| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| US soldier killed Iraqi 'in pity' [very difficult judgement call] |
| 2004-09-11 |
| This is an article which requires putting aside any animosity (at least temporarily) towards Iraqi insurgents while reading it. Wednesday, 8 September, 2004, 19:30 GMT 20:30 UK A US army captain charged with the murder of an Iraqi militant said the man was killed out of mercy, a US military hearing has been told. A colleague told the hearing in Germany that Capt Rogelio Maynulet, 29, shot the man in the head as "there was nothing more that could be done". Capt Maynulet faces life in prison if guilty of murdering Karim Hassan, 36. The hearing viewed footage of the killing caught by a US military drone aircraft, the AP news agency said. Reporters were asked to leave the room while the video was shown to an expert witness in neurosurgery, lest it should give away secrets of US technology in Iraq. Sadr supporters The death occurred on 21 May near the central Iraqi town of Kufa. US troops fired at a vehicle they thought was carrying militants linked to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr. The hearing was told that the car's passenger was killed immediately, while the driver was badly injured. Lt Colin Cremin testified that Capt Maynulet and others in his unit had described the incident to him, saying the driver "had half his brain hanging out, there was nothing more that could be done for him." Capt Maynulet had confirmed he had shot the man in the base of the neck or the back of the head, he said. "It was something he didn't want to do but it was the compassionate response, it was definitely the humane response," he said. Various witnesses praised Capt Maynulet. The prosecution alleges he broke US rules of engagement and used illegal weapons. Denies charges His lawyer, Capt William Helixon, said later: "The individual was neither a prisoner nor a civilian but an Iraqi insurgent characterised by the [US] government as an enemy paramilitary member." Mr Hassan's family does not deny that he was working for Mr Sadr. Capt Maynulet has denied charges of murder and dereliction of duty. The hearing has been held to decide whether the case should go to a full court martial. This is an extremely difficult case. If Capt. Maynulet acted in the presence of witnesses, this should go in his favor. From all outward appearances, this does not seem to be a case of summary execution, and instead, more resembles a mercy killing. While correct military procedure probably would have called for summoning medical personnel, only those at the scene truly know what chances there were for any successful patient outcome. Although a courts martial may be required to resolve this case, there certainly seems to be mitigating circumstances. I'll freely venture that Capt. Maynulet made a choice that I would rather never face. As a senior officer who fully well knew such an act could compromise his remaining career, one is obliged to think that the Captain felt compelled to do what was humane. I can only hope that all of his witnesses are entirely credible. |
| Posted by:Zenster |
| #6 Lone Ranger, since you are someone who has sat on a military bench, thank you for your assessment herein. I predict mitigating circumstances in this case, as you have too. Sadly, I also anticipate an end to Maynulet's career. One can only hope that Captain Maynulet is satisfied with his decision to save someone from the suffering he seems to have so directly witnessed. In no respect do I envy the decisions he's had to make. PS: Anonymoose, your one question about medical ability reflects a majority of the common sense issues surrounding this case. Thank you. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-12 12:42:02 AM |
| #5 This one does not look too tough to me (former US Army Infantry Officer). Convict him, and then sentence him to time already served in pre-trail confinement. Extenuating and mitigating circumstances. That's what those provisions are for. Having sat on both special and general courts martial boards, there does not appear to be any doubt or issues about the facts (assuming that there was no well-equipped hosptial 50 yards away). Sadly, this Captian is likely wshed up as a career officer, if that was his chosen path. Too bad 'probably a good man. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2004-09-11 9:31:09 PM |
| #4 Sounds good to me, Anonymoose. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2004-09-11 8:54:39 PM |
| #3 This problem has long been resolved with the question: "Are you a qualified doctor?" The irony is that some of the most astoundingly gruesome injuries can be mended, and that head wounds are among the worst of them. There *is* no longer any authorized "mercy killing" permitted, because it is a lose-lose scenario. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-11 12:26:33 PM |
| #2 give him a ride, right, Lt JG Kerry? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-11 12:23:52 PM |
| #1 I agree, I would never want to face the question. However from an objective perspective, it seems to be a two-way -- I'm pretty sure that the RoE didn't allow him to make even that "humane" gesture, but there is no evidence that he in any way used illegal weapons. I would clear him of the latter charge, but might or might not convict on the former. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2004-09-11 12:16:29 PM |