For previous threads, on this case, click at the LINK.
Posted on 02/09/2008 5:50:11 AM PST by RedRover
A trial unfolding in a makeshift courthouse in a dusty corner of the U.S. Army's main Baghdad base camp complex is demonstrating in stark and dramatic terms just how far some American soldiers are being pushed on the battlefield, just how doggedly the Army is willing to pursue serious alleged crimes like murder — and just how interested the Iraqi government is in the process.
Part of an elite parachute infantry sniper-scout platoon, Sgt. Evan Vela is accused of murdering an unarmed Iraqi that his five-man squad had taken captive after the man breached their hideout....
~ snip ~
As the first day of testimony in what is expected to be a four day trial kicked off on Friday before an eight-person jury of both officers and enlisted soldiers, Vela's civilian defense attorney James Culp argued that his client was not guilty of murdering Genei Nesir Khudair Al-Janabi because, at the time Vela pulled the trigger, he was so sleep-deprived and dehydrated after four days of non-stop battlefield action that he was neither in control of his actions nor fully aware of what he was doing. "It was a terrible accident," Culp said outside the courtroom during a recess, "but Evan didn't intentionally shoot anyone."
~ snip ~
Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, however, does not see the case as either a justified kill or a horrific accident by an exhaustion-impaired soldier. She was attending today's proceedings, she told TIME, because, "I want to be sure that any American soldier who wrongs an Iraqi will go on trial. [Vela] killed an Iraqi man, an unarmed man. He must be punished."
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
For previous threads, on this case, click at the LINK.
Nobody should be allowed to participate in a trial like this -- either as a judge, military "juror," government observer, or even a spectator -- without first spending three months serving with the defendant's unit under conditions that mirror (as closely as possible) the conditions that soldier faced in the field. If that means some @sshole JAG officers and an Iraqi "Minister of Human Rights" (why is it that these disgraceful American nation-building campaigns always end up implementing these Euro-weenie style bureaucracies like this? . . . but that's for another discussion) have to climb into Humvees and drive around Third World sh!t-holes every day for three months, then so be it.
Another US soldier thrown to the PC wolves. Meanwhile, the trial of PFC Phil Shore for “3rd degree murder” (thats what the military calls it when you shoot near someeone but dont hit them) begins next week in Hawaii. More efforts by the military to calm the savage PC beast.....throw a few soldiers their way and they will be happy, or so the Army hopes.
My hatred for those who abuse our own to show their devotion to our enemy is even greater than the hatred I feel for the enemy itself.
“innocent civilian” “accidentally stumbled into” prove it. Supposition without provable basis in true fact. We’ve lost sniper teams in Iraq. Prove this wasn’t a setup. A recon. An exploitation of known weakness in ROE?
Prove it.
This is an obvious attempt by the Iraqi government to influence the jury. If this person is identified in any way to the court, then this should be a mistrial. If it can be proven that the Iraqi government has received sympathetic communications of any variety from any level of the US government, and that those are even slightly known by any participant in the court martial, then this should be a mistrial or grounds for appeal in the event of any conviction.
One item that we've speculated on is what brought about the man's death.
The unit on the ground thought it was OBVIOUS that he was attempting to signal his whereabouts to the entire insurgent community...dangerous territory they were in.
In other words, he was acting as a COMBATANT. Therefore, killing a COMBATANT is justified.
It is NOT our job to be 2d guessing decisions on the ground made by the troops sent in on clandestine missions.
This is critical NEW information that we have only speculated on up to this point.
In his testimony today, Hensley, one of the soldiers already acquitted for his role in the death (but guilty of planting the AK-47), endeavored to justify the killing, saying that Al-Janabi would not stop yelling, crying and "flopping around like a fish" despite repeated efforts to silence him. It was then that Hensley says he decided, for the safety of his men, that Al-Janabi had to die. "I thought that he was trying alert insurgents," Hensley said.
BTW, I'm tracking news about the PFC Shore trial (and his two co-defendents in the 25th Div) at DefendOurTroops.
This is the first time that the media has acknowledged the role of the Iraqi government in the prosecution of our troops. We’ve suspected it, but to see it confirmed in print is absolutely sickening.
It becomes more apparent to me why the Govt. insisted on this trial be held in Iraq. Not to truly have the interests of Justice brought forth. But to further someone’s political agenda. Better than having it in Berkeley, though.
I can’t say I’m surprised at this. Can’t even say I’m disappointed, to be honest with you. This war was a farce from the start — and while I still get a lot of sh!t for saying that, it’s things like this nonsense that open more and more eyes to what’s really going on here.
I agree that’s critical testimony. The defense has reason to be confident that Sgt Vela will be exonerated. The Minister of Human Rights should go chase Al Qaeda.
While in enemy held territory and physically engaged with was believed to be an insurgent or insurgent scout that was desperately trying to attract attention, Vela's commanding officer ordered him to shoot.
Besides the fact that I don't see how Vela had a choice in the matter, this should be SOP.
The tone of the article is a tad bit different than McGirk's.
top command in our armed forces has been a pit of smelly bull——, since the firing of McCarthur (if not before). While civilian control of the military, is a constitutional and necessary thing, the politicization of the top brass has been disastrous. What has the military accomplished in the last few decades (Grenada and Panama being small exceptions)?
Political concerns, and not good patriotic concerns, have so defined the battles, that we fight with at least one hand tied behind our backs. We have not struck when and where we should and we have struck in places that we probably should not have.
Morale has survived to some extent, no thanks to feminization of the military and other goofy policies, mostly because of the all-volunteer policy.
I believe there is a huge gap between citizen-soldier and politician-soldier.
Now we know the name for Obama's VP choice.
Any soldier who harms an Iraqi huh.
Well then, to avoid any harm to them, I suggest we let them fix their own damn country. :(
Mikhail, Huh? Wonder if he has a birthmark on his butt that matches another famous Mikhail?
BTW, that reference to sand rubs me raw! :-)
What? Go wash your mouth out and keep your snarky comments about the War in Iraq to yourself, who cares what you “disapprove” of? I support America in this War on Terror and the brave military men who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ya...I have a friend who said there's a Burger King at Camp Victory. He said there's nothing worse then eating a sandy burger. Darn wind.
Here’s some other links:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq9feb09,1,1199511.story
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-zT8WvZY-uYK3d-CARtfDJgnR-wD8UM5U580
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.