PDA

View Full Version : Military Court Convicts U.S. Soldier for Shooting Iraqi



frets5150
03-31-2005, 09:34 AM
Military Court Convicts U.S. Soldier for Shooting Iraqi

Captain Had Testified Killing Wounded, Unarmed Man Was 'Honorable'
WIESBADEN, Germany (March 31) - A military court on Thursday found a U.S. Army tank company commander guilty of charges related to the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi last year.

Capt. Rogelio ''Roger'' Maynulet, a 30-year-old from Chicago, stood at attention as the verdict was read. The charge - assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter - carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

The court was to reconvene later Thursday to consider Maynulet's sentence

Prosecutors had sought a conviction on a more serious charge of assault with intent to commit murder, which carries a 20-year maximum.

Prosecutors said Maynulet violated military rules of engagement by shooting a man who was wounded and unarmed. Maynulet, 30, maintained that the man was gravely wounded and that he shot him to end his suffering.

Maynulet's 1st Armored Division tank company had been on patrol near Kufa on May 21, 2004, when it was alerted to a car thought to be carrying a driver for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and another militiaman loyal to the Shiite cleric.

The U.S. troops chased the vehicle and fired at it, wounding both the passenger, who fled and was later apprehended, and the driver. The killing was filmed by a U.S. drone surveillance aircraft.

On Wednesday, Maynulet told the court that he shot the man ''to put him out of his misery,'' saying the killing was ''honorable.''

Taking the stand for the first time, Maynulet described the events that led him to fire twice upon the Iraqi, maintaining that the man was too badly injured to survive.

''He was in a state that I didn't think was justified - I had to put him out of his misery,'' Maynulet said. He argued that the killing ''was the right thing to do, it was the honorable thing to do.''

Prosecutors grilled Maynulet on why he did not treat the Iraqi, pointing out that he had been trained for medical emergency relief.

Maynulet said the company's medic, Sgt. Thomas Cassady, told him: ''He's gone, there's nothing we can do.'' He said he would not question the expertise of his medic.

An Army neurosurgeon, Richard Gullock, testified that it was unclear from the surveillance footage whether the driver was alive or dead at the time of the shooting. In the video, the man appeared to be waving his right arm before the first shot.

''I am aware there can be similar movements in someone who can be considered clinically brain dead,'' Gullock said.

However, a second neurosurgeon, Lt. Col. Rocco Armonda of the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, countered that the pattern of the man's movements in the video ''indicate he was alive.''

Maynulet appeared relaxed and spoke confidently, recounting the events in great detail.

Questions from the six-member panel - the equivalent of a civilian jury - focused on whether Maynulet tried to hide his actions by failing to report the shooting at the end of the day. Maynulet said he discussed the shooting in a debriefing that immediately followed the mission and denied trying to hide the killing.

He further testified that, as company commander, he had more important priorities on the mission than saving the Iraqi, including searching for two escaped passengers and maintaining the safety of his men.

He testified that he was reluctant to expend limited first aid resources on a man he had been told would die anyway.

His command was suspended May 25, but he has remained with his Wiesbaden-based unit.

Iraq's interim deputy defense minister, Ziad Cattan, testified later Wednesday that he worked with Maynulet when the soldier was stationed in Baghdad and had contact with Iraqi officials.

Cattan, a district council chairman at the time, described him as ''a good soldier and a good officer.'' Asked about Maynulet's attitude toward Iraqis, Cattan said: ''He is very compassionate.''

The U.S. military has referred to the Iraqi 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.


03-31-05 0708EST

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


:mad:

Warham
03-31-2005, 03:40 PM
Well that Iraqi probably would have been disabled the rest of his life.

That's no way to live. His quality of life would have never been the same.

The soldier did the right thing and ended his suffering. It was the humane thing to do.

Seshmeister
03-31-2005, 04:12 PM
Not his call, rules are rules.

Even in pragmatic terms he was creating a martyr and so making more Iraqis join the resistance.

Lets see what the sentence is before crying a river...

BigBadBrian
03-31-2005, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Well that Iraqi probably would have been disabled the rest of his life.

That's no way to live. His quality of life would have never been the same.

The soldier did the right thing and ended his suffering. It was the humane thing to do.

It's too bad there wasn't a feeding tube he could have disconnected. :gulp:

Warham
03-31-2005, 04:30 PM
Brian,

The soldier did him a favor by kill...I mean humanely helping him die so that he didn't have to go on a respirator, or even worse, a feeding tube.

Oh the humanity.

kentuckyklira
04-01-2005, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Well that Iraqi probably would have been disabled the rest of his life.

That's no way to live. His quality of life would have never been the same.

