Drone filmed Iraq `mercy killing'

[Secret Squirrel]

A court-martial jury on Monday viewed video taken by an airborne drone that recorded an Iraqi man's death with remarkable clarity, from a car chase through city streets to the final flash of a gun fired by the U.S. Army captain charged in the killing.

In the final minutes of the color video, taken in May by a secret U.S. Army drone hovering overhead, the Iraqi man lies wounded on a dirt road and his right arm appears to be waving in the air.

The video then shows Capt. Roger Maynulet rock off balance as the muzzle flash of his M-4 military rifle sparks on the screen. After what appears to be another shot, the man's body jolts off the ground as a pool of blood quickly grows near the man's head.

The video was presented in the first day of Maynulet's unusual court-martial trial. Maynulet, 30, is charged with assault with intent to murder, which carries a 20-year sentence in military prison. He had been charged with murder but the charge was reduced in December.

Maynulet's defense lawyers said the shooting was a mercy killing and that the captain could not risk calling in helicopters to take the man to a hospital. Capt. Clinton Campion, one of two defense lawyers, said that Maynulet acted in accordance with the Geneva and Hague Conventions to ``maximize humanity and minimize human suffering.''

But Capt. Dan Sennott, the lead prosecutor in the case, said Maynulet's actions violated military law and said that before being deployed he and others were warned by superiors not to engage the enemy out of combat.

``There is no exception for mercy killing in the code of military justice,'' Sennott said....

link (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/11256163.htm)

[Herrmannek]

good, 20 years is fine if you ask me for what he did.

[ex1cdo]

A court-martial jury on Monday viewed video taken by an airborne drone that recorded an Iraqi man's death with remarkable clarity, from a car chase through city streets to the final flash of a gun fired by the U.S. Army captain charged in the killing.

In the final minutes of the color video, taken in May by a secret U.S. Army drone hovering overhead, the Iraqi man lies wounded on a dirt road and his right arm appears to be waving in the air.

The video then shows Capt. Roger Maynulet rock off balance as the muzzle flash of his M-4 military rifle sparks on the screen. After what appears to be another shot, the man's body jolts off the ground as a pool of blood quickly grows near the man's head.

The video was presented in the first day of Maynulet's unusual court-martial trial. Maynulet, 30, is charged with assault with intent to murder, which carries a 20-year sentence in military prison. He had been charged with murder but the charge was reduced in December.

Maynulet's defense lawyers said the shooting was a mercy killing and that the captain could not risk calling in helicopters to take the man to a hospital. Capt. Clinton Campion, one of two defense lawyers, said that Maynulet acted in accordance with the Geneva and Hague Conventions to ``maximize humanity and minimize human suffering.''

But Capt. Dan Sennott, the lead prosecutor in the case, said Maynulet's actions violated military law and said that before being deployed he and others were warned by superiors not to engage the enemy out of combat.

``There is no exception for mercy killing in the code of military justice,'' Sennott said....

link (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/11256163.htm)

Well, if he was being chased he was guilty of something, wasn't he? He only got what he deserved!

[GothicSnake]

Ridiculous... :roll: 20 years for popping a terrorist, gimme a break.

[Turbo]

Ridiculous... :roll: 20 years for popping a terrorist, gimme a break.

no joke

[One?]

Ridiculous... :roll: 20 years for popping a terrorist, gimme a break.

everyone in iraq is a terrorist to you? What if the guy was only stealing? oh wait robbers are terrorists now..

[Pooga]

:cantbeli:

[American Patriot]

20 years for popping al Sadr's driver? :cantbeli:

[Herrmannek]

20 years for concious acting against direct order...

[dghost]

depending on the situation, 20 years for putting a man out of his misery when severely wounded....

think about it... you're conscious, in pain, and suffering from quite serious debilitating injuries... by the time a medic and/or medivac will get to you, you will have bled out too much to be stablized... would you rather sit on the ground and die slowly and quite painfully, or be put out of your misery quickly?

or... say you are a commander and are faced with someone in the situation... you cannot do anything for him except watch him bleed out in front of you and your troops. for the most part it is very demoralizing to see someone die, even if it is an enemy combatant. what do you do? put him out of his misery? end it quick, in a way that seems more dignified than what would happen if he lay there and died? instead of ordering your men to kill him, you do the responsible thing and put him out of his misery yourself.

the dude freaking shot a guy who *fled* under fire. i don't give a goddamn flying **** who you are, but if you are being *shot* at by Soldiers, you usually ****ing stop. especially since the first round is usually a warning shot designed for that. you don't ****ing *run*.

[Argyll]

Oh really..........how many time you been shot at by soldiers then?

The shooting of an unarmed man,wounded or not is against the GC,it matters not if he were a petty criminal,some of you lot need to realise a lot of Iraqi's are so scared of the Americans they run out of fear,not because they're guilty of anything...........this is another crap example of breaking ROE's..........sure if the guy was begging to be put out of his misery then it might be justifiable.............but spare me this bull**** about being at war.........these incidents are not the act's of men at war,becaues these men especially officers should know the Rules of war,there's way too many Officers just wanting a combat kill.............I've heard them in the PX shooting theor mouths off about how they cannot wait to "kill me some Iraqi !!"

If soldiers on the ground cannot accept that they're bound by protocal,and conventions then it's no wonder the media snap this sort of thing up,trouble is for the hundreds of such types of incidents not one American or British Soldier has so far been prosecuted........guys like this Captain put guys like me in a no win situation should we ever get cornered and have nowhere to go!

The fact that this Captains lawyers is claiming a mercy killing means that he know's full well he killed for the sake of killing,and what shafted him was the spy in the sky,otherwise this so called leader of men would have got clean away with nothing short of murder.............nobody is above the law!!

[dghost]

So... basically what you are saying is that in the last year the situation has deteriorated to the point where warning shots are no longer effective way of getting people to stop?

it's very realistically possible that he did it, well, just because. just so he could say he killed Hadji and just so that he could list it in a bullet on the DA638 for his Silver Star or whatever it is they give Captains these days. I've been around when commanders turn a blind eye to a lot of horse**** and been around far too many incidents that were just written off as "well, it's war and they are Hadji". I would honestly believe it.

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any mother****er here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.

[Argyll]

So... basically what you are saying is that in the last year the situation has deteriorated to the point where warning shots are no longer effective way of getting people to stop?

it's very realistically possible that he did it, well, just because. just so he could say he killed Hadji and just so that he could list it in a bullet on the DA638 for his Silver Star or whatever it is they give Captains these days. I've been around when commanders turn a blind eye to a lot of horse**** and been around far too many incidents that were just written off as "well, it's war and they are Hadji". I would honestly believe it.

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any f*** here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.


Exactly!!................the coin flips both ways!!............however as his lawyer is using the argument "he did it out of mercy" makes the old alarm bells ring in my head that he know's because of the footage he's up to his neck in excrement!!,and using the argument he did it out of mercy is a pretty weak excuse,I've seen GI's on the street give life saving First Aid to victims of their battle,that's the right thing to do,who was he to decide the guy would not have lived.............he played God,in the devils robes,and he's facing a tough time ahead because of it!!

As for warning shot's.........Unless that's in the ROE's,then yeah they have(deterioted) because I seen a GI open up on a Iraqi in the IZ with a .50 cal,with no warning shots given!!.all because the bloke got too near a HUMVEE(at an intersection!)

Mate you cannot just shoot people dead because they ignore warning shots!

[JTAR7242]

We don't have the whole story here on the incident, it is pointless to make conjecture about the circumstances.


What that soldier did could be percieved entirely differently based on a few simple facts.

He could very well be the cold blooded murderer that some of you would like to believe he is, and he could very well be someone who had the very best of intentions and is going to take the fall for it.

But by all means, jump to conclusions, it makes for so much more interesting an argument. :roll:

[Adam Wilhelm]

Hell... when i was shoot at i runned as if my ass was on fire!!
I don´t stop when i hear that crack, warningshot or not!!

