Soldier: Killing Iraq Man Was 'Honorable'

[whudats]

I'm curious what people think about this. I am also interested to see what the result of the court martial is. From the limited info we have been given, I would say CPT Maynulet did the right thing, and should not be punished...

 

Anybody have any comments?

 

 

Soldier: Killing Iraq Man Was 'Honorable'

 

By MELISSA EDDY

Associated Press Writer

Published March 30, 2005, 9:44 AM CST

 

WIESBADEN, Germany -- A U.S. Army tank company commander told a military court Wednesday that he shot a gravely wounded, unarmed Iraqi man "to put him out of his misery," saying the killing was "honorable."

 

Taking the stand for the first time, Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet, 30, described the events that led him to fire twice upon the Iraqi, maintaining that the man was too badly injured to survive.

 

"He was in a state that I didn't think was justified -- I had to put him out of his misery," Maynulet said. He argued that the killing "was the right thing to do, it was the honorable thing to do."

 

Prosecutors at the court-martial say Maynulet violated military rules of engagement by shooting an Iraqi who was wounded and unarmed.

 

Maynulet is being court-martialed on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder in the May 21, 2004, killing near Kufa, south of Baghdad. He has pleaded not guilty to the charge, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and his lawyers have argued that his actions were in line with the Geneva Conventions on the code of war.

 

Maynulet's 1st Armored Division tank company had been on patrol near Kufa when it was alerted to a car believed to be carrying a driver for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and another militiaman loyal to the Shiite cleric.

 

They chased the vehicle and fired at it, wounding both the passenger, who fled and was later apprehended, and the driver. The killing was filmed by a U.S. drone surveillance aircraft.

 

Prosecutors grilled Maynulet on why he did not treat the Iraqi, pointing out that he had been trained for medical emergency relief.

 

Maynulet said the company's medic, Sgt. Thomas Cassady, told him: "He's gone, there's nothing we can do." He said he would not question the expertise of his medic.

 

An Army neurosurgeon, Richard Gullock, testified that it was unclear from the surveillance footage whether the driver was alive or dead at the time of the shooting. In the video, the man appeared to be waving his right arm before the first shot.

 

"I am aware there can be similar movements in someone who can be considered clinically brain dead," Gullock said.

 

However, a second neurosurgeon, Lt. Col. Rocco Armonda of the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, countered that the pattern of the man's movements in the video "indicate he was alive."

 

Maynulet appeared relaxed and spoke confidently, recounting the events in great detail.

 

Questions from the six-member panel -- the equivalent of a civilian jury -- focused on whether Maynulet tried to hide his actions by failing to report the shooting at the end of the day. Maynulet said he discussed the shooting in a debriefing that immediately followed the mission and denied trying to hide the killing.

 

He further testified that, as company commander, he had more important priorities on the mission than saving the Iraqi, including searching for two escaped passengers and maintaining the safety of his men.

 

He testified that he was reluctant to expend limited first aid resources on a man he had been told would die anyway.

 

His command was suspended May 25, but he has remained with his Wiesbaden-based unit.

 

Iraq's interim deputy defense minister, Ziad Cattan, testified later Wednesday that he worked with Maynulet when the soldier was stationed in Baghdad and had contact with Iraqi officials.

 

Cattan, a district council chairman at the time, described him as "a good soldier and a good officer." Asked about Maynulet's attitude toward Iraqis, Cattan said: "He is very compassionate."

 

The U.S. military has referred to the Iraqi driver only as an "unidentified paramilitary member," but relatives named him as Karim Hassan, 36. The family does not dispute that he was working for al-Sadr.

 

 

Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press

[normal]

w/out being able to view the video its impossible to come to a conclusion. If the man was coherent and gravely injured then I believe it to be wrong to terminate his life w/out asking first...to see if he'd prefer a bullet to the brain rather then just petering out.

 

If the man was having spasms I would prefer to see him treated and taken with the company, but not being taken to a hospital until the end of their mission (unless doing so would not comprimise it).

 

But from reading what you posted its possible that they could have shot him because he was the 'enemy' and the soldiers involved would stick to a story they've concocted.

 

Who knows <shrug>

[Ice_Berge_00]

As normal mentioned it's very difficult to know the truth. It's very possible that the man was asking to have his suffering ended or that the soldier just killed him in cold blood. Unfortunatley a story in the news isn't very clear or objectionable.

 

I could understand the man not wanting to suffer if there was nothing that could be done for him. I don't know if I could ever do what the soldier did, I doubt anyone would know unless they've been in that situation. It's something that you wish no one ever had to be in.

[whudats]

I agree, it is difficult to know the truth. I think to have various neurosurgeons trying to diagnose the guy's condition through the videotape is pointless, but I suppose that an effort has to be made.

 

Our soldiers don't just execute people. There have been few aberrations where poor judgement has been used and our military personnel have violated individual human rights, lacked common sense, and disregarded the Geneva Convention (ex. Abu Ghraib and other EPW offenses). But the overwhelming majority of our forces do the right thing, or do what is best for the men in their command. These choices are especially difficult in battle, when you've just finished an engagement and two of the targets have escaped.

 

I'm glad that the CPT has expressed his trust in his medic. I would do the same. They are trained to evaluate, prioritze, and treat casualties. If the medic determined that there was nothing that could be done to save the man and that he was in a tremendous amount of pain, then the CPT probably did the right thing. Like he said, the "honorable thing."

