Posted on 02/21/2009 12:33:41 PM PST by Gondring
Story Highlights
(CNN) -- A U.S. Army medic was sentenced Friday to life in prison with the possibility of parole after being convicted of murdering four detainees in Iraq, a U.S. military spokesman in Germany said.
Sgt. Michael Leahy Jr., 28, was convicted on two counts of murder and premeditated murder for his role in the 2007 Baghdad area killings.
Leahy was downgraded to private, his pay will be forfeited and he'll get a dishonorable discharge if he is ever released from prison. The sentence was handed down Friday night.
Two other soldiers also face courts-martial in the case, said military spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Happens to me too. :)
First of all, you aren’t making it clear to which Convention you are referring.
Secondly, they are...unless we declare the conflict as outside the Conventions.
Thirdly, we are...unless we declare the conflict as outside the Conventions.
Fourthly, IANAL, so this is not legal advice.
Oh, and there was no trial to determine these were terrorists. Do you want American troops to face Iraqi trial, if we aren’t considering them under the Geneva Conventions?
You don’t need a trial to determine it. If they are not army soldiers, wearing uniforms of a nation’s army, they are not army soldiers. They are enemy combatants and as such are not given the protections of the Geneva Convention as a ‘soldier’.
“You don’t need a trial to determine it. If they are not army soldiers, wearing uniforms of a nation’s army, they are not army soldiers. They are enemy combatants and as such are not given the protections of the Geneva Convention as a ‘soldier’.”
See post 22, one thing that I never heard discussed among LRRPS was simply murdering people because they weren’t easily defined by (idiots?), you try to legalize murder and me and my fellow American GIs and veterans will close ranks against you.
Not exactly. Check the wording more carefully, and you’ll see that it’s more complex than that.
But in any case, that just would mean that they would not be subject to POW status and Convention III, but would instead be covered under Convention IV and, therefore, subject to prosecution in court of law.
The Conventions are quite clear that you can’t shoot bound and blindfolded men in the head, unless they are psychics and not hors de combat. Since these victims were not known to be firing psychic blasts or launching telekinetic attacks, I assume they were hors de combat.
“In other words, you are clueless and full of horse manure.”
I am an infantry veteran of Vietnam. On more than one occasion we engaged in a firefight and when it was over one or more of the NVA or VC would start yelling that they wanted to surrender. Once they stood up or made themselves visible with their hands up we would take them prisoner. Shooting one of them when the threat was over was considered a war crime, and in any case, I don’t recall anyone one of us who would have considered killing them after they had their hands bound behind their back.
I hope you never served in a combat situation, because your attitude is dishonorable. American soldiers do not shoot bound prisoners in the back of the head. We are not Nazis or islamofascists and killing an enemy combatant who is bound is not a sign of strength but a sign of weakness. In fact, it is cowardly.
“don’t wait until they drop their weapons”
In a combat situation one never waits for his enemy to drop his weapon. Taking prisoners is not the goal in combat, killing is, and as long as someone has a weapon in their hand or otherwise appears to be a threat they are a legitimate target.
You're confused. That's obvious. Nobody ever said they should.
Also, the enemy in Vietnam were Vietnamese - - they lived there. They took POWs (at least the NVA did). Comparing Vietnam with Iraq is comparing apples and oranges.
“Black Jack Pershing legitimately executed several muzzie prisoners in the Philippines during an uprising. He had their bodies wrapped in pig entrails and buried.”
The General Pershing thing never happened, in fact historians say that he was entirely too gentle and restrained in his style with Moros to ever entertain such an act. Patton having a Donkey dealt with? big deal.
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/pershing.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp
“Hogwash about General Jack”
Date Added: Oct. 29, 2001
Last Updated: June 4, 2004
“There are no documented accounts of these events ever happening in the Philippines or anywhere else in 1911 or at any other time. Even experts who have studied “Black Jack” have no record of it. Pershing biographer, Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, told Urban Legends expert, David Emery, that he has found no historical account of such a strategy and feels that such actions would run counter to what is known of Pershing’s character.”
“You’re confused. That’s obvious. Nobody ever said they should.”
I thought that was the issue we were discussing? Bottom line, when an enemy combatant is not longer a threat either because he is wounded and unarmed when the fighting is over, or he has surrendered, it is wrong to kill him. If he is running, out of ammo, or otherwise not fighting, he is still a target and should be shot at.
It can be awfully tough to tell "when the fighting is over".
I think my biggest problem with this whole debate/exercise is that it is strictly a one-way street. Can you imagine a situation where insurgents get the upper hand on a squad, and a lone surviving soldier raises his hands and attempts to surrender? Dead.
“Can you imagine a situation where insurgents get the upper hand on a squad, and a lone surviving soldier raises his hands and attempts to surrender? Dead.”
I don’t have to imagine it, it actually happened in Iraq. A marine sniper team was trapped and all were killed but one of them. The lone survivor was found days later having died from torture. The fact these animals do this sort of thing to us does not mean we have to do it to them. We have always had a tradition that says we don’t kill the enemy when he has surrendered and it is important for the morale of our troops we continue this rule.
I agree it is hard to tell sometimes when the fighting is over and if an enemy soldier who is trying to surrender gets killed in the confusion, then so be it, no one is at fault. I’m not suggesting standards that puts our troops in danger. I am simply saying that a bound enemy combatant is clearly no threat and should be treated humanely.
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.