We can just speculate about his intentions, he claims misery-killing in court and the court will judge him.

[Secret Squirrel]

We don't have the whole story here on the incident, it is pointless to make conjecture about the circumstances.


What that soldier did could be percieved entirely differently based on a few simple facts.

He could very well be the cold blooded murderer that some of you would like to believe he is, and he could very well be someone who had the very best of intentions and is going to take the fall for it.

But by all means, jump to conclusions, it makes for so much more interesting an argument. :roll:

He was told not to do it. He did it any way. His punishment should serve as a reminder to others that when you're told not to do something, then dont do it. As far as I know, theres no dispute that he pulled the trigger. Whether or not the Iraqi was dying is irrelevant simply because the soldier broke the rules. Is this statement, as it relates to the U.S military correct or incorrect; "There is no exception for mercy killing in the code of military justice."? Isnt this the basic issue? Are there grounds for mercy killing anywhere in U.S military law?

[Michael RVR]

Couldn't agree more, sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing. A Captain doesn't have the right to approve mercy killings, and he'd know that.

Sure its a fine line, but thats what they're paid to do. ;)

[ex1cdo]

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any f*** here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.

Well, thank you very much for being labelled a "f***" for my sarcastic comment.

No, we here do not have all the facts. Would I ever shoot an unarmed, wounded adversary? Possibly, in the heat of combat. Fortunately, it's not something that I ever had to make a split second decision on. I'm too old now, well off the reserve list, and never will have to make such a decision. I fervently hope that you are never faced with such a decision, either.

If you are not satisfied with the results of a legally constituted courts-martial under your own military's uniform code of military justice, who presumably had as many facts as are available, then I despair of ever meeting you if you are armed and in a position of authority. For surely I would run away and be shot on some pretext. No doubt there would be some "other explanation".

[dghost]

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any f*** here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.

Well, thank you very much for being labelled a "f***" for my sarcastic comment.

No, we here do not have all the facts. Would I ever shoot an unarmed, wounded adversary? Possibly, in the heat of combat. Fortunately, it's not something that I ever had to make a split second decision on. I'm too old now, well off the reserve list, and never will have to make such a decision. I fervently hope that you are never faced with such a decision, either.

If you are not satisfied with the results of a legally constituted courts-martial under your own military's uniform code of military justice, who presumably had as many facts as are available, then I despair of ever meeting you if you are armed and in a position of authority. For surely I would run away and be shot on some pretext. No doubt there would be some "other explanation".

acctually, it wasn't 'f***', thats just what the forum software changed it to. and if you decide your sarcasm is passing judgement and then choose to apply that label to yourself, who am I to stop you?

as far as the court martial goes... fine. whatever facts that they have and turn up in it should be interesting and hopefully enough for them to make a solid judgement is. I will never know what they know and it is their job, not *my* job, to determine if he is guilty or innocent.

I know that if I was faced with a similar situation that I would not do the same thing. That is, to me, far more important than whatever happens to him. even if he is not found guilty his military career is over.

[JTAR7242]

I'm not disputing the fact that he disobeyed a direct order, I'm just irritated by those who would instantly assume that he was morally wrong and was simply executing an innocent man.

Was it a mistake to shoot the man when there was a direct order against it? Of course. Does that instantly make it morally wrong and make him a ruthless killer? No.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Add another 5 reletives to the insurgents ranks because they seek revenge.

[JTAR7242]

Add another 5 reletives to the insurgents ranks because they seek revenge.
Add another one to the ignorant masses of media fed critics.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

It's the way arab tribal culture is unfortunatly.

It's very much an "eye for an eye" society

[dghost]

It's the way arab tribal culture is unfortunatly.

It's very much an "eye for an eye" society

yeah... but you forgot that the relatives would become insurgents *after* they go to the Americans to claim reparations.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

why not? get some compensation. By some guccie explosives for a IED

[Nightscope23]

We don't have the whole story here on the incident, it is pointless to make conjecture about the circumstances.


What that soldier did could be percieved entirely differently based on a few simple facts.

He could very well be the cold blooded murderer that some of you would like to believe he is, and he could very well be someone who had the very best of intentions and is going to take the fall for it.

But by all means, jump to conclusions, it makes for so much more interesting an argument. :roll:

You’re in:
A) Denial because you’re not willing to acknowledge the fact that there is some clear intent to kill people for both the fun of it and out of pure ignorance and hatred. You’ve heard first hand accounts from people who have served with U.S. forces, but you insist on ignoring those facts.


B) “He could …..had the best intentions”? Give me a break! Who are you bull****ting here?

C) This isn't the first documented case of misconduct on the part of U.S. forces. The argument that they're all terrorists or can become terrorists is the same argument Hitler made about the Jews. You wonder why people hate the U.S. so much?

Would you be so concerned with the credibility and thoroughness of a news article if the situation were different? Stop making up excuses and pull your head out of the sand.




Add another 5 reletives to the insurgents ranks because they seek revenge.
Add another one to the ignorant masses of media fed critics.

Right back at ya!



It's the way arab tribal culture is unfortunatly.

It's very much an "eye for an eye" society

Actually, if you lived in the U.S. and watched some of the media reports and the interviews done with John Q Public after 9/11 you would realize that most cultures on earth today will seek revenge for any act of aggression against them. Muslims aren’t the exception here.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Your right. But the arabs do have the "familiy honor etc.

Where us in the west allow "rule of law" the arabs like to "settle things"

[Midav]

Even if I do believe we are fighting ourselves too much on certain instances such as the marine shooting in the mosque or the Lt. Pantano issue, this amongst other incidents, is very wrong.

[usm2b]

I'm not disputing the fact that he disobeyed a direct order, I'm just irritated by those who would instantly assume that he was morally wrong and was simply executing an innocent man.

Was it a mistake to shoot the man when there was a direct order against it? Of course. Does that instantly make it morally wrong and make him a ruthless killer? No.

J...I think you hit that right on the nail. Everyone at home seems to be holier than the pope. Im not saying the mercy killing was wrong, I remember a story a few months back in which a mercy killing was bestowed on a teenager. The teenager had a stomach wound which would prove fatal, and he was trapped in a burning car, not being able to be rescued. I totally think that mercy killing was warranted. Poor kid was shot in the stomach which must be excrutiating, and to be burned alive till death...common now, dieing doesn't get much worse that.

Now what seems controversial to me in this case, is if that was one of his soldiers ...would he have done the same thing? I as a captain, pfc, or general couldn't see myslef ending one of my soldiers lives in that scenario. I would stay with him and try to bring the upmost comfort until he passes. BUT, I wasn't there and I have never been shot, I don't have all the fact. However, I don't know what I would have done if I was in the burning car scenario above and it was one of my soldiers in the car with a fatal gunshot wound and burning alive. I just don't know... I just don't know if I can justify, or condemn this mercy killing. There are way too many factors, and all of us are biased in one way or another.

[Mr.K]

it's a "well it was dark and he was black so i thought he had a gun" situation.
If the USA wants to be "the good guys" in this war, they really shouldn't let it happen. That's why he's given 20 years ( they'll probably release him after a month), it's a question of being PC and showing it to the media.
And yes arabs and genereally eastern people like to settle things. Heck wouldn't you like to seek revenge if your brother/father/relative was killed by a cop/soldier.

[Argyll]

Not enough facts?.......................get real there are enough facts for him to be charged with this..........is that not fact enough?

The fact his lawyer.........not him,is claiming he acted out of mercy shows again there is enough fgact there that a lawyer,and the Military Justice system seem to think otherwise

What's fact is that there are some people here who think it's impossible for a United States Army Captain is incappable of commiting a crime,or any US Soldier for that matter when it comes to such incidents.

The burning car scenario is completely different,so drawing parralle's is wrong in itself!

