# Court martial for "mercy" killing



## bossi (8 Dec 2004)

U.S. soldier to be court-martialled

By DAVID RISING http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/12/07/772116-ap.html
    
BERLIN (AP) - A U.S. tank company commander accused of killing a critically injured Iraqi man who chauffeured radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will be court-martialled, an army spokesman said Tuesday. 

Capt. Rogelio Maynulet, 29, of Chicago will be tried on charges of assault with intent to commit murder and dereliction of duty, which carry a maximum combined sentence of 20 1/2 years, said Maj. Michael Indovina. 

During Maynulet's military hearing - the equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation - witnesses testified that the driver had been shot in the head when Maynulet saw him. A fellow officer said Maynulet told him he then shot the man out of compassion. 

Maynulet was initially charged with murder, but 1st Armoured Division commander Maj.-Gen. Martin Dempsey decided Monday to proceed with lesser charges at his court-martial. The army would not say whether Dempsey was acting on the hearing officer's recommendation or opted for lesser charges himself. 

Maynulet's defence attorney, Capt. Will Helixon, could not be reached for comment. 

Former commanders of Maynulet spoke highly of him during his hearing, saying he was a trustworthy officer and a particularly good combat commander.  


Prosecutors tried to paint a different picture, however, citing other incidents in which they maintained Maynulet broke military rules. 

They said he had carried a non-regulation weapon and once broke into an Iraqi police station to retrieve an identification card for a civilian contractor. 

The court-martial charges stem from a May 21 incident in which Maynulet was leading his tank company on a patrol near Kufa, where heavy fighting had been reported. 

They encountered a sedan thought to be carrying a driver for al-Sadr and another militiaman loyal to the cleric, whose supporters rose up against U.S. forces twice this year. 

U.S. soldiers chased the vehicle and fired at it, wounding both the driver and passenger. 

When a medic pulled the driver out of the car, it was clear he had suffered critical injuries, with part of his skull blown away, according to testimony during hearings held June 25 to Oct. 14 in Baghdad and Hanau, Germany. 

Maynulet's 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." 

A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing on video. The footage was replayed during the hearing once the public and reporters were removed from the courtroom. Hearing officer Maj. Michael Fadden said the video would remain classified because it could reveal the army's capabilities in Iraq. 

The military has referred to the driver only as an "unidentified paramilitary member," but relatives named him as Karim Hassan, 36. The family does not dispute that he was working for al-Sadr. 

Maynulet's command was suspended May 25, but he remains with his unit, serving on the division's planning staff. 

The 1st Armoured Division is headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany, although no venue has been chosen for the court-martial and no date has been set.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2004)

That's too bad, although it sounds like the prosecuters are using this as the centerpiece for a whole gamut of issues in their sights.

I don't think I disagree with putting a guy out of his misery if he's missing half his head, but I can assure you that this officer's career is probably finished.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

IMHO the guy did the right thing - now his chain is going to hang him...
 :

It always seem that when the chain want to LOOK like it is fixing real (or imagined) problems someone who thinks he is doing the right thing will get hung


----------



## Torlyn (8 Dec 2004)

Do they really need to dig this much for a scapegoat?  You know, if they'd broken the leg of a freakin' horse and he'd done the same thing, it's compassion.  He puts a suffering person out of their misery, and it's derelection of duty and intent to commit murder?  Something doesn't seem right.

T


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Dec 2004)

bossi said:
			
		

> A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing on video. The footage was replayed during the hearing once the public and reporters were removed from the courtroom. Hearing officer Maj. Michael Fadden said the video would remain classified because it could reveal the army's capabilities in Iraq.



Think about that statement for a minute and consider how many other mercy killings there must have been in Iraq in the past 1 1/2 years that have probably been captured and recorded by surveillance systems of one sort or another. What, in particular, might make this one so different? Did the tape "make the rounds" like a bad rumour and finally end up in the lap of some over zealous type with a hard on for charging people? I truly feel bad for this soldier and what he had to do.

I can see it coming now, not only are drones going to promoted for surveilling the enemy, but they are handy for policing your own side as well.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Dec 2004)

Taking the other side of the coin for a moment, declarations of death can only be made by trained medical personnel.  Doesn't matter how f***ed up the guy is.  An armoured officer shouldn't be making decisions of life and death with his service pistol in the absence of a trained medical officer, full stop.

