Call Sign Extortion 17 by Don Brown

obtain a written and/or sworn statement from a particular witness, you will swear to the accuracy of any transcription or summary of such witness testimony in whatever form it appears within your report of investigation.”
    So at face value, Mattis’s instructions seem like an order to look under every rock, behind every corner, to illuminate every shadow, and to leave no stones uncovered to get at the truth about Extortion 17.
    Did Colt not consider the possibility that Extortion 17 had been infiltrated by seven Taliban sympathizers, something that might be relevant to the investigation? Perhaps not, because his 1,250-page report treated the Afghans’ identity as a nonissue.
    One thing is for sure. It is absolutely impossible to believe that Colt did not at least consider the possibility of Taliban sympathizers infiltrating that aircraft prior to takeoff, given the serious breach of protocol and the very serious history of “Green-­on-­Blue” violence in Afghanistan.
    Perhaps, based on Mattis’s instructions complete with Article 31 self-­incrimination restrictions, Colt considered the topic of the seven mysterious Afghans to be a kettle of worms that he knew better than to stick his shackled hands into.
    Mattis gave Colt an out if he felt that relevant evidence might incriminate someone. Rather than issuing an order to Colt to investigate the shoot-­down and get to the truth of what happened no matter what, Mattis issued a half-­baked order designed in part to protect the legal rights of US service members who might give incriminating statements during the course of the investigation.
    For example, consider the following statement signed off by Mattis to Colt in the order to start investigations: “You may order any witness to provide a statement, if you believe that they have relevant information that would not incriminate themselves.”
    Putting that in layman’s terms, General Mattis was really saying, “If you think any of our guys messed up in any way, don’t ask them any questions and especially if they could get court-­martialed for messing up.”
    Could this explain why the seven missing Afghans’ identity is not inquired about? Was there a possibility that someone could be prosecuted for dereliction of duty in allowing those infiltrators on the helicopter?
    Of course this looks to be the case. Somebody messed up, big-­time, on the American side by letting those Afghans board that aircraft.
    Colt had an out, because his superior, General Mattis, essentially ordered him not to include relevant information, at least not in the form of any statements that might lead to self-­incrimination. If he had been given statements by anyone who knew, or should have known, that the seven Afghan infiltrators were not friendly to American forces, there was a possibility that those statements could have led to criminal prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, colloquially referred to as the “UCMJ.”
    It is hard to envision any scenario under which those seven unidentified Afghans slipped onto that American helicopter just before the shoot-­down without someone being at fault, and potentially subject to prosecution for dereliction of duty under the UCMJ.
    Suppose, for example, an American military member failed to double-­check the manifest. Such an admission would be a criminal offense under the UCMJ. Suppose someone was in charge of making sure the right Afghans, the ones whose names were actually on the manifest, boarded the helicopter, but failed to do so. Again, such an admission could be a criminal offense under the UCMJ and subject the one committing the offense to court-­martial for a crime known as dereliction of duty.

    Dereliction of duty under US military law is not the functional equivalent of a misdemeanor speeding ticket. Quite the contrary. It is a very serious offense, especially in times of war. In fact, during