Bottom line ,this Captain clearly doesn't know the Geneva Convention,or it's interpretation,the treating of the wounded,irrespective of their side,is the standard..............forget what the insurgents do,that's not the issue,two wrongs don't make a right,he issue here is a Modern Ultratech highly trained individual from a country who claims to be doing good and fights in the name of Freedom and Democracy,by not showing compassion,and shooting the individual dead because he(Capt) decided to play God,in whether this individual had the right to live or die!

Not all the bad guys are terrorists in Iraq either,you all seem to forget that it was thier country the US and it's coalition invaded,and in hat they lost everything,some had families killed by the Coalition,I wonder just how many of you lot would be doing the same if the Russians had ever invaded parts of North America?.......Terrorists,insurgents,Freedom fighters,or defenders of your homeland?

[TacoDelRio]

Shoulda shot down the drone first. :|

If the guy he killed was a bad guy (NO **** HE WAS!) then I have nothing against this Captain killing the man. I'd have done what he did, if in his position. Then again, I'm a bad man! :bash:

[Argyll]

Shoulda shot down the drone first. :|

If the guy he killed was a bad guy (NO **** HE WAS!) then I have nothing against this Captain killing the man. I'd have done what he did, if in his position. Then again, I'm a bad man! :bash:

Then you'd be going to Levenworth instead!! :roll:

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Not enough facts?.......................get real there are enough facts for him to be charged with this..........is that not fact enough?

The fact his lawyer.........not him,is claiming he acted out of mercy shows again there is enough fgact there that a lawyer,and the Military Justice system seem to think otherwise

What's fact is that there are some people here who think it's impossible for a United States Army Captain is incappable of commiting a crime,or any US Soldier for that matter when it comes to such incidents.

The burning car scenario is completely different,so drawing parralle's is wrong in itself!

Bottom line ,this Captain clearly doesn't know the Geneva Convention,or it's interpretation,the treating of the wounded,irrespective of their side,is the standard..............forget what the insurgents do,that's not the issue,two wrongs don't make a right,he issue here is a Modern Ultratech highly trained individual from a country who claims to be doing good and fights in the name of Freedom and Democracy,by not showing compassion,and shooting the individual dead because he(Capt) decided to play God,in whether this individual had the right to live or die!

Not all the bad guys are terrorists in Iraq either,you all seem to forget that it was thier country the US and it's coalition invaded,and in hat they lost everything,some had families killed by the Coalition,I wonder just how many of you lot would be doing the same if the Russians had ever invaded parts of North America?.......Terrorists,insurgents,Freedom fighters,or defenders of your homeland?

Needed to be carried on over to the next page, in hopes someone will actually read that before they continue on posting in this thread.

[Zerodivider]

Forget what the insurgents do,that's not the issue,two wrongs don't make a right,he issue here is a Modern Ultratech highly trained individual from a country who claims to be doing good and fights in the name of Freedom and Democracy...

Not all the bad guys are terrorists in Iraq either,you all seem to forget that it was thier country the US and it's coalition invaded,and in hat they lost everything,some had families killed by the Coalition,I wonder just how many of you lot would be doing the same if the Russians had ever invaded parts of North America?.......Terrorists,insurgents,Freedom fighters,or defenders of your homeland?

Amen. That's pretty much how I feel about it. The problem is guys, many of you agree that his actions might be morally excusable. That might be so, in particular from "our" perspective - but your forget that this is not about "us" & our moral views, but about the Iraqi population. Any civilian killed by a coallition soldier might be justifiable from our point of view & can be explained with situational factors - but every dead civilian plays in the hands of the insurgents & terrorists. The coalition is trying to sell to the Iraqis that they are their to free & better their country, not as an evil occupier. How do you think do Iraqis feel about it if they keep hearing stories of civilians getting shot?

[JTAR7242]

We don't have the whole story here on the incident, it is pointless to make conjecture about the circumstances.


What that soldier did could be percieved entirely differently based on a few simple facts.

He could very well be the cold blooded murderer that some of you would like to believe he is, and he could very well be someone who had the very best of intentions and is going to take the fall for it.

But by all means, jump to conclusions, it makes for so much more interesting an argument. :roll:

You’re in:
A) Denial because you’re not willing to acknowledge the fact that there is some clear intent to kill people for both the fun of it and out of pure ignorance and hatred. You’ve heard first hand accounts from people who have served with U.S. forces, but you insist on ignoring those facts.

So because in human nature it is possible for some individuals to kill for ugnorance and hatred that everyone does it? I may be in denial, but you're in stupid.


B) “He could …..had the best intentions”? Give me a break! Who are you bull****ting here?
All I am saying is that we can't, from a little media blurb, automatically assume guilt and evil intent. I'm sorry that if where I come from the idea of innocent until proven guilty is the norm. I also apologize for not automatically assuming that every bad story that is on the news can be taken at face value and summed up all nice and tidy.

But at the same time I didn't say he was innocent. I'm not excusing him, not condemning him. I'm saying that perhaps leaving your mind just slightly open since you don't know jack **** about the case might be a good idea.

C) This isn't the first documented case of misconduct on the part of U.S. forces. The argument that they're all terrorists or can become terrorists is the same argument Hitler made about the Jews. You wonder why people hate the U.S. so much?
Well okay, I'm a member of the Armed Forces of the United States. Does that make me a murderer? I never said they were all terrorists, you put that in my mouth. And I don't wonder why so many people hate the US, a lot of people are ****ing stupid, and you've shown your membership card to the club in plain view here.


Would you be so concerned with the credibility and thoroughness of a news article if the situation were different? Stop making up excuses and pull your head out of the sand.
It's a deal if you pull your head out of your ass first.

[formerLT]

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any f*** here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.

Word.

[Secret Squirrel]

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any f*** here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.

Word.

Is there anything in U.S military law that allows for mercy killing?

[formerLT]

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any f*** here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.

Word.

Is there anything in U.S military law that allows for mercy killing?

Commander's Discretion

[JTAR7242]

Argyll, generally you have my utmost respect, but you're spewing the same stupidity I see so many other ignorant fools spout.


You liken the Iraqi insurgents to Americans in the event that we'd been invaded by the Russians.


But how many American freedom fighters would bomb marketplaces and intentionally kill other Americans? This insurgency isn't a popular revolt, and you of all people should know that, being there. Do you honestly buy into the bull**** that the insurgents are fighting for the freedom of Iraq and not for their own narrow goals? It might be pointless to give one cause any more legitimacy than another, for obviously the narrow minded cause of the insurgency is enough for them to give their lives.

But no "freedom fighter" or "defender of their homeland" kills their own people. If the insurgents were attacking solely American troops and perhaps the ING and police they see as "collaborators" I'd understand, but they target innocents. The bottom line is that the country has spoken and it's choice has been to rebuild their nation, not try and take it back from the Americans, who haven't even taken it in the first place. The relative minority of insurgent fighters, are simply terrorists, bloody handed killers, not idealistic patriots.



Regardless, from the beginning I never claimed the officer was innocent. He may very well be guilty as sin, but rarely is anything black and white, and certainly from what little information we have is anything definite. The fact that his lawyer has claimed it was a mercy killing says nothing about this case. The lawyer is his legal representative. I may be wrong, but I remember this case when it was first reported and at the time the soldier had said the same thing. You're again inferring more from the language of a short news blurb than it is actually telling. It was a terrible mistake if his intentions were good (to put a suffering human being out of his misery) because fighting a modern war isn't about intentions it is about actions. If he shot the man dead out of revenge or some other ulterior motive then it was a terrible crime. But you should know that military justice is always even, though not always fair. There's little room for shades of gray in the military justice system, that's the way it has to be. But to automatically damn him simply because charges were filed against him is as undemocratic as it gets. I know you aren't an American like me, but your country of birth is not so far removed from mine that this is a foreign concept. It's throwing the blessing of living in a free state like we do in the dirt.

