Trial set for captain accused of killing badly-injured Iraqi - Capt. Maynulet (murder vs mercy)

Stars and Stripes ^ | Stars and Stripes | Kevin Dougherty

[Former Military Chick]

The court-martial of a 1st Armored Division captain accused of murdering an Iraqi man last year is set to begin March 28, according to Army officials.

If coverage of the preliminary hearings last fall is any indication, the trial of Capt. Rogelio M. Maynulet should generate great interest among servicemembers and the media. Some view the case as “an act of mercy” to a dead or dying man, while Army prosecutors maintain it was murder.

Maynulet is charged with premeditated murder and dereliction of duty relating to the May 21 death of a man believed to be associated with the insurgency campaign against U.S. troops. At the time of the incident, Maynulet commanded Company A, 2nd Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment, and was viewed by many superiors as a rising star.

“Captain Maynulet maintains his innocence, and I think that the court members will reach the right and just verdict,” Capt. Will Helixon, the lead defense attorney, said in a telephone interview Friday.

The trial will be held in the courtroom on Wiesbaden Army Airfield, Germany.

Maj. Michael Indovina, a division spokesman, said the proceedings are expected to last several days.

“It will definitely go the full week, based on the number of witnesses,” Helixon said.

The list for both sides includes about 45 to 50 names, Helixon said.

Prosecutors are expected to introduce a 10-minute video of the incident and the events preceding it. An unmanned aerial vehicle operating at the time near the Iraqi cities of Kufa and Najaf apparently captured the shooting on tape.

The video was not played in open court during the pretrial hearing. The encounter between Maynulet and the Iraqi man came at the end of a vehicle chase between U.S. soldiers and a car believed to contain militia forces.

In a U.S. Central Command news release following the incident, the Army stated “the driver and a passenger were wounded” when U.S. forces shot at their vehicle. “Shortly thereafter, the wounded driver was shot and killed at close range.”

At the preliminary hearing, defense attorneys presented expert medical testimony and a report by the on-scene medic. The report stated there were at least two bullet wounds to the base of the driver’s skull and that brain matter was on his clothes and in the car. A medical expert said a person in such a state could still move, but it would likely be involuntarily.

As the scene was unfolding, there were gunbattles with insurgents in the immediate vicinity, and evacuation of the injured was not possible, according to defense witnesses.

During Maynulet’s Article 32 hearing in December, fellow officer 1st Lt. Colin Cremin testified that Maynulet told him he then shot the Iraqi in the base of the neck or the back of the head.

“It was something he didn’t want to do, but it was the compassionate response,” Cremin testified. “It was definitely the humane response.”

Whatever the circumstances, prosecutors argue Maynulet unlawfully killed a man who, at the time, was alive, even if his chances for survival were slim.

[Gondring]

Since you can't follow-up elsewhere... If I were in Mrs. Schiavo's situation, I would hope anyone who cared about me or my preferences would help me to obtain release from it. I would hope that society would become less barbaric and allow a dignified, painless exit, but barbarism and disconnection of the gastric tube were required, I hope they'd do that, too....but with lots of morphine.

If my parents or others wanted to block that, I do hope that anyone who loved me would fight them tooth and nail.

Her parents want her to live, and I'm sure that would not be the case if her life was a day to day horror of agony.

Day-to-day agony is not a requirement for a person to want a peaceful end. Multiple courts have examined the evidence, including testimony that the Schindlers gave (And since they've reportedly changed their mind and recanted, how can they then attack Mr. Schiavo for changing his mind on his wife's chance of recovery?)...the only thing that's keeping Mrs. Schiavo's wishes from being carried out are those who are interfering.

I don't know Mr. Schiavo, Mrs. Schiavo, the Schindlers, or anyone else in this case...my sole interest is that I care about our rights and hope that we can reverse this trend of allowing interfering into our lives, marriages, rights, etc.

So here people are, ignoring an American woman's rights, yet at the same time an American officer is being charged with a crime for doing what Mrs. Schiavo couldn't get even if she wanted.

[thoughtomator]

Sorry, how did you determine that she wanted to die? I was of the impression that she demonstrated no such desire.

For the enemy it's not mercy, it's finishing the job.

[Gondring]

Sorry, how did you determine that she wanted to die?

I didn't.

I figure she wanted to live and not be brain damaged, but unfortunately, that's not available. Given the options available, I believe that the determination has to come from someone who knew her far better than I--her spouse.

Are you claiming to know her better than he?

