Military Court Convicts U.S. Soldier For Iraqi Man's 'Mercy Killing' - Capt. Rogelio Maynulet

AP ^ | March 31, 2005 | AP

[robertpaulsen]

"Is it acceptable to mortally wound them and then leave them there?"

Actually, they did that before. A patrol left the wounded in aroom. The next patrol came through the same room, saw movement, and shot one dead thinking he was a trap.

He got in trouble, too.

[Former Military Chick]

I did not say all had, I had posted that in my comment as well.

To those who have shown at least interest and compassion for Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet, thank you. I do not have blinders on but there just be more to this case.

Sorry for any confusion I have caused.

[Former Military Chick]

CPT Rogelio M. Maynulet

CPT Rogelio M. Maynulet (or Roger as many of us know him) is being court martialed for a shooting incident that occurred near Najaf, Iraq last year. The U.S. Army has charged Roger with Assault with Intent to Commit Murder and Dereliction of Duty which carry a potential prison sentence of 20½ years. The court martial is scheduled to take place in Germany at the end of March of this year. The incident in question involves an allegedly unlawful shooting of a mortally wounded Iraqi insurgent loyal to Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on May 21, 2004.

Roger is being represented by a military JAG attorney. However, he has incurred, and will continue to incur, significant legal expenses in the conduct of his defense. Specifically, he must bear the cost of certain expert witness opinions and testimony as well as other costs related to transportation and lodging for witnesses testifying on his behalf at the court martial. To offset some of these costs, a legal defense fund has been established to raise money to ease the financial burdens associated with this unfortunate period in his life.

Your help and support is needed. Here in the U.S., the mantra “Support Our Troops” permeates our towns and neighborhoods. Whether it’s a yellow ribbon tied to a tree or affixed to the bumper of a car, we are reminded every day of the toil and sacrifice of our soldiers serving overseas. This is an encouraging and welcome practice, but what does it really mean? Is there substance to the statement or is it simply another hollow sound bite invoked by some politician or media pundit pandering to the public? In this instance, I ask that part of “Supporting Our Troops” include making a sacrifice for a soldier who has already sacrificed much for our country. Specifically, we request of you a donation to help CPT Rogelio Maynulet defend himself against the charges he is facing.

Roger has served his country with pride, dignity and respect for both his fellow countrymen and those Iraqi’s aspiring for something better than what they had. When faced with circumstances that most of us cannot even begin to grasp, Roger drew upon his experience, training and morality to do what was right, regardless of what those who were not there may now allege. At this point, he seeks only to clear his name, avoid prison and begin life as a civilian. War is a traumatic and difficult time that leaves many devastated lives in its wake. With your help, the conflict in Iraq need not unnecessarily rob our country of another bright future.

[Gritty]

He maintained throughout his trial that he shot the man to end his suffering.

Maybe we should try Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo in a military court?

[XJarhead]

The general rule is that you don't shoot wounded who are either 1) attempting to surrender or 2) too incapacitated to present a threat. That's the normal rule, and its a reasonable one. You can be damn sure we'd be pissed if one of our wounded guys was shot.

The question here is whether or not there were specific circumstances that justified deviating from that general law of war. If the guy was badly gut shot or clearly had a mortal wound that would result in his inevitable death shortly, I can see the argument for putting him out of his misery. Same if he presented a threat.

But I also can see why you've got to look at claims of such "mercy killings" pretty closely to avoid a de facto rule that all wounded enemy get shot. I mean was the guy really mortally wounded, or not? I dunno, because I don't know what the evidence was at trial.

I don't believe in kneejerk criticisms of actions taken in combat. Been there, done that. But I also don't believe that we should automatically justify everything a particular soldier may do unless we're sure we've got all the relevant facts.

[Captain Rhino]

This may be of some interest in the discussion as to why CPT Maynulet was prosecuted:

"OUR LAWS IN THE U.S.