 

I'm sure it's not easy to make a choice like that. But with the safety of your men on the line, you don't have time for debate or deliberation.

 

From the information we have, I think he did the right thing. I hope he is found not guilty and that his military career is not damaged by the suspension of his command.

[whudats]

U.S. Soldier Convicted in Court-Martial

 

By MELISSA EDDY

Associated Press Writer

Published March 31, 2005, 10:39 AM CST

 

WIESBADEN, Germany -- A military court Thursday convicted a U.S. Army tank company commander of a lesser criminal charge in connection with the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi last year.

 

Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet was found guilty of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, which carries a maximum of 10 years in prison. Prosecutors had sought conviction on a more serious charge of assault with intent to commit murder, which carried a 20-year maximum.

 

Maynulet, 30, of Chicago, stood at attention as Lt. Col. Laurence Mixon, the head of the six-member panel, read the verdict at the court-martial. The court was to reconvene later Thursday to consider Maynulet's sentence.

 

Mixon did not give reasons for the ruling, which followed 2 1/2 hours of deliberations.

 

At the sentencing hearing, Maynulet asked the court for leniency, occasionally pausing and looking down to keep his composure.

 

"I hope you can take into consideration my service, my attitude and my love for the Army before you make a decision," Maynulet said. "I respect your decision. I wouldn't want to be in your position. I think you did what you have to do."

 

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, prosecutor Maj. John Rothwell said that Maynulet "played God" when he shot the wounded driver.

 

He argued that Maynulet, who was trained in first aid, should not have relied on a medic who said the man was beyond saving and told him "there's nothing I can do."

 

"Those five words were enough to make a life and death decision, and he chose to end a life," Rothwell said. "This combat-trained life saver prescribed two bullets. He didn't call his superiors for guidance, didn't consult with his medic."

 

Maynulet said at this week's court-martial that he shot the man to "put him out of his misery." His lawyers have argued that his actions were in line with the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war.

 

His defense attorney, Capt. Will Helixon, argued that conflicting testimony from neurosurgeons about whether the Iraqi was still alive at the time of the shooting required that Maynulet be acquitted.

 

I'm not sure what to think of this. He may be being used as a political tool to demonstrate something to the Iraqis. Now waiting for the sentence - should be later today...

[JavaBomberman]

there's no room for honor in politics.

[whudats]

there's no room for honor in politics. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree...unfortunately I think you are right.

[whudats]

U.S. Military Dismisses Convicted Soldier

 

By MELISSA EDDY

Associated Press Writer

Published April 1, 2005, 6:35 AM CST

 

WIESBADEN, Germany -- A U.S. Army captain convicted in the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi was dismissed Friday from the armed forces, but the military court did not impose a prison sentence.

 

Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet, 30, was convicted Thursday of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, which carries a 10-year maximum sentence. He argued the killing was "honorable" because he wanted to end the man's suffering.

 

Maynulet stood at attention as Lt. Col. Laurence Mixon, the head of the six-member panel hearing his case, announced the sentence. He then embraced his defense lawyers and his wife, who burst into tears.

 

Prosecutors had sought a three-year prison term for Maynulet in addition to dismissal from the armed forces, arguing that a strong penalty would send a signal to other U.S. soldiers that such behavior would not be tolerated.

 

The end of the story. At least he isn't going to prison. Too bad it turned out this way...

[Ice_Berge_00]

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with their decision, but then I don't know all the facts or even as much as they did.

 

I did catch a bit of news on this yesterday and it sounded like the prosecution was trying to use a TECHINICALITY to get him convicted. Pretty sad when people use crap like that as an excuse to go after someone they have a diff opinion. They didn't argue that the killing was wrong, but rather that he "Violated rules of Engagement" by firing on an unarmed man.

 

How about we say what we really mean and believe instead of feeding out more BS?

 

Anyways, that was the impression that I got after watching the news about it.

[whudats]

One of the things that gets me a little fired-up about it is some of the JAG lawyers who lead the prosecution in cases like this. I have nothing against JAG lawyers - a buddy of mine is one - but when a fellow soldier - a guy who wears the same uniform as you and does the things you don't (taking enemy fire, dealing with wounded and KIA soldiers, etc.) - is the subject of your prosecution AND you are making judgements about his actions when dealing with the enemy when the only time you even hold a weapon is when you go qualify twice a year...

 

I don't know. (Man that was a long sentence... ^) If you haven't been in combat I don't think you can properly judge a man's actions in combat. I guess that's the bottom line of what I am trying to say.

[Ice_Berge_00]

Very good point Whudats,

 

How can you truly understand something if you've never been there yourself.

[JavaBomberman]

If you haven't been in combat I don't think you can properly judge a man's actions in combat.  I guess that's the bottom line of what I am trying to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's hard to find a good middle ground. If you have someone who can relate to the actions of the person in combat, i.e. someone who has also been there, are you getting an unbiased judgement, or a sympathetic "I can see how he'd do that."? I think someone on the outside looking in can be more unbiased and judge based more on a global set of rules than on their personal experiences.

 

That said, I still think the politics of the situation are what caused this man to be put in the situation that he was. We have to appeal to the technicalities and doctrine of what is designated "warfare" rather than what (most of us think, it seems) is considered simply "right."