[thoughtomator]

I would say there's more than enough evidence that the spouse is making his decisions on what benefits him, not her. Wouldn't you agree? Also, are you unaware that significant evidence points to him as the cause of her condition? Do you think it's right to put a victim's fate in the hands of her assailant?

[thoughtomator]

Hold on a sec. You did in fact determine that she wants to die - and I'll quote:

...mercy for an innocent woman who wants it (voluntary euthanasia) is bad?

Are you serious at all about your arguments or are you playing Devil's Advocate games with me?

[Sabatier]

The problem is that the military is being run by lawyers.
The battlefield cannot be run in the same way that we regulate civilian life but that's what the lawyers are trying to do, regardless.
Obviously if soldiers are expected to act like lawyers first, and soldiers second, the military must provide each soldier with a law degree prior to active duty.

[Gondring]

Read again...."it" refers to "mercy"

I don't think she wanted to become vegetative, or severely disabled, or whatever...do you? I think she would WANT to be whole again. But I don't think that's an option.

[Gondring]

I would say there's more than enough evidence that the spouse is making his decisions on what benefits him, not her. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't agree. I do think that is a possibility, yet I also think that the evidence fits his actions if he's honest.

Also, are you unaware that significant evidence points to him as the cause of her condition? Do you think it's right to put a victim's fate in the hands of her assailant?

I was previously under the impression that was the case, but then I looked into it more and discovered that the evidence is really quite strong that it was Mrs. Schiavo's poor behavioural choices (e.g., diet pills, bulemia, etc.) that led to her condition. Perhaps there was a history of abuse, but that's far from conclusive...and far from conclusively Mr. Schiavo's fault...especially because of the links between bulimia and childhood abuse.

[thoughtomator]

There are two things that I can't explain if I start with the assumption that he's honest: 1) that he wants her cremated immediately; and 2) that he refuses to transfer custody of her to her parents, who want to take care of her.

[thoughtomator]

I think that sentence was very clear, in that "it" referred to "voluntary euthenasia". If "it" is "mercy", I find that insufficient as a reason to put someone to death in her circumstances. There's no indication that she is seeking mercy in the form of being put to death. Furthermore, I shudder to think what other extensions of the concept of mercy will be used to put people to death - I can think of no unabusable definition.

The key here for me is that because her wishes are not known, putting her to death also prevents us from learning what her wishes actually are. Given that there's doubt, what's the harm in keeping her alive, if for no other reason than to determine what her true wishes are? Being wrong in believing she wants death would make those who kill her into murderers, an irreversible situation. Keeping her alive, on the other hand is not irreversable - if alive, she can be left to die; if dead, she cannot be brought back to life. Since we don't know, can a person of conscience accept the possibility that she may be killed against her will?

[Gondring]

There are two things that I can't explain if I start with the assumption that he's honest: 1) that he wants her cremated immediately; and 2) that he refuses to transfer custody of her to her parents, who want to take care of her.

I can see two reasons. Number one, he is following what she wanted and he sees that the Schindlers won't follow that if he lets her have custody. Number two, he's seen how the Schindlers have made a circus of things and have distorted the truth, so I would imagine he's rightfully mistrustful of them.

[Gondring]

I think that sentence was very clear, in that "it" referred to "voluntary euthenasia".

Not to be too picky, since you went on, but note that "voluntary euthanasia" was AFTER "it" in the sentence. The modifier would have been dangling your way.

There's no indication that she is seeking mercy in the form of being put to death.

Put to death or allowed to die? She will die without nutrition/hydration...that's not "putting to death," but is not providing care.

And of course she's not seeking mercy now--if she had the cognition to do such things, we wouldn't be having this discussion! In other words, that's not a relevant point.

Of course, I support allowing her to receive active assistance in passing more quickly, The key here for me is that because her wishes are not known...

Part of being human in this world is that we can't know everything but must still make decisions. We have to make the best judgments we can, and a spouse is the one who would know best what a person would have wanted.

Given that there's doubt, what's the harm in keeping her alive, if for no other reason than to determine what her true wishes are?

I suppose you oppose capital punishment, too. See below for the harm.

Since we don't know, can a person of conscience accept the possibility that she may be killed against her will?

I believe there are some things worse than death. We can't turn back time and remove the days that Mrs. Schiavo should not have had her body tying her to earth...so can a person of conscience deny her right to receive release a single day late? , putting her to death also prevents us from learning what her wishes actually are. Given that there's doubt, what's the harm in keeping her alive, if for no other reason than to determine what her true wishes are?