and other public claims made by the military, including conclusions made by Brigadier General Colt himself, would later be contradicted by internal evidence shown in the report, which was somehow released, to the probable surprise of senior military officials.
Why would the military release clearly false information that there were âno identifiable remainsâ? Again, no one knows except the Pentagon. But given that some family members had been told by US military officers that the bodies had been cremated, the âno identifiable remainsâ line could have been placed out there to either (a) justify cremation of the bodies, or (b) justify cremation of some of the bodies, or (c) create the impression that bodies had been cremated, whether they had or had not been cremated.
Why would the military want to create such an impression?
If the bodies had been cremated, or if the public thought the bodies had been cremated, there would be no way to determine who the Afghans were who boarded Extortion 17. And if there was no way to determine who the Afghans were, then there was no way to say, one way or the other, whether they were Taliban sympathizers who played a role in bringing that chopper down.
A senior Navy JAG officer, Captain Al Rudy, long since retired, once said, âThe mark of a good lawyer isnât his ability to give all the answers, but rather, to ask all the right questions.â
The following chapters scrutinize the evidence from the Colt Report and other sources, including autopsies, witnesses, credible press reports, and the House National Security Subcommitteeâs February 2014 hearing on Extortion 17, exposing numerous contradictions and omissions that undermine the official story.
Perhaps most important, as Captain Rudy once suggested all those years ago, this book will ask a lot of questions, questions the Colt investigation and the National Security Subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee should have asked, but failed to ask, questions that the families have demanded, and even a number of questions that the families havenât demanded because they donât yet know enough about the evidence to ask them.
The preponderance of evidence points to the conclusion reported by the British pressâthat the Taliban was tipped off and knew where Extortion 17 was flying, and lay in wait, ready to ambush the chopper as it approached the landing zone.
The evidence will also show that if pre-Âsuppression fire had been allowed by the American rules of engagement and had been employed, the thirty Americans on board Extortion 17 would still be alive today.
Chapter 8
The Colt Report 101: Points to Keep in Mind in Examining Evidence
With two exceptions, the Colt Report never used real names. This was for security purposes and for the protection of the military personnel involved. If, for example, a Lieutenant John Doe from Pamlico was named in the report, that would potentially put a target on the back of the fictitious officer, making the officer or his/her family vulnerable to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We canât have that. (Excuse the irony here.) Therefore, the only proper names that appeared in the Colt Report were the names of Brigadier General Colt, the one-Âstar general conducting the investigation, and General James Mattis, the four-Âstar general who ordered the report.
Everyone else identified in the Colt Report was identified by military acronyms. Those acronyms denote what job or mission the person speaking carried out. For example, on the night of the shoot-Âdown, two US Army helicopter gunships accompanied Extortion 17 into the landing zone. The pilots and flight officers from those Apaches were interviewed, under oath, about what they saw and what they knew in connection with the shoot-Âdown of the Chinook. However, the testimony of those witnesses (pilots and flight officers) did not include their actual names or ranks.
The interpretation process
Why would the military release clearly false information that there were âno identifiable remainsâ? Again, no one knows except the Pentagon. But given that some family members had been told by US military officers that the bodies had been cremated, the âno identifiable remainsâ line could have been placed out there to either (a) justify cremation of the bodies, or (b) justify cremation of some of the bodies, or (c) create the impression that bodies had been cremated, whether they had or had not been cremated.
Why would the military want to create such an impression?
If the bodies had been cremated, or if the public thought the bodies had been cremated, there would be no way to determine who the Afghans were who boarded Extortion 17. And if there was no way to determine who the Afghans were, then there was no way to say, one way or the other, whether they were Taliban sympathizers who played a role in bringing that chopper down.
A senior Navy JAG officer, Captain Al Rudy, long since retired, once said, âThe mark of a good lawyer isnât his ability to give all the answers, but rather, to ask all the right questions.â
The following chapters scrutinize the evidence from the Colt Report and other sources, including autopsies, witnesses, credible press reports, and the House National Security Subcommitteeâs February 2014 hearing on Extortion 17, exposing numerous contradictions and omissions that undermine the official story.
Perhaps most important, as Captain Rudy once suggested all those years ago, this book will ask a lot of questions, questions the Colt investigation and the National Security Subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee should have asked, but failed to ask, questions that the families have demanded, and even a number of questions that the families havenât demanded because they donât yet know enough about the evidence to ask them.
The preponderance of evidence points to the conclusion reported by the British pressâthat the Taliban was tipped off and knew where Extortion 17 was flying, and lay in wait, ready to ambush the chopper as it approached the landing zone.
The evidence will also show that if pre-Âsuppression fire had been allowed by the American rules of engagement and had been employed, the thirty Americans on board Extortion 17 would still be alive today.
Chapter 8
The Colt Report 101: Points to Keep in Mind in Examining Evidence
With two exceptions, the Colt Report never used real names. This was for security purposes and for the protection of the military personnel involved. If, for example, a Lieutenant John Doe from Pamlico was named in the report, that would potentially put a target on the back of the fictitious officer, making the officer or his/her family vulnerable to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We canât have that. (Excuse the irony here.) Therefore, the only proper names that appeared in the Colt Report were the names of Brigadier General Colt, the one-Âstar general conducting the investigation, and General James Mattis, the four-Âstar general who ordered the report.
Everyone else identified in the Colt Report was identified by military acronyms. Those acronyms denote what job or mission the person speaking carried out. For example, on the night of the shoot-Âdown, two US Army helicopter gunships accompanied Extortion 17 into the landing zone. The pilots and flight officers from those Apaches were interviewed, under oath, about what they saw and what they knew in connection with the shoot-Âdown of the Chinook. However, the testimony of those witnesses (pilots and flight officers) did not include their actual names or ranks.
The interpretation process
Similar Books