[chauncy republicans]

So because in human nature it is possible for some individuals to kill for ugnoranceand hatred that everyone does it? I may be in denial, but you're in stupid.
:lol: How ironic.

[Secret Squirrel]

my point is pretty much this though - there are too many things that happened on that day that are not contained in that article. and for any f*** here who want's to pass judgement in a single line, there are way too many other explanations.

Word.

Is there anything in U.S military law that allows for mercy killing?

Commander's Discretion

So then Capt. Dan Sennott, the lead prosecutor in the case, was wrong when he said, "There is no exception for mercy killing in the code of military justice."? Can you find a specific reference to mercy killing in the UCMJ?

[chauncy republicans]

Edit

[JTAR7242]

So because in human nature it is possible for some individuals to kill for ugnoranceand hatred that everyone does it? I may be in denial, but you're in stupid.
:lol: How ironic.Yes, I mis-keyed and hit u instead of i, how ironic.

The part about being "in stupid" was intentional, a bit of a play on words you know? It's okay though, you can join him.

[chauncy republicans]

So because in human nature it is possible for some individuals to kill for ugnoranceand hatred that everyone does it? I may be in denial, but you're in stupid.
:lol: How ironic.Yes, I mis-keyed and hit u instead of i, how ironic.

The part about being "in stupid" was intentional, a bit of a play on words you know? It's okay though, you can join him.
Uhhh, it was a joke.
I thought a Marine would have thicker skin than that, I quess I was wrong.

[JTAR7242]

Thick skin, sure. It wasn't like I was offended by the implication.


Tolerance for the foolhardy and stupid? Not really.


You have to make your jokes a bit more clear when humor is intended. ;)

[DPGLAW]

I just cant seem to believe that our government cant find anything better to do other than persecute, not prosecute, the brave soldiers that are over in Iraq risking their lives. I personally see nothing wrong with what this soldiers did as these terrorists over there have no compunction with killing innocent Americans so I say that they should get what they give, nothing more, nothing less. This is a war after all and the government needs to remember that these are terrorists that they are killing and they are not worth anything as a real human being is, they are pigs and should not enjoy any of the rights that a real human being is entitled to.

[Argyll]

Argyll, generally you have my utmost respect, but you're spewing the same stupidity I see so many other ignorant fools spout.

And you still defend the actions whatever and regardless that this case has been investigated and the charges have already been brought forward?


You liken the Iraqi insurgents to Americans in the event that we'd been invaded by the Russians.

I was speaking hypothetically!!!............you know seeing as this guy apparently targeted the military that does not make him a terrorist by your standards?...or is it another case of the US is right and everyone else is wrong?


But how many American freedom fighters would bomb marketplaces and intentionally kill other Americans? This insurgency isn't a popular revolt, and you of all people should know that, being there. Do you honestly buy into the bull**** that the insurgents are fighting for the freedom of Iraq and not for their own narrow goals? It might be pointless to give one cause any more legitimacy than another, for obviously the narrow minded cause of the insurgency is enough for them to give their lives.

Until you're in that situation you cannot answer it,therefore don't speak on the behalf of the Iraqi's who only see themselves defending their homeland from foreign invaders!! Yes I'm here and I know that the Iraqi is a simple person who is pretty secular,you seem to forget that a lot of Sunni's were bombed and families killed........try understanding a little about their culture,and you might go a little way to understand why there is an insurgency in the first place.........some of those responsible for the attack on the US military only attack such targets,it's mostly the foreign wahibbi's from Saudi,Sudan and yemen who have been targetting the infrastructure.......... care to explain the Mehdi Army,that's sitting back quietly watching what's going on,just waiting to ressurect their actions?.Don't believe everything the media and the WH has been spoonfeeding you!!

But no "freedom fighter" or "defender of their homeland" kills their own people. If the insurgents were attacking solely American troops and perhaps the ING and police they see as "collaborators" I'd understand, but they target innocents. The bottom line is that the country has spoken and it's choice has been to rebuild their nation, not try and take it back from the Americans, who haven't even taken it in the first place. The relative minority of insurgent fighters, are simply terrorists, bloody handed killers, not idealistic patriots.

Read the above comment,how many different factions do you think have taken up the fight against the US/coalition?.........a damn sight more than one,each has their own agenda,ironic that when we see civilians killed because of a military action we view it as collateral damage,yet when the acts are perpetrated by factions of the insurgency it's terrorism,to them it's the same thing......collateral damage,we the civilized who do not understand the Arab and Muslim ways view things so much differently........I was offering a view from their perspective,notice not a single channel has been opened to negotiations to end the insurgency,why do you think this is?The relative minority are terrorists as you quoted,so what does that make the majority?Indeed the country voted,as in the Kurds and the Shia,but the vast majority of the Sunni's didn't vote,and you're never going to get rid of them are you?So what does that tell you about the future?,it took 30 years to get the PIRA round to the negotiating table,and even then the British Government caved in to their demands are the US Forces in Iraq willing to go that distance?



Regardless, from the beginning I never claimed the officer was innocent. He may very well be guilty as sin, but rarely is anything black and white, and certainly from what little information we have is anything definite. The fact that his lawyer has claimed it was a mercy killing says nothing about this case. The lawyer is his legal representative. I may be wrong, but I remember this case when it was first reported and at the time the soldier had said the same thing. You're again inferring more from the language of a short news blurb than it is actually telling. It was a terrible mistake if his intentions were good (to put a suffering human being out of his misery) because fighting a modern war isn't about intentions it is about actions. If he shot the man dead out of revenge or some other ulterior motive then it was a terrible crime. But you should know that military justice is always even, though not always fair. There's little room for shades of gray in the military justice system, that's the way it has to be. But to automatically damn him simply because charges were filed against him is as undemocratic as it gets. I know you aren't an American like me, but your country of birth is not so far removed from mine that this is a foreign concept. It's throwing the blessing of living in a free state like we do in the dirt.


It is black and white, he's been charged,therfore the evidence must have been there to bring charges in the first place........go and read up about the treatment of the wounded according to the GC,and the rules of war!!Matey I know dozens of instances where Iraqi's have been killed,unarmed,and innocent........life is cheap here,and not a single American has been charged ,how do you think the common Iraqi views this?.......do you think they're just delighted that another incident where kids and women have been targeted at checkpoints?...........one thing that never happens is the admitting of mistakes,and boy have there been a few,and every time the normal Iraqi hears about this,is like adding to the waiting list to join the insurgency and have a little payback!!

Mate don't talk to me about my country and your country's fight against terror,a lot of Americans called the PIRA "Freedom fighters",and supported their cause by collecting funds to be used against the British Army in NI........that's due to some Romantic Notion and the typical irish birthright........................there's no difference to the current Insurgency in Iraq to the actions of the PIRA during their fight against the British......none whatsover!!!

A terrible crime.........an understatement,murder is not "terrible" it's abhorent!!!!!

[Secret Squirrel]

I just cant seem to believe that our government cant find anything better to do other than persecute, not prosecute, the brave soldiers that are over in Iraq risking their lives. I personally see nothing wrong with what this soldiers did as these terrorists over there have no compunction with killing innocent Americans so I say that they should get what they give, nothing more, nothing less. This is a war after all and the government needs to remember that these are terrorists that they are killing and they are not worth anything as a real human being is, they are pigs and should not enjoy any of the rights that a real human being is entitled to.

Since you seem to know all about this, perhaps you could point out the section in the UCMJ that deals with mercy killing? This case has nothing to do with a wounded Iraqi insomuch as it has to do with the military enforcing it's own rules. The issue, as it stands, is whether or not the UCMJ allows for mercy killing. So far someone has said that mercy killing is the commander's decision but none have actually pointed out where mercy killing is covered under military law.

