WTF? Does military justice equal three years for murder? Was this guy even fighting in the battle? I know as far as the military is concerned he is any enemy of freedom because he is an Arab, but does this mean his life is not worth more than three years of a good America boy?
Oh, does the military shoot American soldiers to put them out of their misery when injuried?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Three Years of Murdering Brown Enemy of Freedom = Three Years for Murdering Brown Enemy of Freedom
What I find most naughty, apart from the offence itself, is that to some this might seem a justification for the act, but its not this that bugs me, what does bug me is that this case happened to come up first, when there were plenty of other ones with not even this figleaf to justify them, its as if the queue to prosecute these persons in court was manipulated somehow to put the slightly better than total scum on trial first so it takes some of the ugliness off before the real scum have their turn in court.
I’m guessing the sentence was three years because the kid’s guts were hanging out all of the truck and that he was a goner. And yes, that should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Three years seems light, but if it actually was an act of compassion I don’t have any problem with it.
On the other hand, if the kid wasn’t lying at death’s door and in excruciating pain, the bastard got off light. I’d like to see more detailed facts regarding the nature of his injury.
The fact is if he killed the guy because he saw it as a mercy killing, it should be premeditated. He took the time to decide to kill the guy because he was wounded. He should have given the guy assistence or got a medic, not murdered him.
Ever see a guy with his guts hanging out, ruptured, leaking their blood and other contents out while the guy twitches in horror, trying to stuff them back in? But can’t because his limb has also been partially severed?
My initial reaction in extreme trauma situations has on occasion been “please please please die now and stop suffering!”
The soldier’s reaction may well have been a very human one, not one of a monster.
QtM, MD
The Geneva Conventions clearly state that once you take possession of a POW, he is just as much your responsibility as one of your own guys. You must go to equal lengths to save both men.
As far as the Conventions regarding killing hostiles, if you are charging towards an objective, it is legal and acceptable to double-tap every enemy you come up on (“don’t leave an enemy alive behind you” may sound harsh but it can be vital to a soldier’s safety). If you get past a wounded man and he is still alive behind you, he is now protected by the GC as a POW and you can’t shoot him or it’s murder. Period.
The law is very clear. Obviously, that doesn’t address the moral issue of getting three years for murder two, but then again that probably happens quite a bit during sentencing, even in the civilian world.
Under what legal authority does a soldier get to decide to execute someone because he thinks the person is in too much pain? How come you don’t hear stories of American soldiers shooting a fellow American who is wounded?
With all respect to Qadgop the Mercotan, was this GI trained in triage? Or a trained medic? Putting someone to sleep is the onus of Veterinarians. Not for field officers or their underlings.
I had hoped that Americans (be they soldiers or otherwise) were better than this.
I don’t think it’s a question of justification but of mitigation in sentencing.
I can’t say I’m comfortable with a “mercy killing” defense in general or with setting a precedent for light sentencing if a defendant claims to have had a compassionate motive but I do think it’s reasonable for a judge to consider any hard evidence for such an extenuation after a conviction and to weigh it into a sentecing decision.
This guy didn’t get off all that lightly, by the way. Three years for murder, a full bust in rank, loss of wages and a DD all look pretty crappy on a job application. Living the life of an ex-con is pretty ugly in itself.
Interesting to compare the account linked in the OP with this one from the BBC.
The Yahoo story which Kel Varnsen links to lays a certain amount of stress on other incidents where US and Iraqi troops and civilians have come under attack from insurgents. The BBC version has a different editorial slant, and from it I quote something which seems important to me:-
Or, in other words, the victim was not a “brown skinned enemy of freedom”, so much as a “brown skinned teenager trying to make a buck”.
Could I ask what the comment about his skin color has to do with anything? Are we trying to attach insinuations of racism here? Or is it just de rigeur when talking about evil soldiers to attach the racial card to the argument?
I was not condoning his actions. But I do believe that it’s possible that his actions were driven by a combination of horror/mercy/pity than by malice. If so, then yes, lesser penalties should apply.
It happens. It happens in every war. Often it is the cruelest (to the person doing the killing) mercy (to the person put out of his misery) of all.
Yes. And yes.
A few months ago I had to give permission to give a lethal injection to a donkey - a pet of my children- to “put him out of his misery”. I didn’t do that because tehre was o treatment available, but because it was, according to the veterinary, far too late to start a treatment that possibly could have cured him.
Are there known cases of US soldiers killing US soldiers “to put them out of their misery”, especially in an urban setting where likely a hospital was avaiblable to bring them for treatment?
Or do you have the impression that if it would have been a US soldier in this case, that everything possible would have been done to get him to a hospital (even when risking that he died on the way to it ) because finishing him of just like that “to put him out of his misery” would be seen as equal to put the worth of the life of a US soldier on the same level as an animal life.
Salaam. A
Forgot: Are there records of anybody asking the soldier during the trial what he would have done if the wounded boy would have been Made in the USA or a US soldier Made in the USA? His answer to that would be interesting.
Salaam. A