The Killing of Pat Tillman

Why didn't they just transfer him stateside? Killing him seems a bit extreme.

Why didn't they just transfer him stateside? Killing him seems a bit extreme. Originally Posted by Happy Diver

The problem was his diary.

And they asked him to leave before his commitment but he refused.

As for those people who refuse to consider the possibility that he was murdered they'll have to come up with an explaination as to why his diary was destroyed.

They'll also have to explain why all his other personal belongings were burned, why the army sent a team to his wife requesting an official funeral, why the first accounts of his death were fabricated, etc.

You don't have to dig very deep into this to see that there's bad faith involved.

The unsolvable problem he posed was that he was the emblem of the justification for the wars. After things went south he threatened to become a voice of opposition with unusually high credibility.

How would it have looked if Audie Murphy would have come out against the war effort in 1945? What if Audie Murphy had opposed the strategic bombing campaign and gone on hunger strike until it stopped. What would have happened? He would have been carted off to a mental hospital or found dead somewhere. That's what would have happened to him.

Look at what happened to General Smedley Butler when he came out against the Spainish-American war, etc.
Butler was the only person two win the Congressional Medal of Honor twice. He had to defend himself against a host of fabricated charges and a Court Marshall. Butler was the most popular officer among all US men under arms, whether army, marines, or sailors. He avoided assassination only by taking extraordinary measures.

These are very rare events....when someone in the ranks is assassinated...but under very unusual conditons it does happen.

The problem was his diary.

And they asked him to leave before his commitment but he refused.

As for those people who refuse to consider the possibility that he was murdered they'll have to come up with an explaination as to why his diary was destroyed.

They'll also have to explain why all his other personal belongings were burned, why the army sent a team to his wife requesting an official funeral, why the first accounts of his death were fabricated, etc.

You don't have to dig very deep into this to see that there's bad faith involved.

The unsolvable problem he posed was that he was the emblem of the justification for the wars. After things went south he threatened to become a voice of opposition with unusually high credibility.

How would it have looked if Audie Murphy would have come out against the war effort in 1945? What if Audie Murphy had opposed the strategic bombing campaign and gone on hunger strike until it stopped. What would have happened? He would have been carted off to a mental hospital or found dead somewhere. That's what would have happened to him.

Look at what happened to General Smedley Butler when he came out against the Spainish-American war, etc.
Butler was the only person two win the Congressional Medal of Honor twice. He had to defend himself against a host of fabricated charges and a Court Marshall. Butler was the most popular officer among all US men under arms, whether army, marines, or sailors. He avoided assassination only by taking extraordinary measures.

These are very rare events....when someone in the ranks is assassinated...but under very unusual conditons it does happen. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Ok, braniac.. here we go again.
1) any marine will tell you , smedley butler and dan daly both RECEIVED the congressional medal of honor twice.
2) noone WINS the CMH.. you either receive it or are awarded the medal. Its not a race, game or match. Anyone who says or writes win the CMH, doesn't know better.
3) you probably never heard the term loose lips sink ships. This is why people in infantry units, ranger units, seal teams, etc have to have a secret security clearance. They know sensitive information, which more than likely was written of in said diary.
I hear you're decent at selling pussy, stick to it. And thanks for your service in your government job as a custodian at the city of bastrop.. hey, I actually like bastrop, though.

I have nothing to do with Bastrop, and don't even like the place.

If you're going to hang your argument, such as it is, on the fact that someone in addition to Butler won the CMO twice after him then hooray.

I note you don't deny that Butler worked to expose the pretexts used to launch wars of aggression, such as in the Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.

Nor do you deny that Butler was retaliated against harshly for his efforts, or that he was the most admired officer of any service while he lived.

I have skepticism about people who claim that because they wore the uniform that they know everything there is to know about espirit EVERYWHERE in the services. Those people who have served in units involved in controversal missions know that there can be disagreement, friction, and sometimes tension and cross purposes. In Tillman's unit all these were present, and erupted at times such as when they were involved in the staged rescue of Jessica Lynch.

I have nothing to do with Bastrop, and don't even like the place.

If you're going to hang your argument, such as it is, on the fact that someone in addition to Butler won the CMO twice after him then hooray.

I note you don't deny that Butler worked to expose the pretexts used to launch wars of aggression, such as in the Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.

Nor do you deny that Butler was retaliated against harshly for his efforts, or that he was the most admired officer of any service while he lived.

I have skepticism about people who claim that because they wore the uniform that they know everything there is to know about espirit EVERYWHERE in the services. Those people who have served in units involved in controversal missions know that there can be disagreement, friction, and sometimes tension and cross purposes. In Tillman's unit all these were present, and erupted at times such as when they were involved in the staged rescue of Jessica Lynch. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

In any unit there will always be disagreement, tension and friction. That still doesn't mean that we kill our own. Jessica Lynch was more than likely a big dog and pony show. My point with the cmh and dan daly is you DON'T KNOW ALL YOUR FACTS before you type and press enter. I'm sure I know more about smedley butler than you as well and have been on the camp named after him several times. Back to my original point, please don't state any more OPINIONS about pat tillman because when you do, you disgrace him, what he stood for, his fellow soldiers and MY country. Write your congressman or pick up a gun and fight if you don't like it! If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

In any unit there will always be disagreement, tension and friction. That still doesn't mean that we kill our own. Jessica Lynch was more than likely a big dog and pony show. My point with the cmh and dan daly is you DON'T KNOW ALL YOUR FACTS before you type and press enter. I'm sure I know more about smedley butler than you as well and have been on the camp named after him several times. Back to my original point, please don't state any more OPINIONS about pat tillman because when you do, you disgrace him, what he stood for, his fellow soldiers and MY country. Write your congressman or pick up a gun and fight if you don't like it! If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Originally Posted by conservative44

Part of being a conservative should be to be critical and skeptical of government when the facts show it's wrong. I worked in government for a long time before I was forced to accept the facts of a particular situation where someone was killed by someone else I worked with, and it was for a similar reason - because the target was well known and became very opposed to policy. For years I used to tell people, "I don't believe it;we don't kill our own, etc.," until the killer contracted cancer and made confessions. Then a District Attorney took up the case..... It turned out I was wrong.

To my kind of conservative dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

I don't believe in the "blood and soil" patriotism my uncles in Germany all embraced when they invaded Poland in 1939.

@TAE-I watched the Pat Tillman story and never heard his parents nor his brother accuse anyone of killing Pat intentionally. What I did see and hear is them being furious over the cover-up about Pat being killed by friendly fire. You can go back to the earliest wars in our history and find examples of men dying by "friendly fire" (I hate that expression, there's nothing "friendly" about it). You will also find MANY examples of the Military trying to cover up the fact that it was friendly fire. I was in Iraq when it came out that a Lieutenant that was reported killed in action was actually killed by a negligent discharge by a machine gun on his tank. Many times the military wants the family to have the "honor" of feeling as if their loved one died in action rather than through a "mistake" by another American. It's quite simply embarrassing to the military. I have never agreed with this approach. Irregardless of how Pat died, the sacrifices he made to serve his Country are not diminished whether he died in "action" or by a tragic mistake/incompetence on the part of his fellow soldiers. IMO, the cover up stemmed more from a lack of moral courage on the part of his Chain of Command in not wanting to admit the tragic mistakes that were made and a misguided effort to not want to damage the war effort.
@conservative 44- I disagree with TAE's conspiracy theory on Pat Tillman, as I do with all of the conspiracy theories he posts. I watched the program and it's clear there was a massive cover-up reaching all the way up to the White House but that doesn't mean he was purposely killed. Having said that....you made the comment: "That still doesn't mean that we kill our own".....I'm not sure I agree with you on that one. There have been numerous examples of this. The documented "fragging" of some Officers and NCO's in Vietnam is just one such example.

A soldier making $2000/month won't kill for a political agenda or because someone is writing in a diary. They join for patriotism. This is a 100% volunteer effort unlike in vietnam as well. Plus the point of those "fraggings" would have been to save lives. Officers are a different beast.

The parents and friends [including the one friend who served with Tillman in his unit] are not in a position to voice the conclusion which the circumstances suggest. The evidence in this matter is circumstantial and includes many factors including these:

1.The soldiers who shot Tillman could not have mistaken him for anyone else because they were only 40 yards away and he was standing on a rock waving his arms and yelling his name. They had been closing on him for some time so it couldn't have been a sudden, surprising situation.* In the army's interviews of the soldiers who shot him they have no credible explanation for why they continued firing...none whatsoever.

2.The event which triggered the firing detachment's action is disputed by members of the detachment which was fired upon.

3.No other soldiers were killed save the Afghan next to Tillman.

4.As soon as Tillman was hit all the firing stopped.

5.Upon Tillman's death his diary was burned.

6.There's ample bad faith established within the top brass given their manifest lies regarding every aspect of what happened.


I know today we don't want to admit there may be parallels between Vietnam and our current force.

However I think Tillman's situation is a whole lot like those in Vietnam where someone is hated and the context of combat is used to dispose of them.

I also believe that in the Marines, which is Conservative's reference, that the liklihood of these events is very much smaller than in the army. I believe that Conservative is right in so far as in the Marines it would be unthinkable to kill another Marine under any circumstances.

What bothers me however is that I believed the same thing once about my own service and I turned out to be wrong.

*When you think about it, it was a pretty transparent and brazen act. If you're gonna shoot someone and claim it was an accident you wouldn't shoot someone only fourty yards away waving his arms and name unless you were damn sure you'd have total cover for it later. After the event the army gave completely false accounts of what happened. One of Tillman's killers was interviewed in the film, and one can reach their own conclusions about that individual's character based on his demeanor in the film. In my estimation he's an arrogant idiot who shows no remorse or concern for what happened.

The firefight in question was at night. I have been in conditions when you can't see your own hand at night, so at 40- 50 meters depending on %illumination, making out a particular person can be extremely difficult. Plus 2 other soldiers were wounded in this particular firefight... I'm done

Let's make this clear.

The firing detachment began firing on the other detachment without any provocation at about 400 yards. As the firing detachment continued to close to 40 yards the detachment recieving their fire did not fire back.

The members of the firing detachment were all asked why they continued to fire on people who were not shooting back and they had no answer whatsoever.

They all clearly heard Tillman yelling at them, and saw him waving his arms, at a distance of 40 yards.

There is simply no other explaination whatsoever for what happened.

It's not even close.

Then they burned his diary and all his possessions, and the army announced he'd been killed by enemy fire while leading others in combat. Then they went against his instructions and tried to give him a government funeral [remember Rommel's funeral?].

People are just gonna have to acknowledge that under some rare circumstances that US army personnel have in the past killed each other out of malice, and it can happen again.

Saying so doesn't make anyone less patriotic.

Has anyone checked out the Jon Krakauer book about this dude? Ive read all of Krakauer's books but havent got around to this one yet.

Let's make this clear.

Your idea of making things "clear" is to muddy the waters with rumors, innuendos and conspiracy theories that you so often like to spin.

TAE, here's an idea. If you're going to be making these outlandish statements, please provide links or quotes from the actual reports to back them up. You have made assertions here that are outright false. Assertions that were not backed up by any reports on the matter or by the Tillman family.
You stated that no one besides Tillman and the Afghan next to him were shot. This is blatantly false!
Below you will read the facts with names omitted following the ranks of the soldiers involved.
And I quote:

"The first U.S. vehicle in Serial 2 was led by SSG (the squad leader), with a driver and five other occupants. As SSG _ a n d his crew moved down the canyon road, they fired their weapons in suppressive fire along the canyon walls. When S S G _ s vehicle exited the narrow portion of the canyon road below the spur where CPL Tillman and his team were located, occupants saw muzzle flashes coming from that position. S S G _ a n d his team directed their fire toward the muzzle flashes killing both CPL Tillman and the AMF soldier. As S S G _ s vehicle proceeded past the spur toward the vi~e vehicle occupants continued to fire on the building in the settlement hitting 1LT _ in the face and SPC _ in the knee and chest with small arms fire."

So as you can see TAE, two other U.S. soldiers were wounded in this engagement as well, a first Lieutenant and a Specialist E-4. That's not rumor or innuendo or hear say. It's fact. They have the bullet holes to prove it. Guess they were shot on purpose too?

The firing detachment began firing on the other detachment without any provocation at about 400 yards. As the firing detachment continued to close to 40 yards the detachment recieving their fire did not fire back.

Again this is totally false. There is no doubt at all that at least one of the sections came under mortar/RPG fire.

Quote:

"While traveling down the canyon road, Serial 2 carne under attack from enemy mortar or rocket propelled grenades and small arms fire originating from the top of the canyon walls. Upon ~ h i n d them, Serial 1 personnel, led by Staff Sergeant (SSG) (the squad leader), dismounted their vehicles and moved on foot hrough a small (6-building) village to an elevated spur overlooking the canyon road below and across from the southern ridgeline. CPL Tillman, Private First Class (PFC) and an AMF soldier positioned themselves on the forward slope ofthe spur visible from and exposed to the canyon road below. lL T _ a n d Specialist (S P C )_ (th e Radio Operator), having been delayed by handling communications devices, were positioned at the base of a building in the village some distance below and to the rear of SSG _ and other Serial 1 personnel."

It's exactly BECAUSE they came under fire that Tillman was dismounted from his vehicle in the first place and took a position on the spur where he was killed.

The problem here was target identification, the lack to obtain it by the U.S. forces involved. Basically, it was what's known as "spray and pray", laying down heavy volumes of fire without obtaining proper target I.D. and hoping that you hit something. That's what the other section that came through the canyon after Tillman did and it's what led to his death.

The members of the firing detachment were all asked why they continued to fire on people who were not shooting back and they had no answer whatsoever.



They all clearly heard Tillman yelling at them, and saw him waving his arms, at a distance of 40 yards.

Not ONE person involved EVER stated that they recognized Tillman before he was shot or recognized his voice as being the one that was doing the yelling. This is where your complete lack of understanding of what takes place during a firefight is painfully evident. You obviously have never been exposed or been around to the sights and sounds of a section of soldiers laying down suppressive fire at dusk or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous assertion.

There is simply no other explaination whatsoever for what happened.

It's not even close.

Says YOU without ANY facts to dispute what I wrote above or any other facts to back up your false and ridiculous assertions.

Then they burned his diary and all his possessions, and the army announced he'd been killed by enemy fire while leading others in combat. Then they went against his instructions and tried to give him a government funeral [remember Rommel's funeral?].

People are just gonna have to acknowledge that under some rare circumstances that US army personnel have in the past killed each other out of malice, and it can happen again.

I've stated plainly that it's happened in almost every war we've taken part in. Just like killing out of malice can and does happen during peace and wartime military service, so do negligent fire incidents that wind up killing friendly U.S. forces by mistake. The numbers show that this type of incident (friendly/negligent fire) happens FAR MORE OFTEN than a U.S. soldier killing another one out of malice. The facts in this case clearly show that Pat Tillman was killed by "friendly/negligent" fire by his fellow Rangers. The real shame began when the Chain of Command tried to cover this fact up.

Saying so doesn't make anyone less patriotic. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

No, it just means you're speaking without any facts to back up what you're saying. Nothing "less patriotic" about that, just uninformed.

Anyone wishing to read the report by the Inspector General of the United States Department of Defense can do so here:
www.defense.gov/home/pdf/tillman_redacted_web_0307.pdf

The issues that the Tillman family have continued to bring forth is that not everyone involved in the cover-up over this friendly fire incident were punished or help accountable. I agree with them and believe that to be true. It's a disgrace the way the Chain of Command handled this but an even bigger disgrace is the lack of punishment for those involved at the highest levels. People like General McChrystal, Donald Rumsfeld etc. Not ONCE have the Tillman's ever stated that they believe their son was killed on purpose. Keep in mind that Pat's brother was in the same Ranger unit as Pat but in a different platoon. TAE's assertions that his own brother and others in the unit would remain silent about a targeted killing of his brother is absurd.

Has anyone checked out the Jon Krakauer book about this dude? Ive read all of Krakauer's books but havent got around to this one yet. Originally Posted by Jack Goff

Jon Krakauer says in his book Where Men Win Glory that Tillman was shot by Trevor Alders from a moving vehicle from about 130 feet away. Krakauer says the time was 6:46 PM,not long before dusk in the steep mountains of Afghanistan on April 22, 2004.

Some quotes:

"On April 22, 2004, Tillman's platoon was on a mission in the mountains of Afghanistan when they were crippled by a broken-down Humvee.
"It's this tragic cascade of decisions," Krakauer said. "They're in the middle of nowhere. They requested a helicopter to come lift it out. It's a routine thing."