“It is neither a defense nor mitigating factor in a murder case that the victim is either terminal or disabled. It has long been a principle of the criminal law that, if at the time of defendant’s conduct the victim is living, IT MATTERS NOT THAT HE WAS DYING, AS FROM A MORTAL WOULD INFLICTED BY A THIRD PERSON. DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF HOMICIDE IF HE MERELY ACCELERATES THE VICTIM'S DEATH.” 2 Wharton's Criminal Law 143, § 117 (15th ed. 1994)(citations omitted). (EMPHASIS ADDED)

"IT IS HOMICIDE TO KILL ONE ALREADY DYING, to accelerate one’s death, to kill one condemned to be executed the next day, or to kill a 'worthless' victim. LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law 533, ch. 7 § 67 (1972)(citations omitted). (EMPHASIS ADDED)"

Taken from Post # 38 at this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374693/posts

Yes, it is a Terri Schavio post.

[G.Mason]

Ping thanks.

Happy the scum was killed. Saddened by the impotence of the military brass. May their political correctness run over them like a 6x6.

[pollywog]

You have that right!! We are a screwed up society. !!!

[imaketypos]

Roger is being represented by a military JAG attorney. However, he has incurred, and will continue to incur, significant legal expenses in the conduct of his defense. Specifically, he must bear the cost of certain expert witness opinions and testimony as well as other costs related to transportation and lodging for witnesses testifying on his behalf at the court martial. To offset some of these costs, a legal defense fund has been established to raise money to ease the financial burdens associated with this unfortunate period in his life.

www.freeroger.com/

[PAR35]

10 years was the final sentence, he actually served about 3 before being released from incarceration. It was the Secretary of Defense that actually signed off on the final sentence, but you may be correct about it being done on Nixon's orders.

[Former Military Chick]

I appreciate all the comments I read on FR. Even those I disagree with. I just have found in the last few days that if you posted a none Terri thread that after some time it would be high jacked and we lose the purpose of the thread.

There are always writings we draw from that help us in our posting. I appreciatae the one here, thank you.

[Brit_Guy]

Like everyone else here - I haven't seen the footage or the facts in full that went before the trial.

My tuppence worth is that this isn't a hysterical media led proscecution. This (as I undertand it) was a procecution brought by the military itself. The man is an officer. He is educated. He knows the line and so do his peers. Given the lack of political pressure behind this one - I have no reaseon to doubt the judgement that he must have crossed the line. I don't doubt he had anything but a fair trial prior to being found guilty. The system works. That why we fight for what we fight for.

[TheGunny]

The law of war declares that we are to "collect and care for wounded, friend or foe."

[RJS1950]

No, what he did in this case is clearly counter to regulations. While this has happened in the past it was against military law then. There were some courts martials during WWII for reported incidents.

[RJS1950]

West Point does not confer a law degree, so it would be from a civilian law school. The officer in question was wrong and should definitely have known better. Part of the pre-deployment training covers or provides refresher training on the laws of war.

[Trinity_Tx]

So well said, Chick.


"OK, have at it slam me with your comments telling me I am unkind, not compassionate, rude, thoughtless, un American, oh feel free to toss in any other descriptions I may have missed."


It hurts doesn't it? Especially since I bet you're like me - crying for Terri for hours now. It is heartbreaking that her life ended under the shadow of so many doubts, unGodly hostility, and exploitation.

I am convinced that many of us who've been called heartless and evil are, in fact, much more merciful and honest than our venomously self-righteous accusers.
Not only those accusers who think their beliefs and agenda are more important than whatever Terri's wishes had been, but ...Well, if I believed the lies so many here tell, I would have been down there.

So, chin up, and consider their disapproval an honor.

[Poohbah]

Not every thread has to be about Terri, does it?

Nope, it does. Welcome to www.terrirepublic, all Terri, all the time!

[RebelBanker]

Overturned on appeal would be best!

[onyx]

Outrageous.
Look for Bill O'Reilly to explode tonight.

[Modernman]

I'm not. Where do these military lawyers get their law degrees? All from West Point? Or mostly from civilian law schools AKA Leftist Indoctrination Centers?

JAG officers all go to regular law schools.

JAG corps officers are not known for their liberal Democrat tendencies. The vast majority are strict law and order types.