[Argyll]

It's odd that such an act is allowed under the UCMJ but mercy killing or "Euthenasia" is against the law in most countries of the world?
It is in the UK ,and I'm sure that too of the US of A?


Is there a difference in "smothering" one of your parents to death because they're terminally Ill with cancer............and shooting dead a badly wounded enemy?

[Nightscope23]

[quote=JTAR7242]We don't have the whole story here on the incident, it is pointless to make conjecture about the circumstances.


What that soldier did could be percieved entirely differently based on a few simple facts.

He could very well be the cold blooded murderer that some of you would like to believe he is, and he could very well be someone who had the very best of intentions and is going to take the fall for it.

But by all means, jump to conclusions, it makes for so much more interesting an argument. :roll:

You’re in:
A) Denial because you’re not willing to acknowledge the fact that there is some clear intent to kill people for both the fun of it and out of pure ignorance and hatred. You’ve heard first hand accounts from people who have served with U.S. forces, but you insist on ignoring those facts.

So because in human nature it is possible for some individuals to kill for ugnorance and hatred that everyone does it? I may be in denial, but you're in stupid.


B) “He could …..had the best intentions”? Give me a break! Who are you bull****ting here?
All I am saying is that we can't, from a little media blurb, automatically assume guilt and evil intent. I'm sorry that if where I come from the idea of innocent until proven guilty is the norm. I also apologize for not automatically assuming that every bad story that is on the news can be taken at face value and summed up all nice and tidy.

But at the same time I didn't say he was innocent. I'm not excusing him, not condemning him. I'm saying that perhaps leaving your mind just slightly open since you don't know jack **** about the case might be a good idea.


Where were you when I was trying to explain to my white teacher that I wanted to leave study hall because I had to go see the counselor? You know what she did? She told me off, called me a liar and said I was up to no good. This was years ago in elementary school, but it bothers me to this day.

I was a kid that had good grades, very quiet, but went to a predominantly white school. Can you guess what kind of stereotypes I had to put up with? Why is it that we rarely see people like you wanting to "do the right thing" when minorities are involved or in this Iraqi case "foreigners", but when it's one of your own then you look in every nook and cranny for that justifiable, legitimate way to give them the benefit of the doubt? Gosh it must be nice to have someone give you the benefit of the doubt!

Now about this guy ...based on the article and information I have read he doesn't seem like he's innocent. “Innocent until proven guilty” works for certain groups; “Guilty until proven innocent” and then it's a big maybe, yeah that works for minorities and foreigners.

[Fox2]

How do you know the defendant is white?

I didn't see anything in the article provided?

[Nightscope23]

Where in my post did I mention that he was white?

[Fox2]

Perhaps a misunderstanding, but I inferred it from these statements:



Where were you when I was trying to explain to my white teacher that I wanted to leave study hall because I had to go see the counselor? You know what she did? She told me off, called me a liar and said I was up to no good. This was years ago in elementary school, but it bothers me to this day.

I was a kid that had good grades, very quiet, but went to a predominantly white school. Can you guess what kind of stereotypes I had to put up with? Why is it that we rarely see people like you wanting to "do the right thing" when minorities are involved or in this Iraqi case "foreigners", but when it's one of your own then you look in every nook and cranny for that justifiable, legitimate way to give them the benefit of the doubt? Gosh it must be nice to have someone give you the benefit of the doubt!

Perhaps elaborate on what you mean by "one of your own" in the context of the iraqi "foreigner".

[JTAR7242]

Wow, so you use your isolated incident of a racist teacher to make blanket statements about white people in general?


Has it ever occured to you that you're just as racist as your teacher?



Just an observation.

[Nightscope23]

Perhaps a misunderstanding, but I inferred it from these statements:



Where were you when I was trying to explain to my white teacher that I wanted to leave study hall because I had to go see the counselor? You know what she did? She told me off, called me a liar and said I was up to no good. This was years ago in elementary school, but it bothers me to this day.

I was a kid that had good grades, very quiet, but went to a predominantly white school. Can you guess what kind of stereotypes I had to put up with? Why is it that we rarely see people like you wanting to "do the right thing" when minorities are involved or in this Iraqi case "foreigners", but when it's one of your own then you look in every nook and cranny for that justifiable, legitimate way to give them the benefit of the doubt? Gosh it must be nice to have someone give you the benefit of the doubt!

Perhaps elaborate on what you mean by "one of your own" in the context of the iraqi "foreigner".


I was talking about how it's always easier for people to rationalize that outsiders are always a threat, negative influence and are all ....(You can fill in whatever negative stereotype comes to mind). It's all about perception and who you consider to be an outsider. Anyone within your group is always given the benefit of the doubt, the moral and emotional back up and what not! On the one hand with the whole melting pot idea we're seeing the outsider group grow bigger and bigger. Anyone outside the U.S. is then considered an outsider, then on an urban level you've got a narrower definition of who's an outsider....the 2 Hispanic families in a 20 family town who's majority is white, those 2 families are now outsiders. They are also the minority.


In this case the Iraqi that was shot is the outsider.

Do you really think the stereotypes we saw on both the Japanese and American sides during WWII are gone and forgotten? They just exist on a whole new level with different players playing the game this time.

Humanity has a long way to go before we each call ourselves civilized. Otherwise we're all full of it and if you think it's a pessimistic way of looking at things then I'm glad there's still optimism in the world, what with all the stuff I see everyday.

[Nightscope23]

Wow, so you use your isolated incident of a racist teacher to make blanket statements about white people in general?


Has it ever occured to you that you're just as racist as your teacher?



Just an observation.

Had that been an isolated incident I would be a happy camper because I don't live in the same town anymore. I used it as an example.

[JTAR7242]

I didn't call you anything. I merely reported my observations on what you had clearly demonstrated for us.

I can expand my vocabulary for you and call you a narrow minded bigot and obtuse if it suits you though.



I understand that there are racists in all walks of life, and that you, as whatever race or creed you identify yourself as may have experienced some kind of intolerance in the past. Myself, being white, I've experienced the same from African Americans and Hispanics on occasion, but I won't take those negative examples and apply them to everyone of that origin, because that would make me as racist as they were, and an idiot to boot for making the assumption that because a few people had treated me badly, that everyone sharing similar physical characteristics to them would.


You think that every soldier and Marine on the ground in Iraq has it in for the Iraqis. That we all want to go kill hajis or rag-heads or dune coons, or whatever racist terms you think we all spout as standard nomenclature. I'm sure there are pig headed jackasses in our military that will display that behavior for your perverted satisfaction, but the rest of us are over there doing a job. Myself, as well as most Marines I know take the most satisfaction not in seeing the deaths of our enemies (though I won't lie, dead insurgents don't sadden me too much), but in the smiles of the children we help and the Iraqis who have begun to experience something good in their lives, and to experience the first taste of freedom they have ever known.

I defend that Captain not because I want to excuse murder, but because I know that myself, if I saw a man suffering in pain I might myself find it hard to know he was dying and not be able to help him. Is it true I want to believe he wasn't just killing someone in cold blood? Of course. But all I've said is that I think it is unfair to convict him based on our limited knowledge of the situation.

[Argyll]

here's a little something for you to mull over!! ;)


In one of the Sadr City cases, two 1st Cavalry soldiers have been convicted of murder.

One is Staff Sgt. Johnny M. Horne, of Winston-Salem, N.C., who pleaded guilty Dec. 10, 2004 to killing a critically wounded 16-year-old Iraqi on Aug. 18, 2004. Horne described it as a mercy killing. He was sentenced to three years in prison, a reduction in rank to private, total forfeiture of wages and a dishonorable discharge.

The other soldier convicted in the same killing was Staff Sgt. Cardenas J. Alban of Inglewood, Calif. He was convicted Jan. 14 and sentenced to one year in prison, a bad-conduct discharge from the Army and reduction in rank to private.


You still think it looks good for this Captain?.........looks very much that the standard for this has already been set!!