A decision made by a senior commander at Bagram Air Base sealed Tillman's fate. "Because of the war in Iraq, there weren't nearly enough helicopters in Afghanistan," Krakauer said. "And, so, when they requested to lift this thing away, they were told, can't do it. We need 96 hours, you know, four days before we can tow this away."
Instead of waiting, the platoon leader was ordered to split his men into two groups, or series.
"One group went one way," Krakauer said. "The other half of the platoon was supposed to tow this Humvee over this mountain. They hired a local Afghan to tow it. When they got to the mountain, the driver said, 'We can't go over there. We should follow the other platoon."
Group two was 15 minutes behind group one when they were ambushed in a canyon.
Tillman was in group one, his brother Kevin was in the other.
When Tillman's group heard the explosion, they raced to get in position to help their platoon mates.
"I heard the gunfire, and then I saw the tracer rounds -- pouring out of the canyon," said Aker, who was with Pat Tillman in group one. "It was like -- It was almost like a fireworks show. And my adrenaline just immediately spiked. And then once I got out of the vehicle my squad leader, you know, he was like, 'All right. This is it. Calm down, you know this is what we trained for.' And then we charged up the hill."
Communications were down -- and group two was unaware that their fellow rangers were on the ridge ready to support them.
"The guys being ambushed came racing out, guns blazing," Krakauer said.
Tillman and an Afghan soldier were both killed by friendly fire. Several members of the platoon witnessed the tragedy.
"I saw him slump over and I saw a grabbing and pulling back and that's when I thought he was hit," Boatright said. "There was a mist of red."

"Looking at the footage, Krakauer is able to pinpoint where the firefight took place.
"The shooting started, basically, as soon as this Humvee turned the corner -- shooting continually. Hundreds of rounds found," Krakauer explained. "At this point, it's only 35 yards away, 120 feet -- the difference between second base and home plate. And they are just unloading on these guys. Tillman throws a smoke grenade to try and indicate they're friendlies -- no good, they're shot and killed. And that's what happened."
Krakauer's vast knowledge of Tillman's death is the result of 3½ years of nonstop research -- all his waking hours, as he described it.
The writer has read through thousands of pages of documents from the investigations into Tillman's death and spent more than five months in Afghanistan.
He has searched for Tillman's platoon mates and fellow soldiers -- and interviewed as many as he could find."


All the above would contradict TAE's assertions.

Communications between Tillman's element and the second element (which his brother was in) were down. Therefor the second element which came under attack was unaware that Tillman and his squad had dismounted to provide covering fire for them and were on the ridge where he was killed. The Afghan next to Tillman had a full beard and was armed with an AK-47. The American SGT who began to fire his Humvvee's machine gun at him did not pause long enough to realize that the Afghan with the AK-47 was wearing an American uniform. He saw 1. Afghan 2. Beard 3. AK-47.... and opened up. As soon as he did others joined in and that's when Pat was killed.



Anything in the above sound like a targeted killing? Jon Krakauer reviewed 4000 pages of reports, interviewed many of the Rangers who were there when it happened and saw it happen, interviewed members of the Tillman family, got access to Tillman's letters that he shared with his wife, etc etc.


The facts are sad, disturbing but indicate one simple truth. Pat Tillman was killed by mistaken friendly fire.

D'Torchia,

The report you are quoting from is false, just as false as the ridiculous story the army put forward that Tillman died from enemy fire while leading his troops against the Taliban.

Now let's get real.

If you're going to try to argue in this matter you have to use reports that are factual, and not part of the ever-changing narrative the army cooked-up to seek to conceal the facts.

The REAL army findings which were finally handed to Tillman's family showed that THERE WAS NO MORTAR ATTACK ON THE DETACHMENT WHICH FIRED ON TILLMAN. THERE WERE NO HOSTILES ANYWHERE IN MORTAR RANGE OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

TILLMAN'S DETACHMENT DIDN'T FIRE ON THE DETACHMENT FIRING ON HIM.

THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TILLMAN WAS MORTALLY HIT AT A RANGE OF APROXIMATELY 40 METERS.

The only other soldier killed was an Afghan next to Tillman, and the fact that two other army soldiers were hit doesn't change the fact that only Tillman and the Afghan were killed, and once Tillman went down the firing stopped. I repeat - AFTER TILLMAN WENT DOWN ALL FIRING STOPPED.

You can label others "conspiracy mongers" and so forth only after you've succeeded in defeating their arguments. The fact that you resort to such childish labels displays your lack of maturity and inability to argue competently.