The soldier did the right thing and ended his suffering. It was the humane thing to do. Lame attempt at irony!

BigBadBrian
04-01-2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Lame attempt at irony!


You stupid, fucking, jackbooted Kraut!

Swim your ass over to our side of the pond and learn our slang, customs, and lingo before you try and intrepret our "irony." :rolleyes:

Your Stukas have failed to bomb the target once again.


:gulp:

steve
04-01-2005, 10:58 AM
S C A P E G O A T
F O R
BUSH/CHENEY/RUMSFELD.

BigBadBrian
04-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by steve
S C A P E G O A T
F O R
BUSH/CHENEY/RUMSFELD.


I understand you were against the war, but your statement was irrelevant in this case.

Mr Grimsdale
04-01-2005, 11:56 AM
What's the big deal?

This sort of stuff has always gone on, both sides in every conflict do this sort of thing.

No one is suggesting the soldier was trying to increase the guys agony or abusing him. Suppose the wounded guy had been wired up to explosives?

The problem again comes down to the press getting hold of a story that occurred in extreme circumstances and regardless of whether it was the right or wrong thing to do it happened and shouldn't be taken any further in public.

I was never 100% convinced of the reasons for the war in Iraq but the fellas out there should be allowed to do their dangerous job without having to think about pleasing the media back home. Yes, I think some of the US tactics are heavy handed but at the end of the day I'm not the one driving round in truck looking over my shoulder and wondering if that innocent looking person on the street corner is going to pull a gun on me.

On the flip side, yes I appreciate that the behaviour of some other service personnel has been less than honourable, but no one is suggesting it about this guy. The press need to get a grip and exercise some judgement before publicising this nonsense, or more realistically, the military need to tighten up on what is reported.
Regardless of the outcome Capt. Maynulets' military career is probably over (and his civilian one is going to be difficult) simply because someone didn't think about how they would react if they were in his place before publicising the story.

kentuckyklira
04-01-2005, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You stupid, fucking, jackbooted Kraut!

Swim your ass over to our side of the pond and learn our slang, customs, and lingo before you try and intrepret our "irony." :rolleyes:

Your Stukas have failed to bomb the target once again.


:gulp: Everybody knows Americans are immune to irony!

steve
04-01-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I understand you were against the war, but your statement was irrelevant in this case.

re: Soldier Scapegoat.
Well, actually I was not against a war to rid the Iraqi people of Saddam Hussein. What I am against is the ignorance, lies, and incompetance with which the Bush administration handled the war. I admit they are getting better (Rumsfeld finally apoligized for his "Old Europe" remark...2 years after the fact ;)) - but I hold them to very high standards when the lives of our troops and innocent third world people are on the line.

As for the soldiers being scapegoats...
Since the invasion, I think the main valid crit against the Architects of the war (aka: the executive branch) has been they did not properly outline plans for a postwar Iraq. Also, the rules of engagement are all screwy. My bro-in-law was in the Marine in Iraq....and that is his HUGE crit of the whole war as well - they CONTINUALLY change the rules of engagement for the soldiers to fit their selfish political need of the moment.
The soldiers are fighting a gorilla conflict - a conflict largely needless if not for the sloppiness of the Bush admin. And here you have a soldier making a decision that, BECAUSE OF THE TERRI S CASE, he is jailed for. This soldier, out there trying to do the best he can, GETS 10 YEARS IN THE CAN for making a tough battlefield choice.

I don't think the decision would have beenthe same OUTSIDE of a military tribunal.

BigBadBrian
04-01-2005, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
What's the big deal?

This sort of stuff has always gone on, both sides in every conflict do this sort of thing.

No one is suggesting the soldier was trying to increase the guys agony or abusing him. Suppose the wounded guy had been wired up to explosives?

The problem again comes down to the press getting hold of a story that occurred in extreme circumstances and regardless of whether it was the right or wrong thing to do it happened and shouldn't be taken any further in public.

I was never 100% convinced of the reasons for the war in Iraq but the fellas out there should be allowed to do their dangerous job without having to think about pleasing the media back home. Yes, I think some of the US tactics are heavy handed but at the end of the day I'm not the one driving round in truck looking over my shoulder and wondering if that innocent looking person on the street corner is going to pull a gun on me.

On the flip side, yes I appreciate that the behaviour of some other service personnel has been less than honourable, but no one is suggesting it about this guy. The press need to get a grip and exercise some judgement before publicising this nonsense, or more realistically, the military need to tighten up on what is reported.
Regardless of the outcome Capt. Maynulets' military career is probably over (and his civilian one is going to be difficult) simply because someone didn't think about how they would react if they were in his place before publicising the story.

Yes....well said. :gulp: