Posted on 09/08/2004 11:04:08 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
HANAU, Germany (AP) - A U.S. Army tank company commander accused of murdering a man in Iraq fatally shot him out of pity at his injuries, a witness testified Wednesday at hearings to determine whether he should face a court-martial.
...
At the last round of hearings in July, Maynulet's former commander, Col. Michael Ryan, testified that he was an ``excellent officer'' who was ``special, trustworthy and honest.'' Maynulet said he was confident the charges would be dropped.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
i disagree, depending on the mans wounds and the situation on the ground, this man might need a medal.
Why is it contrary to military law then?
Nonsense. What this guy did isn't 1/10th of 1 percent as bad as what the enemy does to our people.
Sorry...I refuse to get worked up about this when our enemy gets its jollies out of beheading our people on videotape and shouting "Allah Akbar" while they do it.
This is a contest of who can match whose atrocities?
Military law is VERY strict, for a reason, remember Abu Ghraib? But, in certain cases acts like this should not be punished IF the man that was killed can be proven to be "FUBAR" I guess the soldier should of let the man lay there and bleed to death in pain, or worse try and stop the bleeding only for infection to set in and kill him from fever.
Why is this exception not specified in military law?
Because sometimes military law is stupid? "Rules are rules" isn't a good defense for a stupid rule.
If the guy and his witnesses are telling the truth, I'd have a hard time convicting him of anything. The guy he put out of his misery had half his head blown of and was going to die anyway- his last minutes (or hours) were likely going to be spent in incredible pain, if he had the ability to process pain with half his brain gone.
If he wanted to be malicious, there's a lot worse things he could have done. Sounds like he choose to make the most compassionate decision he could at the time, and he didn't care about the consequences, because doing the right thing was more important to him.
Therefore there should be no consequences? I throw away the speedometer in my car, therefore I should not be cited for speeding?
And the deaths of THOUSANDS resulting from John Forbes Kerry's actions got him to the top of the Demoncratic party.
John Kerry's courts-martial is LONG overdue.
no, but he shouldn't be tried on the idiotic 'rules are rules' thinking, but based on his specific circumstances.
" I throw away the speedometer in my car, therefore I should not be cited for speeding?"
Several years ago there was a man whose wife was having a heart attack. He was driving her to the hospital. He was speeding.
He was pulled over by a cop. He explained to the cop his wife was having a heart attack. Instead of helping him out, or escorting him to the hospital, the cop lectured him on speeding and how he should have called for an ambulance instead. This went on for several minutes.
The cop believed in 'rules are rules' instead of actually using his freaking brain. The woman died.
BTW, there were no consequences for the 'rules are rules' cop. Probably because some equally brain dead moron thought he did the right thing.
The point is rules are written by people far away from combat in the safety of their offices. They are guidelines that you should follow as well as possible. However, there are times when following those guidelines is the wrong thing to do - it may be counter productive or even dangerous. If someone breaks the rules they can be investigated for it. However, that doesn't mean because they broke the rules, they should be automatically convicted for it. Doing so without taking into account the circumstances for the rule breaking is just incredibly idiotic.
The car was being chased and shot at because they rightly believed that an al-Sadr man was in the car. Only the U.S. would sit up nights wringing our hands over shooting a dying enemy who was part of the al-Sadr fanatics killing American soldiers.
It's like the media crying and moaning about head panties in Abu Ghraib when at the same time the enemy is carving off the heads of hostages.
We could not have won WWII with these rules of engagement in active combat. Believe or not, there is such a thing as an enemy that doesn't have an ACLU lawyer to protect his civil rights while he's trying to kill you. And the enemy rightfully laughs at our PC, because it's a fight to the death.
The Marquis of Queensbury never met a Muslim terrorist.
You clearly DO NOT know the details. 2 men were shot up - one killed and the other mortally wounded 'with half his brain hanging out'. The US officer shot him cleanly in the back of the neck to put an end to his suffering.
All there agreed the man was never ever going to live and was in agony.
[Because sometimes military law is stupid? "Rules are rules" isn't a good defense for a stupid rule.
If the guy and his witnesses are telling the truth, I'd have a hard time convicting him of anything. The guy he put out of his misery had half his head blown of and was going to die anyway- his last minutes (or hours) were likely going to be spent in incredible pain, if he had the ability to process pain with half his brain gone.
If he wanted to be malicious, there's a lot worse things he could have done. Sounds like he choose to make the most compassionate decision he could at the time, and he didn't care about the consequences, because doing the right thing was more important to him.]
....................
Anti-"mercy killing" as I am, and though upon reflection I might change my mind, I do believe that in the same situation my reflexive humane impulse would be to end the man's hopeless suffering as quickly as possible.
And I see this as exactly that: the automatic reaction of a horrified & humane man in the heat of battle.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.