How a Presidential Pardon Shut Down a War Crimes Investigation
In 2019, President Donald J. Trump granted a full pardon to Army Green Beret Major Mathew Golsteyn for the 2010 killing of an Afghan man suspected of being a Taliban bombmaker. The move ended a years-long military investigation and ignited a fierce national debate: Was this an act of mercy for a decorated war hero—or a dangerous precedent that undermined military justice?
The Incident That Sparked the Controversy
During a 2010 deployment in Marjah, Afghanistan, Golsteyn’s team detained a man known as Rasoul. Intelligence suggested Rasoul had planted an IED that killed two Marines. After a brief interrogation, Golsteyn allegedly shot Rasoul and buried his body in a nearby field. He later admitted to the act during a CIA job interview—recorded in a classified debrief.
“I don’t know if I did the right thing,” Golsteyn told investigators years later, “but I know I did what I thought was necessary.”
Why the Case Mattered
Military law requires that all detainees—regardless of suspected crimes—be treated humanely and afforded due process. Extrajudicial killings violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and international law, even in war zones.
Yet Golsteyn’s defenders, including prominent veterans and conservative media, framed him as a patriot forced to make impossible choices in a murky conflict.
Timeline of the Investigation and Pardon
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010 | Golsteyn kills Rasoul in Marjah, Afghanistan |
| 2011 | Golsteyn admits to the killing in a CIA debrief |
| 2016 | Army reopens investigation after media reports |
| 2018 | Golsteyn charged with murder; case referred to court-martial |
| 2019 | President Trump issues full pardon, halting all legal proceedings |
| 2025 | New investigation revisits the case amid broader scrutiny of Special Forces conduct |
Arguments For and Against the Pardon
- Pro-Pardon View: Golsteyn was protecting his team in a high-threat environment; the military justice system was weaponized against warriors.
- Anti-Pardon View: The pardon eroded accountability, signaled that rules don’t apply to elite troops, and damaged U.S. credibility abroad.
- Legal Experts: Presidential pardons are constitutional—but using them to override war crimes probes sets a troubling precedent.
- Veterans’ Divide: Many Special Forces veterans supported Golsteyn; others feared the pardon would encourage lawlessness.
“This wasn’t about one man,” said a retired JAG officer. “It was about whether the laws of war still matter.” [INTERNAL_LINK:military-justice-war-crimes]
Broader Implications
The Golsteyn pardon was part of a pattern: Trump also pardoned Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher and Army Major Clint Lorance—both accused of battlefield misconduct. Critics argue these actions normalized impunity within elite units, a concern amplified by recent revelations of unchecked violence in Afghanistan.
