soldier with a crime. That is the problem. You can NOT indict EVERYONE in a squad, guilty or innocent (and the law PRESUMES they are innocent). You need evidence to indict anyone and I have NOT heard of any evidence connecting any one soldier with a crime (including the Murder). Thus what you are suggesting is illegal and if it was permitted by a law, that law would be in violation of the Bill of Rights (When you are in the Military the ONLY right listed in the Bill of Rights you lose is the right to a Grand Jury Indictment, all other rights remain with some restrictions do to their status of being soldiers i.e. freedom of Speech is restricted if it affects military operations).

[JDPriestly]

81. Can they determine which servicemen or women were in the area?

How about charging those who were there with obstruction of justice to start?

Also, can't they take depositions of those most likely have to been in the area just as witnesses, not as suspects giving a couple of them immunity in order to find out key facts?

It is absolutely cruel to the Tillman family to leave this case so poorly investigated. It is disrespectful to the dead.

[happyslug]

82. You have to have evidence that they saw something

Unless the soldier speaks up, the law presumes he saw nothing. If you saw nothing, you are NOT obstruction justice. Thus unless the prosecutor can show that A person should have saw something, there is no evidence of obstruction of Justice.

Furthermore, because every member of the Squad is a subject, he has to be told his rights BEFORE any questioning. If he asks for an attorney one MUST be appointed and that attorney, even if he is an officer, comes under the same rules of confidently as a private attorney. i.e. The defense attorney can NOT tell the prosecution ANYTHING against his client's interests.

The problem is the "Key facts" are known to only a handful of men, all members of the Squad. Furthermore in modern Tactics soldiers are told to be about 10 feet from each other, so that no more then two to three are killed with any mortar round that lands near by. Thus a Squad may be spread out 20-50 feet, with only a limited number of them having the opportunity of seeing anything. Worse, everyone but the killer did NOT seen anything AND two or three members of the Squad may have been in a position to fire the fatal shots. i.e. the only person who knows who did the shooting is the shooter.

One of the problems with Television and the Movies is the limit of the Screen. We see combat on a very area, so to maximize the picture on the ground. The Average distance a person is shot at is about 90 yards (just smaller then a football field). Go to a park and try to image being engaged in combat (I known, no actual fighting was occurring when Tillman was killed, but the squad had to act as if the enemy was present). Go to one side of a Football field and see what you can see on the other side and then think about what you can see at that distance with trees, rocks and holes and trenches blocking your vision. Furthermore image that the width of the battlefield is NOT the 40 yards width of a football field but 100s of yards wide. Remember you have to stay close enough to support your fellow squad members BUT also far enough apart so that any one shell does not take out more then 1-2 of you. No the area Tillman was killed was NOT tree heavy, but is a rough area with lots of rocks and holes to hide in and go for cover. In such a situation no one may have seen anything EXCEPT the shooter who is NOT talking. Furthermore if the other members of the Squad did see anything, the above gives them more then enough of a cover story to support a claim of not seeing anything (Or more precisely, for the prosecutor to be forced to assume that is the case).

I am sorry, the number of suspect is small, but includes everyone who would also be a witness. If none of them what to talk, for the very good reason they saw nothing, all they heard was an M-16 going off and it could have been anyone's in the squad (and maybe even the Squad's two automatic weapon operator's weapon Squad Automatic Weapon).

I suspect you have 3-4 soldiers who are suspects, the members of the fire team (Or whatever Special forces call their Fire Teams) who were in the same area Tillman was as the Squad Leader. Any of them could have shot Tillman and given the nature of the combat in Afghanistan all can claim they were looking elsewhere. Right after ward who ever became commander of the Unit ordered a Reconnaissance by fire (An technique popular in Vietnam, but I do NOT know about Afghanistan). Reconnaissance by fire is every man in the unit fires his unit on full automatic in all directions to see what turns up with the huge increase in gun fire. That may have been enough to make any ballistic tests of the rifles and the bullets that Kill Tillman impossible to determine (And given the effect of any bullet proof vest on such bullets, the bullets may be so damaged that a ballistic test is impossible if the bullets stayed in Tillman's body. The bullets may have gone in one side and out the other. Remember we are talking about Full Metal Jacketed bullets and that is a well known "problem" with such bullets (To avoid bullets from going in one side and out the other Most states FORBID the use of Full Metal Jacket bullets for hunting, at the same time Full Metal Jacket bullets is the only LEGAL bullet for combat soldiers to use.