I disagree that this needed to go to court martial, the same as the rest of you; it shouldn't have made the news at all.  However, once the cat was out of the bag, what choice was there but to proceed?  At least they dropped the murder charge.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (14 Dec 2004)

Im really sitting on the fence on this one. It comes down to, what would i have done in the situation? And to be totally honest, i have no idea.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (14 Dec 2004)

IMHO it was the humane thing to do.......Although I was not there. Tough call, but I think this officer is done like dinner. Takes great big brass ones to make a decision like that. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING......Now, where's that Tinfoil Helmet Mike sent me..........


----------



## john (28 Dec 2004)

As a Canadian who is not a soldier I had to join this forum to write this post because I was disturbed by the views expressed so far on this thread.  It is clear the american soldiers were trying to kill or wound the people in the car when they shot at it.  That they found a badly wounded man and shot him speaks to how little many soldiers value human life, particularly the lives of arab people and Iraqis. 

 This is not the first incident like this in the war against Iraq by American GIs.  There have been several high profile killings of Iraqis, by soldiers and gunships, who were clearly no threat to anyone, yet how many of you on this board have tried to pretend that this behaviour is not normal or representative of the situation in that country.  You can all be sure that most such incidents are not captured on video by embedded reporters,and if they are they are generally censored and not discussed. 

My point is the the real number of Iraqis being murdered is probably alot higher.  It is the these sorts of attitudes and views expressed in this thread that allow these crimes to happen.  Think about what you're really saying when you give support to someone who shot to death a badly injured Iraqi rather than getting them any medical treatment. Would you guys kill a badly wounded Canadian found in a car accident in Toronto?  Would you 'mercy kill' a badly injured person who fell off a building in Halifax but might still be alive?  Wow, and you guys are supposed to make Canadians feel safe.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Dec 2004)

john said:
			
		

> As a Canadian who is not a soldier I had to join this forum to write this post because I was disturbed by the views expressed so far on this thread.   It is clear the american soldiers were trying to kill or wound the people in the car when they shot at it.   That they found a badly wounded man and shot him speaks to how little many soldiers value human life, particularly the lives of arab people and Iraqis.
> 
> This is not the first incident like this in the war against Iraq by American GIs.   There have been several high profile killings of Iraqis, by soldiers and gunships, who were clearly no threat to anyone, yet how many of you on this board have tried to pretend that this behaviour is not normal or representative of the situation in that country.   You can all be sure that most such incidents are not captured on video by embedded reporters,and if they are they are generally censored and not discussed.
> 
> My point is the the real number of Iraqis being murdered is probably alot higher.   It is the these sorts of attitudes and views expressed in this thread that allow these crimes to happen.   Think about what you're really saying when you give support to someone who shot to death a badly injured Iraqi rather than getting them any medical treatment. Would you guys kill a badly wounded Canadian found in a car accident in Toronto?   Would you 'mercy kill' a badly injured person who fell off a building in Halifax but might still be alive?   Wow, and you guys are supposed to make Canadians feel safe.



I agree completely, but I wouldn't let the ill-thought out comments of some anonymous "gung-ho" types on an internet forum stain your impression of the CF as a whole.

I must say, I've been similarly disappointed - if not by the attitudes of some, then at the least by the willingness to display that attitude in public, as it were.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Dec 2004)

Very true.  The guy probably would have died anyway, but once he's no longer a threat, that decision is not up to the soldiers.  He should have received the same medical treatement as we would provide to our own.  The fact that acts like these don't go unpunished is one of the things that makes us, and the US, better than the people we fight.  If we turn a blind eye to it, how can we claim to be any better than Sadams regime?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

John, if all you've come here to do is to give us a lecture us and lob accusations of murder on American soldiers from the safety of your bed in Toronto, then piss off.

As I said in my original post, it appears that this was only icing on the cake for the prosecutors - he was targeted for an entire range of behaviours.   However, to assume that you have the moral highground sitting on your couch and watching the 6 o'clock news shows your lack of any sense of reality what-so-ever.

You're right; this probably happens more then is reported.   Some 19 year old kid from small-town Oregon gets in his first firefight and fatally wounds a human being and then, upon inspection, sees him lying on the ground with his internal organs splashed across the street.   For all we know,the guy is asking to be shot and it's in the middle of no-where with no medical access on hand.   Maybe he shoots the guy, maybe he leaves him on the pavement.

Soldiers in a warzone are thrown into moral quandaries every minute - to sit behind him on your couch and scream "murder" while accusing him of having "no value for human life, particularly Arabs" while senjoying your steak and beer on the TV tray is weak.