[OMEGA7]

Is there a difference in "smothering" one of your parents to death because they're terminally Ill with cancer............and shooting dead a badly wounded enemy?[/quote]

too much smoked? i think that's sure the some thing this's cause.

[Argyll]

Is there a difference in "smothering" one of your parents to death because they're terminally Ill with cancer............and shooting dead a badly wounded enemy?

too much smoked? i think that's sure the some thing this's cause.[/quote]


Interpretation please?...........are you saying there's no difference?

which would be the correct answer,they're both using the "mercy" part!

[Midav]

That's a tough question as to killing a terminally ill parent, or family member in general.

Or a parent killing her children:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42892

[username]

What the hell is going on? Why is anyone talking about a mercy killing? There was no mercy killing that's just what the defence lawyer reffered to it as to try and get the guy off the murder charge. He was convicted of murder. Anyone who reffer's to it as a mercy killing is simply purveying propaganda in my view.

[Midav]

What the hell is going on? Why is anyone talking about a mercy killing? There was no mercy killing that's just what the defence lawyer reffered to it as to try and get the guy off the murder charge. He was convicted of murder. Anyone who reffer's to it as a mercy killing is simply purveying propaganda in my view.

I agree, it was wrong what the Cpt. did because from everything read, it doesn't sound like the guy was mortally wounded. However, how do we know whether it was or wasn't a mercy killing? As some posters would say on here, "you weren't there".

Then again, the books say no mercy killing. So, that means when there is an actual legit time for a mercy killing, it's better to have one listen to the screams and cries while one dies slowly and hear those same sounds in ones head for the rest of their life, rather than take action and take the person out of his/her misery.

...

[Argyll]

But would you justify killing a family member due their pain of terminal illness?

Who has the right to play God?..........an argument that's used in such cases in civilian courts?

[khukuri]

first of all thx argyll, I think heve said most of what I wanted to say.

Even me, an shiite iraki, who voted for allawi and supported the war from start think this sucks.

Things like theese make it harder for us to convince the rest of us iraqis about the coalition and yadayadaya...
Even if I hate the insurgents I wouldnt label them all as terrorists, thats pure bs. Some of theese inurgents do a militant resistance against an foreignt occupier. Thats in their right, even if I dont support, and actualy support fighting them.

The Us is here to help us get rid of saddam, fascism and fascishts. Doing a thing like that doesnt make you look better. So its good that the guy is getting jailed. I dont understand how som of you defend such a thing. Just as someone said 2 bads doesnt make it right. That attitude opens up for alot of things, things that justifies immoral acts, the same immoral acts that we critize others for.

[Argyll]

And here endeth the Bull****!!!


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42905

[WARPIG]

At the risk of having an opinion without all the facts... if this was a mercy killing, at what point did the CPT assess the mans wounds? The first article said something to the tune of it was too risky to call in a helo. It's not a Co Commander's call. A battle commander or the aviation mission commmand make the decision. The image I get is that the insurgent got shot when he fled, and then finished off out of laziness.
I saw a lot of talk about "why are we picking on the brave soldiers?" Bull****.
We are held to our moral and ethical standard at all times, especially in combat. A private might be able to get away with playing dumb or scared.. but a company commander knows better. He should have treated the guy for his wounds and put him in the back of the HMMWV.
Food for thought: The panel that acts as jurors in his Court Martial is a panel of his peers, soldiers.

[Argyll]

Great comments there WARPIG.....we the civilian population were not in possesion of all the facts,but they were there,hence his facing of the Courts Martial.......that,and the charges he faced were enough to say to me there was sufficient facts to convict..........and that ,they have done today.........it's just a shame some people out there cannot comprehend things they know nothing about!!

Reality's a bitch sometimes!!!!

[Weasel]

At the risk of having an opinion without all the facts... if this was a mercy killing, at what point did the CPT assess the mans wounds? The first article said something to the tune of it was too risky to call in a helo. It's not a Co Commander's call. A battle commander or the aviation mission commmand make the decision. The image I get is that the insurgent got shot when he fled, and then finished off out of laziness.
I saw a lot of talk about "why are we picking on the brave soldiers?" Bull****.
We are held to our moral and ethical standard at all times, especially in combat. A private might be able to get away with playing dumb or scared.. but a company commander knows better. He should have treated the guy for his wounds and put him in the back of the HMMWV.
Food for thought: The panel that acts as jurors in his Court Martial is a panel of his peers, soldiers.

Good post. Especially the moral and ethical part.

[Freibier]

Very good post warpig

[WARPIG]

Thanks for the remarks all.

The whole "it's war and **** happens" stuff just doesn't wash. I think many of us have been there or know people who have. War is ugly and humanity is tested to it's fullest during war. Men fail. I can understand killing, fear, hatred, loss and all the demons that we face when we are at war. Our military has to keep what we fight for in the front of their minds, always. Otherwise, we are doing this for nothing. When we talk about our men and women serving our country.. we associate their actions with words like honor and courage.

Webster's definition of HONOR
NOUN
1 : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION b : a showing of usually merited respect : RECOGNITION <pay honor to our founder>
2 : PRIVILEGE
VERB
1 : to regard or treat with honor or respect b : to confer honor on
2 : to live up to or fulfill the terms of <honor a commitment>

We can only act on the VERB, the NOUN is simply a condition that results from our actions.

[Argyll]

Thanks for the remarks all.

The whole "it's war and **** happens" stuff just doesn't wash. I think many of us have been there or know people who have. War is ugly and humanity is tested to it's fullest during war. Men fail. I can understand killing, fear, hatred, loss and all the demons that we face when we are at war. Our military has to keep what we fight for in the front of their minds, always. Otherwise, we are doing this for nothing. When we talk about our men and women serving our country.. we associate their actions with words like honor and courage.

Webster's definition of HONOR
NOUN
1 : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION b : a showing of usually merited respect : RECOGNITION <pay honor to our founder>
2 : PRIVILEGE
VERB
1 : to regard or treat with honor or respect b : to confer honor on
2 : to live up to or fulfill the terms of <honor a commitment>

We can only act on the VERB, the NOUN is simply a condition that results from our actions.

Again.........much respect to you,you've hit the nail on the head my friend,your comments are sobering and refreshing!!

[JTAR7242]

But would you justify killing a family member due their pain of terminal illness?

Who has the right to play God?..........an argument that's used in such cases in civilian courts?
God's existence is questionable, I find myself unbothered by the thought of mimicing his supposed authority.

I call it playing a decent human being. Nobody, even your worst enemies deserve to linger in pain. Especially if you love them like family. But then again that is why I have a living will so I don't have to worry about those with clouded judgement determine my fate.


And like I said, the results of a court martial might be just, but they aren't always right.

[Argyll]

But would you justify killing a family member due their pain of terminal illness?

Who has the right to play God?..........an argument that's used in such cases in civilian courts?
God's existence is questionable, I find myself unbothered by the thought of mimicing his supposed authority.

I call it playing a decent human being. Nobody, even your worst enemies deserve to linger in pain. Especially if you love them like family. But then again that is why I have a living will so I don't have to worry about those with clouded judgement determine my fate.


And like I said, the results of a court martial might be just, but they aren't always right.
I am impressed........it makes a change someone questioning religious ethics from the USA,as Religion seems to be extremely powerful there, "In God we trust"!!........

It also makes a refresshing change from "It's war **** happens"........indeed it does..............As more facts emerge fom this Captains actions he lacked what WARPIG stated,the Tribunal didn't believe him,as his actions were not that of a caring human being,he didn't even asses the condition by triage of the wounded Iraqi,hell he took another mans word for it,which is worse in my opinion,and dress it up any other way,but shot him to death.........for nothing!,he's lucky he didn't get the murder charge,his actions have brought shame on himself,his family his unit,and his country......was it worth it?