Furthermore, the US Army has a shortage of Troops, there are NOT going to keep troops out of Combat for this type of investigation. Furthermore Studies have shown that when people go through a crisis together, they tend to stick together afterward. This NOT do to an desire to cover up crimes, but that since they survived an ordeal together, helping each other, they come to see each other as being themselves. For one of them to give up a comrade would be like them giving up themselves. Most people in such a situation would prefer to commit suicide then to give up one of their former comrades. The Army knows this and it is one of the brick walls the army is hitting and has hit since Tillman's death (And worse, as can be seen when the survivors of the Treblinka Death Camp in all agreed that Demenjuk was Ivan the Terrible, even when many of them said Ivan the Terrible was killed in front of their own eyes? Why change, because one of their fellow survivors said Demenjuk was Ivan, that was all any of them needed to know, they would support that man's testimony for he survived Treblinka with them and as such they are united forever by that ordeal). The same with the Soldiers in this unit, do to the fact they fought TOGETHER they now think as one and they would rather die then testify against one of their comrades in arms. Thus the soldiers in that unit may all say and believe that Tillman died from an Afghani AK-47 even if the Medical evidence shows it was an M-16. You will NOT be able to convince them of that fact for that means rejecting their comrades who they have fought and survived with. Given that choice, Science must be wrong, for they comrades could NOT have done anything wrong.

Sorry, I suspect the Army has looked into Tillman's death and believes he was shot by one of three to four men, but ALL of them are saying the bullet came from an AK-47 even after they were told it was an American M-16. What Ballistic evidence that did exist was destroyed by subsequent use of the Squads M-16s either in Combat or Training (If enough of the Bullets survived and were recovered from Tillman's Body). Thus there is no evidence tyeing any one soldier will killing Tillman and none of the men who had the opportunity are talking (And when they talk Tillman was killed by an AK-47 and that is the story they are sticking with for they had been and maybe still are comrades who fought and survived together).

Please note in the above piece I used the Term "Comrade" instead of "Friend" for the simple reasons these men may have nothing in common except their common Combat Experience. Thus the term "Comrade" is more accurate the "Friend" for they may NOT be friends, in many ways they may be closer then friends and at the same time more distant. They will go out of their way to help each other, even if they hate each other. You can have a African American helping a Klansman for they may have ended up in the same unit and enduring the same ordeal together. That did NOT change their world view, the Klansman will stay Klansman, but if that African American is ever in trouble and he finds out, he be the first to help that African American. That is how close such ordeals make people, even while they world view and the people they view as friends do NOT change. Thus my use of the term "Comrade" as opposed to "Friend".

[JDPriestly]

83. Thanks for this explanation.

50 feet is about the length of an average-sized lot in my urban neighborhood, that is the portion of the lot that is parallel to the street. Lots are maybe 50x150 or 200 on average. Depending on the terrain, you can easily see what is going on in pretty much any direction for 50 feet. It is not that far.

The military sometimes prosecutes friendly fire cases. How do they identify the suspect or suspects in the cases they do try?

As for representation by counsel, that is routine. A suspect can answer questions although represented by counsel. Theoretically, you cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment without grounds in a civil case. Was Tillman married? Someone might be able to bring some sort of wrongful death or other civil case related to this matter and then take depositions. It is not so easy to invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil matter if you committed no crime. In my experience, a judge does not have to accept a Fifth Amendment claim in a civil court without establishing that the grounds for the claim have merit. That may just be peculiar to my own experience. But I have seen a judge require substantiation of the right to claim the Fifth.

[happyslug]

84. The problem is by statute the only benefit is veteran's Benefits

Under the Common Law, anyone harmed by anyone else within the service (Including enlistees against Officers) could sue each other for torts that occurred while serving. By statute that has been completely reversed. People can NOT sue for harms that they suffer while in the service. The right to sue for torts was taken away by statute for people in the military in exchange for the right to what we call Veterans Benefits. Thus, when Tillman was killed all his widow could sue for is VA benefits. She she has received those she had nothing to sue for.

In friendly fire cases it depends on what caused the fire. For example during Desert Storm One, an incident involved an Apache Helicopter destroying some American Armored Vehicles. The Key evidence was the video used by the Pilot when he aimed the missiles AND the radio transmissions between the Chopper and ground forces that called in the Air Strike. Both sources were obtained quickly and used in the case against the Helicopter crew.