_"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."_ 

You can go back to sleep now....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're right; this probably happens more then is reported.   Some 19 year old kid from small-town Oregon gets in his first firefight and fatally wounds a human being and then, upon inspection, sees him lying on the ground with his internal organs splashed across the street.   For all we know,the guy is asking to be shot and it's in the middle of no-where with no medical access on hand.



It's still illegal to shoot him, just as it is illegal to assist someone in a Toronto bed to commit suicide.  Merciful or not, you can't do it.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

I'm not denying that it is against the law.

However, I have a feeling that an American soldier who just came out of a fire-fight may not be thinking about the finer points of the law when he just spattered the guts of another man across the sidewalk.   Others in the same situation probably would have ignored the guy or gave him some water - this is what he thought was the human thing to do and it seems that the Court-Marshal recognized this by, as you pointed out, dropping the murder charge.   As well, I have a feeling the Army went through with this not because of this one act, which I bet you gets overlooked most of the time, but because they were gunning for the officer and he clearly stepped out of his lane.

As well, I'm not going to take John's bullshit, CBC-inspired barb that this is representative of a trend of premeditated murder based along some sort of racist impulse.   That's just a gutless attack on soldiers caught in the maelstrom of war.


----------



## JBP (28 Dec 2004)

> It's still illegal to shoot him, just as it is illegal to assist someone in a Toronto bed to commit suicide.   Merciful or not, you can't do it.



True enough, but we have forgotten also that apparently this Iraqi was already "fataly" wounded, which means he was going to die regardless of medical assistance or not. Would it have been better to dope him up and let him slip into a coma or sleep until he died a few short minutes or hours later? I don't know, I'm not a medic. I do understand the USA brass's need to pursue this gentlemen to show they do have compassion for human life.

There must be something in that surveillance footage to irk thier attention though, because obviously this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. Also, what about all the soldiers that do house to house or Mosque raides and "tap" a "dead" enemy in the head 2 times to ensure he's dead after they blow the place up with grenades? One of those guys was charged too...

 :-\


----------



## ibucephalus (28 Dec 2004)

> but we have forgotten also that apparently this Iraqi was already "fataly" wounded, which means he was going to die regardless of medical assistance or not



Actually, no we haven't forgotten that "this Iraqi was already 'fataly'(sic) wounded", as it is not stated. The article states, "it was clear he had suffered critical injuries".  It is a logical leap to translate "critical" into fatal. The statement about the iraqi's injuries being "critical" was taken from someone who testified at his military hearing. The article doesn't specifically state who made this testimony or whether that unamed person was qualified to assess his injuries. Certainly, people in "critical" condition often survive their injuries. This line of argument is moot though because, as already stated, it is _always_ illegal to execute (or mercy kill, semantics) people, regardless of whether they have skinned their knee, or had half their head blown off. 

Interestingly, at his arrainment, Capt Maynulet did not enter a plea. Staff Sgt. Johnny M. Horne Jr., who plead guilty to murder and conspiracy to commit murder earlier this month, received a 3 year sentence, reduction in rank, and dishonourable discharge, presumably in a plea bargain arrangement. I wonder if the military will throw the book at Capt Maynulet after he did not enter a plea. It would seem difficult to argue against the video evidence.


----------



## JBP (28 Dec 2004)

> Interestingly, at his arrainment, Capt Maynulet did not enter a plea. Staff Sgt. Johnny M. Horne Jr., who plead guilty to murder and conspiracy to commit murder earlier this month, received a 3 year sentence, reduction in rank, and dishonourable discharge, presumably in a plea bargain arrangement. I wonder if the military will throw the book at Capt Maynulet after he did not enter a plea. It would seem difficult to argue against the video evidence.



Interestingly, he is probably trying to demonstrate that he wasn't at fault although we know legally (not morally really, it's moot and up to individual opinion) that he was indeed at fault. Many people refuse to enter into a plea bargain because it partially admits fault automatically. Turns you into the guilty party obviously....

 :


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (29 Dec 2004)

ibucephalus said:
			
		

> > but we have forgotten also that apparently this Iraqi was already "fataly" wounded, which means he was going to die regardless of medical assistance or not
> 
> 
> 
> , received a 3 year sentence, reduction in rank, and dishonourable discharge,



How do you get both a reduction in rank AND a dishonourable discharge? It's like "ok, first we're going to demote you, then we're going to kick you out." How does that work?

Kind of a dumb question but I was just curious.


----------



## ibucephalus (29 Dec 2004)

> he is probably trying to demonstrate that he wasn't at fault



Good point, but what I wonder is why he didn't enter a "not guilty" plea.



> How do you get both a reduction in rank AND a dishonourable discharge?