Oh and if the medic had properly examined him,and was of the sound opinion he wouldn't make it,perhaps overdosing him with morphine would have been the "caring human thing to do"?,that way the drone would have picked up the compassion and mercy shown...........not the act of killing a wounded man by shooting him to death.

In this case the Courts Martial was right...........there can be no excuse for the Captains action!!

[Nightscope23]

And like I said, the results of a court martial might be just, but they aren't always right.


Hummmmm....

[username]

What the hell is going on? Why is anyone talking about a mercy killing? There was no mercy killing that's just what the defence lawyer reffered to it as to try and get the guy off the murder charge. He was convicted of murder. Anyone who reffer's to it as a mercy killing is simply purveying propaganda in my view.

I agree, it was wrong what the Cpt. did because from everything read, it doesn't sound like the guy was mortally wounded. However, how do we know whether it was or wasn't a mercy killing? As some posters would say on here, "you weren't there".

Then again, the books say no mercy killing. So, that means when there is an actual legit time for a mercy killing, it's better to have one listen to the screams and cries while one dies slowly and hear those same sounds in ones head for the rest of their life, rather than take action and take the person out of his/her misery.

...



"you weren't there"
Very true. Then a good question to ask is. Why would anyone assume or draw the conclusion of a mercy killing? He was charged and convicted of murder. I think the answer lies in the corporate media serving elite interests.........again.

[Nightscope23]

but in the smiles of the children we help and the Iraqis who have begun to experience something good in their lives, and to experience the first taste of freedom they have ever known.

You might want to try and sell that to someone who’s buying it. You’re telling me you’re eating bland MRE’s most of the time, dodging bullets, breathing in dust, and putting your life on the line every single day so you can see the smiles on the faces of those Iraqis experiencing freedom for the first time - People you’ll probably never see again in your life again, are less likely to contribute anything to your country anytime soon, the U.S. in this case? Hummm?

How about all those Iraqis getting blown to pieces by insurgents because this whole “Iraqi Freedom” experiment has pretty much turned into one big mess? What are you talking about? I may come off as a little naïve, but I wasn’t born yesterday.

Don’t ever label me a racist. You took my example out of context and used it to serve your own needs to prove that I’m one big jerk. That won’t work and I’m still having doubts about your motives in defending this guy. He was convicted of murder, but you’re still saying it wasn’t the right thing to do. You seem to have a twisted definition of what’s right and what’s not. Why don’t you tell us all exactly what you’re thinking so we can get this over with and save us from going in circles with your politically correct BS.

Fess up dude, I’m getting sick and tired of your BS.

[WARPIG]

but in the smiles of the children we help and the Iraqis who have begun to experience something good in their lives, and to experience the first taste of freedom they have ever known.

You might want to try and sell that to someone who’s buying it. You’re telling me you’re eating bland MRE’s most of the time, dodging bullets, breathing in dust, and putting your life on the line every single day so you can see the smiles on the faces of those Iraqis experiencing freedom for the first time - People you’ll probably never see again in your life again, are less likely to contribute anything to your country anytime soon, the U.S. in this case? Hummm?

How about all those Iraqis getting blown to pieces by insurgents because this whole “Iraqi Freedom” experiment has pretty much turned into one big mess? What are you talking about? I may come off as a little naïve, but I wasn’t born yesterday.

Don’t ever label me a racist. You took my example out of context and used it to serve your own needs to prove that I’m one big jerk. That won’t work and I’m still having doubts about your motives in defending this guy. He was convicted of murder, but you’re still saying it wasn’t the right thing to do. You seem to have a twisted definition of what’s right and what’s not. Why don’t you tell us all exactly what you’re thinking so we can get this over with and save us from going in circles with your politically correct BS.

Fess up dude, I’m getting sick and tired of your BS.

Pissy party of two?

[Nightscope23]

Pissy party of two?

Nah, we're sitting at the bar.

[JTAR7242]

Little has changed.


You might want to try and sell that to someone who’s buying it. You’re telling me you’re eating bland MRE’s most of the time, dodging bullets, breathing in dust, and putting your life on the line every single day so you can see the smiles on the faces of those Iraqis experiencing freedom for the first time - People you’ll probably never see again in your life again, are less likely to contribute anything to your country anytime soon, the U.S. in this case? Hummm?

How about all those Iraqis getting blown to pieces by insurgents because this whole “Iraqi Freedom” experiment has pretty much turned into one big mess? What are you talking about? I may come off as a little naïve, but I wasn’t born yesterday.
You think I would go there because of that? Honestly, I'd rather stay home with my family and my friends. I go because I have to, that was part of the agreement when I signed on the dotted line years ago. I said I take more satisfaction in the people who would be helped because of what I do, not those who are rightfully killed by what I do. I feel for the "little people" of Iraq. The ones who want nothing more than to rebuild their country and get on with a new chapter in theirs and their country's lives. The ones who get shot up and blown up every day by the insurgents and their terrorist masters.

But I can't do anything about that. I don't pull the triggers on them, I don't drop the mortars, I don't build the IEDs. You're again trying to make blanket statements about complicated topics. So no, a seven (or more) month stay in Iraq is not on the top of my list of things to do this year, or next year, or any year. In fact, if the world chills out and I can spend the rest of my career stateside surfing and ****ing I'd be a happy man. But I volunteered last time, and I'd volunteer again because it is what I do.


Don’t ever label me a racist. You took my example out of context and used it to serve your own needs to prove that I’m one big jerk. That won’t work and I’m still having doubts about your motives in defending this guy.
You're racist. You take isolated incidents from your past regarding a "race" of human beings as a testament to how they all act. It may not please you to think of it that way, but that thinking is just as racist as any white supremacist's.

I don't have any needs in this thread. People seem to want to paint me as an asshole (I am, so what?), a racist (I hate all idiots equally, whether they are black white or purple), and someone who condones murder (it's all subjective it seems). Whatever, the opinions of people on this thread are meaningless. I know what kind of man I am, as does everyone who knows me personally, because I shoot straight and I don't mince words. Not everyone likes that, and I'm cool with it. I have lots of friends, I won't miss you. I like to discuss things with people. I've learned a lot about people and various topics from discussing things, it's the only thing that keeps me coming back to these kind of forums.


He was convicted of murder, but you’re still saying it wasn’t the right thing to do.
He hasn't been convicted, where did you read that? In fact, the whole genesis of my argument was that is was absurd that we convict him here before he's been convicted in a court.


You seem to have a twisted definition of what’s right and what’s not. Why don’t you tell us all exactly what you’re thinking so we can get this over with and save us from going in circles with your politically correct BS.

Fess up dude, I’m getting sick and tired of your BS.
Like I said before, it is all subjective. I've been very up front about what I'm thinking, reread my posts, I haven't been deceptive or ambiguous, I'm rarely accused of that. Apparantly what I think is wrong doesn't mesh with what you think is wrong. That's fine, feel free to judge me, I don't find myself under your jurisdiction.

[OMEGA7]

... treated the guy for his wounds and put him in the back of the HMMWV.
.

does the HMMWV terrible when does the american soldier riding on the vhicle. but in this question . this range's limitation the American soldier. and any other people has been to on the HMMWV only. please.
but how does iraq happend no good be. what's worse bad bad bad.

remind operation enduring freedom, what're you feeling in now? rofl :lol:

either good nor badly. its either goodness. this the good ness will enable to change to the ****in war's finish. but to end the war toward to effort and encourage against insurgent. any way . i'll take the some thing .
its an AMERICAN FORCES and ALLIAS ARMY sign ficant other . the other's a UNION JACK, JAPAN , KOREAN without the accident of TU ISLAND and
still dont particular in this war the france . but i hope in war of the iraq will come to the end. untill come to the end . i including they'll come for it .

hey guys we will clap on the hand distribute 3 time!

and more. please look the movie WIND OF GOD. sorry about this questions said to them suddenly.

the WIND OF GOD japanese say . KAMIKAZE. ;)

[RGRBOX]

Not on the ground, and I don't know all of this story... But I think that killing this guy must have been for something.. Mercy killing... I think that's a load of something... this Cpt. was out for revenge...