When I was in the Artillery, we always had to keep track of the degree the cannon was set up and down, and its left or right degree. We had to keep records of the charge behind the round. All of this had to be kept on paper (I was in the Army in the 1980s just as computers were just coming in) and if a round went wrong and someone was injured someone was going to jail AND WE HAD THE PAPERWORK TO BACK IT UP. The vast majority of Friendly fire cases involve such support units which provide the firepower support for the infantry.

The problem this is an INFANTRY friendly fire, except for who was a member of the squad and what was their overall mission, there was and is no record of what the men did or were suppose to do. These orders were given verbally. No paper records or even tape recording were made AS THE INCIDENT OCCURRED (unlike when air and artillery support fire is called for). Thus the only way to prove who did what needs the actual report of someone who saw the incident (and probably the only person who saw it, was the person who did it).

[malaise]

17. I hope so

Rec

[mimitabby]

20. k & R

can you fix the typo? CITED not sited.
Thanks
(sorry, I'm a spelling nazi)

[wildbilln864]

27. k&r! nt

[bullwinkle428]

33. It is my greatest dream to see the whole fucking Bush cabal go down for this.

[SpiralHawk]

34. kick again - just on account of this was such a heinous Republicon move

It is just revolting - further proof that the phony Republicon Family Values suck out loud, and have nothing whatsoever to do with being a good American or a good human being.

[SpiralHawk]

39. kick for Pat and family and all honorable troops

Kick against republicon lies and spin

[pundaint]

40. After reading some of the replies in the link, I believe I'll need a

corroborating source to believe the story.

[Statistical]

47. Utter bunk....

I mean the "logic" borders of UFO conspriracy logic.

"Autopsy results indicated no possible rationale for Cpl. Tillman’s death other than a premediated murder, with multiple 5.56mm bullets striking the Ranger in a tight pattern. "

How does the tight pattern determine accidental fracticide vs intentional black-ops killing conspiracy that goes all the way up to the White House. I mean those are some very telling "bullets". Sort of makes the BS they show on the show CSI looks like Gospel compared to this stupidity.

"With the presence of a sniper team nearby, a fact previously withheld, the source of the virtual “firing squad” salvo that killed Tillman was obvious. What is also obvious is that Tillman was murdered at the direct orders of the highest authorities of the White House."

So there was a sniper team nearby? Wait I though in the above paragraph Tillman was killed from close range? Why would you need a sniper team to kill someone at close range? Also didn't Tillman die from 5.56mm bullets? I guess the author lacks the knowledge to know US sniper teams don't use 5.56mm.

Also lets take this a step further..... we have access to Russian sniper rifles. If there was a black-ops mission from the whitehouse to kill Tillman for political purposes (I want to laugh and puke at the same time saying that).......

Wouldn't they use a Russian sniper rifle and kill him at long range thus any autopsies and witness accounts would simply indicate he WAS killed by Taliban sniper who evaded capture/death due to the long range of the attack?

[AlbertCat]

59. Utter bunk...

Indeed. Your post brings up some major flaws.

But you left one out:


SOLDIERS (even unsung ones) ARE KILLED BY FRIENDLY FIRE ALL THE TIME!

It happens.... a lot....

[niyad]

80. how many of them are killed by shots fired from a few feet away?

while the article is very interesting, I wish they had employed a proof reader (siting, instead of citing, and hardall instead of hardball, just in that one paragraph)

[LiberalLovinLug]

74. Amazing the amount of ostriches

Keep burying your head in the sand.

Tillman was going to return soon after his deployment, and had a lot of harsh words to say about Bush's decision to invade Iraq among other things.

The hubris of the administration and McChrystal was over the top back then. That they used common bullets was simply because they never expected any kind of investigation other than their own. They never counted on his family's tenacity for the truth.

You don't explain the "multiple 5.56mm bullets striking the Ranger in a tight pattern". Hardly friendly "friendly fire".

The circumstantial evidence is substantial. Tillman would have triggered an embarrasing firestorm when he returned home. That simply could not happen in the eyes of an arrogant chicken hawk administration bent on endless war.

[fatbuckel]

71. Where`s the UFO reference? While we`re at it and all.

[TexasObserver]

79. I believe he was murdered to shut him up.

His emerging views were known, and if he came back to the USA and said the things he intended to say, it would have had huge repercussions.