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

AP ^ | March 31, 2005 | AP

[RebelBanker]

I noticed that neither of your citations was from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military has a rather different set of rules than civilian society - and for good reason.

[Modernman]

I was unaware of any US policy to shoot the severely wounded on the field of battle. Ordinarily they are left there for whatever medical treatment can be provided.

At the end of the day, that is what this guy did wrong. We can debate whether, morally, he did the right thing. However, it is clear that American military policy does not allow for shooting severely wounded enemies if they pose no threat.

This guy is an officer. He should have known better.

[Trinity_Tx]

Bill can be such an insufferable blowhard.

But when he agrees with me, lol, I *really* like having him speak out so bravely.

He's got a way with words.

I wonder how many WW2 soldiers would have been called evil for the morphine mercy-killings they gave even their fellow soldiers.

Mercy seems to be lost amidst the sanctimony these days.

[onyx]

I too, only like him when I agree with him...lol.
Just kidding.

This is an outrage, IMO.

[Mr. K]

DING~! DING~! DING~! Winner for most poignant reply~

[unbalanced but fair]

Good point. In battle, things unfortunately are not always all black and white. I need to know more about this story to really make an informed opinion. But I know from my family that this was not an uncommon occurance in Vietnam or WWWII. Sometimes it was impossible to deal with all the seriously wounded enemy and the only other choice was to leave them to a slow agonizing death. Not a choice I would want to make.

[unbalanced but fair]

I couldn't agree more. See my post#86.

[verity]

And when did you serve?

[OldFriend]

You said that so well. Thank you.

[Mr. Mojo]

"I always thought the point was to kill the enemy."

Not in the "hearts and minds" variety of war, evidently.

[ruiner]

I thought that meant to shoot them in the chest and head ;)

[Cogadh na Sith]

I dunno, I left active duty as a Captain. I've never seen Rules of Engagement that included the phrase: "You can shoot anyone as long as they are badly injured and probably won't make it."

He violated ROE and killed a guy.

There is no 'mercy killing' policy in the military.

How could he avoid prosecution?

[OldEagle]

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

I have no quarrel with that, but the reality is that the order of priority is (1)the mission and (2)the men. We can't stop the mission to care for our own wounded, certainly not his. Also it isn't really a good idea to leave wounded and armed enemy behind our troops as we move through an area.

I am against unrealistic punishment for military personnel acting on their best judgment in a combat situation.

[Captain Rhino]

These, I believe are the appropriate military law references. (Emphasis added)

Manual for Courts Martial (MCM) 2002 edition page IV-64

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/mcm2002.pdf#search='Manual%20for%20courts%20martial'

44. Article 119—Manslaughter

a. Text.
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, without an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being—
(1) by culpable negligence; or
(2) while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense, other than those named in clause (4) of section 918 of this title (article 118), directly affecting the person; is guilty of involuntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
b. Elements.
(1) Voluntary manslaughter.
(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;
(c) That the killing was unlawful; and
(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon the person killed.
(2) Involuntary manslaughter.
(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;
(c) That the killing was unlawful; and
(d) That this act or omission of the accused constituted culpable negligence, or occurred while the accused was perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense directly affecting the person other than burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson.
c. Explanation.
(1) Voluntary manslaughter.
(a) Nature of offense. An unlawful killing, although done with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, is not murder but voluntary manslaughter if committed in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation. Heat of passion may result from fear or rage. A person may be provoked to such an extent that in the heat of sudden passion caused by the provocation, although not in necessary defense of life or to prevent bodily harm, a fatal blow may be struck before self-control has returned. Although adequate provocation does not excuse the homicide, it does preclude conviction of murder.
(b) Nature of provocation . The provocation must be adequate to excite uncontrollable passion in a reasonable person, and the act of killing must be committed under and because of the passion. However, the provocation must not be sought or induced as an excuse for killing or doing harm. If, judged by the standard of a reasonable person, sufficient cooling time elapses between the provocation and the killing, the offense is murder, even if the accused’s passion persists. Examples of acts which may, depending on the circumstances, constitute adequate provocation are the unlawful infliction of great bodily harm, unlawful imprisonment, and the sight by one spouse of an act of adultery committed by the other spouse. Insulting or abusive words or gestures, a slight blow with the hand or fist, and trespass or other injury to property are not, standing alone, adequate provocation. (Emphasis added)

FM 27-10 THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE page a-55

http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/TJAGSAWeb.nsf/8f7edfd448e0ec6c8525694b0064ba51/8daeb722d746afd1852569e10053a0b2/$FILE/FM%2027-10.pdf#search='law%20of%20land%20warfare'

Section II. WOUNDED AND SICK

215. Protection and Care

a. Treaty Provision.

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created. Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex. The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care. (GWS, art. 12.)

GWS= Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949.

Although nearly everybody (including myself) feels that shooting a dying insurgent with half of his head blown off was an act of mercy, the military jury CHOSE to regard it as a act generated by the "heat of passion" before he had regain his self control. If it hadn't made this choice, he would have been guilty of murder (Article 118) not voluntary manslaughter.

I cited the other references because they pointed up the underlying logic of the law: even an obviously dying person has a right to what remains of their life until they naturally expire. I do not know how much influence they exert on the thinking of military judges or the Court of Military Appeals.

[muawiyah]

The objective is to stop the enemy and eliminate his capacity to make war.

That's all there is to it.

[johnb838]

Definitely, I guess that was the ROE all along? Implies that someone should have to answer for the ROE, but I guess things don't have to make any more sense in the army than they do with the liberals.

[Former Military Chick]

I can only hope that we at some point will return to threads that are about the subject intended and not highjacked into another topic.

[Former Military Chick]

Did he explode. I have a feeling the show was taken up with the events of the day. The Pope and Terri?

[windchime]

Bump!

[jaykay]

And when did you serve?

Never, and yet I still have the audacity to comment on military matters. How outrageous! I also comment on politics even though I've never run for office. I complain about the media even though I've never been a reporter or editor.
I'm out of control! Somebody stop me!