I believe the member is demoted immediately, serves their prison sentence at the rank of private, and is only discharged at the end of their sentence (at the rank they were demoted to). I think.


----------



## Slim (29 Dec 2004)

> Actually, no we haven't forgotten that "this Iraqi was already fatally(sic) wounded", as it is not stated. The article states, "it was clear he had suffered critical injuries".  It is a logical leap to translate "critical" into fatal



I believe the report stated (not having been there of course) that the "critically injured" individual was missing part of his head...Pretty hard to come back from that no matter where you are and how close medical aid is...

As for this incident. I look at it as the bureaucracy in action. And they're going to sink a good officer in order to "make a point!"

Too bad

Slim


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

Well I for one think I would likely do exactly what the Capt did.

There are a number of things we do not do in Combat Casualty Care
#1 being CPR - so all you St John's guy can go back to bed.

Unlike us for the most part US units do not have morphine at sub unit or individual level, so regardless if you just blew the crap out of the vehicle you are now left with wounded.  Now having seen what bullets can do - it is not really a pretty scene - what are you going to do.  If you want to take it another step - imagine it is one of your buddies burning on fire with desiel...  Unfortunately you can do ONLY ONE THING TO EASE HIS MISERY.  Is it going to suck, are you going to be sick, and likely see it over and over in your thoughts?

Maybe it was de jure illegal - but it was the decent thing IMHO - I believe that is why he did not enter a plea - he plans on convincing the board that his actiosn where the right one at the time.

I for one don't feel we have the right to second guess his decision - made in moments after close combat, when we were not there.  Especially views from the couch, where you have never been placed in a situation where this could unfold.


----------



## 48Highlander (29 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Well I for one think I would likely do exactly what the Capt did.
> 
> There are a number of things we do not do in Combat Casualty Care
> #1 being CPR - so all you St John's guy can go back to bed.
> ...



    Remionds me of that SF scene in Canadian Bacon.  "I'm fine, I just sprained my ankle!  *bang*"
    If you're going to be shooting buddies who are on fire instead of maybe trying to put them out and evacuate them, well, I deffinitely don't want you anywhere near me.  Pain is temporary, death is quite permanent.

     Just to back that up a little more, one of the current members of this board took 4 rounds in the head.  Should his partner have "helped him out" with a quick double tap?


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

I was more refering to a charred lump that is moaning, not just someone flaming around - I guess I was nto specific enough 

 I am all for doing the utmost one can do for an individual - however there comes a point in time that in the situation you are in you can do no more.


You got lucky.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I am all for doing the utmost one can do for an individual - however there comes a point in time that in the situation you are in you can do no more.



Tell that to a family that believes in God and miracles...  Either human life is sacrosanct, or it isn't.  We as a society have judged that it is (allowing,  of course, for rare exceptions such as soldiers in war, policemen acting in the public good, public executioners).  That means guys on the spot don't get to make the rules, no matter how cut and dried it might seem.  If anyone did want to play God, Judge, Jury, Executioner or whatever combination of the above, I'd hope they wouldn't be dumb enough to brag about it.  I have no doubt that decisions like that have been made in the past, and will probably be made in future, but advocating it to others in open forum doesn't strike me as anything but bravado.

I also don't think a judge or jury should allow "mercy" as an excuse; we have laws for a reason, and convenience is not one of them...

Just my opinion.


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

Michael for 99.9% of the population would never consider it, for the circumstances are not in anyway going to happen.

 But just think about discovering a burned charred remains only to find out it is still alive - no more features are left, and it is in extreme pain - going to go into shock and there is NOTHING you can do.

Rightly or Worngly we all have our own experiences and values that we will use to formulate our own action/inaction.

BTW I am against euthenasia and strongly anti-abortion before anyone beleives that I am cavalierly dismissing human life.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Dec 2004)

I fully see your point and obviously cannot say what I would or wouldn't do in such a situation.  I also admit you probably have much more relevant experiences than I have.

I would imagine those kinds of decisions are made as privately as possible and nothing gets said about them.  Which brings us to the problem in this case, the presence of the camera...

I tend to believe more in divine intervention, which I think puts my perspective a little further than yours (apologies if I am incorrect).


----------



## Infanteer (29 Dec 2004)

_"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
-William Tecumseh Sherman_

I think we can all admit that this was an ugly thing and that war is full of ugly things.   I also think that none of us want to be put in the situations that have been brought up.

The only reason I made an issue on this thread is that ugly things do not mean that soldiers are racists committed acts of premeditated murder (as John would like to have us believe).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The only reason I made an issue on this thread is that ugly things do not mean that soldiers are racists committed acts of premeditated murder (as John would like to have us believe).



But if we talk like we are, it is easy for John to believe so, right?


----------



## KevinB (30 Dec 2004)

Double edged sword - the same with embeded reporters.

  By and large I think the more open we as soliders are about our experiences and values the more public will accept that we are human (odd and somewhat strange - but human).

Most civilians cannot fathom what it woudl be like to approach a village that had been burned away and only charred remains of the previous inhabitants left.  Similarily most civilians dont have to make live and death judgments day in day out.  We (when deployed) don't live in the 911 world as a result EVERYTHING takes on a whole new dynamic.

 I mean if people saw how I drove in Afghan - I'd have my license revoked for EVER


----------



## bossi (30 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> ... By and large I think the more open we as soliders are about our experiences and values the more public will accept that we are human (odd and somewhat strange - but human).
> 
> Most civilians cannot fathom what it woudl be like to approach a village that had been burned away and only charred remains of the previous inhabitants left.   Similarily most civilians dont have to make live and death judgments day in day out.   We (when deployed) don't live in the 911 world as a result EVERYTHING takes on a whole new dynamic. ...



Well said.  The only way that couch potatoes and armchair quarterbacks are ever going to be effectively silenced (and shown for what they truly are) is if the REAL players tell the story.



> It is not the critic that counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
> _Theodore Roosevelt._


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Dec 2004)

If they want to prosecute for an unlawful killing, they should stick to that.  It's very small of the prosecution to try to portray him as some sort of wild outlaw for trivialities such as carrying an unauthorized weapon.  I suppose the practice of law isn't necessarily the search for justice.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Jan 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If they want to prosecute for an unlawful killing, they should stick to that.   It's very small of the prosecution to try to portray him as some sort of wild outlaw for trivialities such as carrying an unauthorized weapon.   I suppose the practice of law isn't necessarily the search for justice.



I'm not so sure of how trivial it is to carry an unauthorized weapon in the US Army on operations, but I am quite certain someone would get their balls slapped in ours, war zone or not. Same with breaking into a police station. The prosecutor's role is that of "truth seeker", it's the accused who search for "justice", not the "law" and certainly not the prosecutor. Also, it is not uncommon to refuse to enter a plea, and no plea is necessary in a preliminary proceeding such as a grand jury. 

This court martial, whether it succeeds or not, will most certainly backfire in the greater scheme of things as any outcome will create confusion and add further factors into the already complicated split second decision making process of soldiers, particularly the infantry. This gentleman's lawyer is going to be presented with the opportunity to attempt to raise a defence of necessity in the form of a battlefield mercy killing in front of a jury of his peers. There probably is no established defence in law, but he will be permitted to advance the argument anyway. The jury will most certainly be asked to put themselves in the position of both the deceased and the good captain. The jury will empathize with both, and will not be happy with any verdict that is rendered. The lawyer will also be permitted to argue that denying the practice of mercy killings on battlefields simply creates an artificial duty to rescue the wounded where such a duty existed previously only in exigent circumstances. The result may well be that leaving the wounded to bleed out is just as culpable an act as pulling the trigger, in any circumstances. 

It's just one more example of how crazy this war is becoming in the efforts to justify what should already be obvious to anybody with the blinders off. Perhaps if the enemy did not recieve so much support from our own citizens here, Sadrs wouldn't had a driver in place on that day, in that place and at that time.


----------



## JAG_Corps (20 Jan 2005)

This is an incredibly complicated issue, and is certainly not black and white.   Protections under the Geneva Convention require wounded and sick to be treated humanely, while protection under Hague Regulations governing weapons and tactic require tactics/weapons that do not cause unnecessary suffering.   So two guiding principles in law of war seems to provide, not necessarily a justification, but certainly an explanation as to what motivated the CPT.   It is very easy to just say the actions were wrong, but on a dusty, hot, battlefield, with an ongoing mission, where MEDEVAC is not possible because the LZ is "hot", and ground evac would risk mission failure, maybe his actions were humane.

As for him kicking in an IPs door to retrieve a identification badge of an interpreter, what happens if the insurgents get the badge and access to all the posts? As for the unauthorized weapons, I am reminded of an account of a battle where the US weapon jammed, and the acting commander picked up an AK-47 to continue fighting, and was ultimately awarded a silver star for the courage and valour displayed in that battle.   What happens if there are not enough rifles for all soldiers to have one in this tank company?   Or this weapon is a coalition authorized weapon that fires standard NATO rounds?

The diverse opinions are refreshing, but this is not a simple call?


----------