[Argyll]

He hasn't been convicted, where did you read that? In fact, the whole genesis of my argument was that is was absurd that we convict him here before he's been convicted in a court.


Oh yes he has been!!..............did you not you bother reading up on the 3 threads that stated he was convicted yesterday mate?,the problem was you chose to defend a man who was already in a process where ALL the evidence had been gathered and that the ARMY itself seen fit to charge this POS with the unlwfull killing of the Iraqi,spare me the BS he was found guilty of the crime in which he was charged with,he's lucky they didn't go with the full murder wrap!!

[JTAR7242]

Huh, my bad, I was gone all day today. Well if he was convicted, that's all well and good to judge him based on what he was convicted for.

But it does say something, in fact quite a lot, that they didn't charge him with murder.


You might call it BS, but that tells me something considering others have been convicted of murder. Judge all you want, but it wasn't you. We obviously see things just a little bit differently. Besides, like I've said many times and several of you have failed to comprehend, but I never defended him, I merely said it wasn't fair for us to judge him without knowing all the facts.

An if he wasn't lying about wanting to put the man out of his misery after his unit's medic said the man was beyond help, I'd defend him any day of the week. Like I said, and I'll say again, military courts may be just, but they aren't always right. The story sounds to me like he's going to take a fall for doing the right thing at the wrong time. You all seem to be content to believe he murdered the man in cold blood, or for revenge ( a charge the military prosecutors didn't see fit to level), and that's fine. I'm as cynical as they get, but I guess none of you have ever been in that position, and never will. You're all convinced he's scum, I'm not. Like everything else, it is a matter of perspective.

[Argyll]

Jesus man the FACTS were all there you chose not to listen to them!!

You don't follow your own postings either,EVERYONE knew he wasn't charged with murder,the lawyers plea bargained for the lesser charge

I judged this guys based on facts I knew,but you thought you knew better,you were WRONG!!!

The unit medic did not assess him,he assumed,the drone did not pick up the guy even getting checked for fcuk sake,why do you think this case was almost as clear as a bell...............he(Cpt asshole) took a medic,a foking medic,not a doctor's word that the guy was unsaveable,you can defend this criminal all you want..............he was found guilty,and has brought his unit,and the Army and his country into disrepute!!

He's bloody lucky he wasn't getting done civvy because he'd be given a lethal injection!!

What you fail to comprehend is that this POS was found guilty by a Military Court,you of all people should be respecting the UCMJ,they were absoloute correct in their assesment,perspective is fine,but so's being so narrow minded that you still think this guys a hero,sadly you cannot ,and will not accept COLD HARD FACTS this guy was guilty of a crime!!!

[JTAR7242]

Jesus man the FACTS were all there you chose not to listen to them!!I haven't seen any facts that have said that this soldier didn't shoot the man as a mercy killing. Kindly point them out.


The unit medic did not assess him,he assumed,
Funny...


He argued that Maynulet, who was trained in first aid, should not have relied on a medic who said the man was beyond saving and told him "there's nothing I can do."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17010-2005Mar31.html



That you fail to comprehend is that this POS was found guilty by a Military Court,you of all people should be respecting the UCMJ,they were absoloute correct in their assesment,perspective is fine,but so's being so narrow minded that you still think this guys a hero,sadly you cannot ,and will not accept COLD HARD FACTS this guy was guilty of a crime!!!
I've never disputed his guilt, I've never called him a hero. Why do you continue to suggest this? Youre being quite obtuse for a well respected moderator. I guess the old saying about respect being earned and not given doesn't hold true here. Is English not the native language of us both? If this is a problem, I can type it out in Spanish, or Arabic and maybe struggle to get it down in German...

I perfectly respect the UCMJ, and I agree they were perfectly correct in their judgement. But that doesn't make it right, only just. If you're having difficulty determining the fundamental difference between being just and being right, I suggest a trip to dictionary.com.

Regardless, this thread is a lost cause. I can't ever convince you guys of my side of the argument because it has become painfully obvious that you guys don't have the first clue what my argument even is. It's like I am saying "Wow, the sky is blue", and you're replying with "I don't like monkeys, they smell bad."

[TacoDelRio]

I still don't have any problem with what he did.

Regardless of some of you guys's typing!

[Millen]

I still don't have any problem with what he did.

Regardless of some of you guys's typing!

mmmm...... Untill some iraqi do the same thing with a US trooper on film

[Argyll]

Jesus man the FACTS were all there you chose not to listen to them!!I haven't seen any facts that have said that this soldier didn't shoot the man as a mercy killing. Kindly point them out.

They were all given and presented in his trial!!........hello is anyone in?
Just because you personally didn't know all the facts is totally irrelevant,his SUPERIORS and those judging him were in possesion of the facts,without having them there would not have been a conviction!


The unit medic did not assess him,he assumed,
Funny...


He argued that Maynulet, who was trained in first aid, should not have relied on a medic who said the man was beyond saving and told him "there's nothing I can do."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17010-2005Mar31.html


Where in that statement does it say he physically checked over the wounded Iraqi,and concluded that he was not going to make it,because the drone did NOT pick up any kind of physical assesment,had it done so then the outcome might have been different,and again,a medic would have been in possesion of morphine he could have given him a lethal dose,that would have been the "humane thing to do"......I don't know about the US,but when Triage takes place,you still make an attempt to do something,not just say "fcuk it........shoot him I can't be arsed!!"



That you fail to comprehend is that this POS was found guilty by a Military Court,you of all people should be respecting the UCMJ,they were absoloute correct in their assesment,perspective is fine,but so's being so narrow minded that you still think this guys a hero,sadly you cannot ,and will not accept COLD HARD FACTS this guy was guilty of a crime!!!

I've never disputed his guilt, I've never called him a hero. Why do you continue to suggest this? Youre being quite obtuse for a well respected moderator. I guess the old saying about respect being earned and not given doesn't hold true here. Is English not the native language of us both? If this is a problem, I can type it out in Spanish, or Arabic and maybe struggle to get it down in German...

Because you still think this was only an act of mercy,it wasn't and that came from his peers.....I could type this out in every language under the sun,hell I could even use your own Presidents words about always valuing life,when he made the comments about Terri Schiavo.....or is this a different set of values the Military operate under?
I care not whether you respect me or not,but you're not respecting that a Military court,under the rules of the UCMJ found this Captain guilty of a crime against an unarmed and wounded Iraqi!!!

I perfectly respect the UCMJ, and I agree they were perfectly correct in their judgement. But that doesn't make it right, only just. If you're having difficulty determining the fundamental difference between being just and being right, I suggest a trip to dictionary.com.

Run that by me again,correct in their judgement,but that doesn't make it right....................which is it,right or wrong,because you've totally contradicted your self in that very statement!! Just as in it was the Right thing to do? :roll: You are defending this man,although you keep denying it!!

Regardless, this thread is a lost cause. I can't ever convince you guys of my side of the argument because it has become painfully obvious that you guys don't have the first clue what my argument even is. It's like I am saying "Wow, the sky is blue", and you're replying with "I don't like monkeys, they smell bad."

What exactly was your side of the argument,you claimed it was a mercy killing,the Military tribunal and others,who were correct in case you hadn't noticed said it was nothing of the sort!!
Fact the case was already underway,and the information was there,you were using the Captains word,and taking it at face value,you added NOTHING to the topic other than that we,those who chose to believe that what the Captain did was wrong,were all wrong in our assesment,and that WE were pre judging him,hell yes we did,and we were exhonerated in doing so.......did you bother reading WARPIGS comment,if you didn't which is obviousl you didn't,otherwise you would have found out he was guilty,then I suggest you do............bottom line,you personaly think result was wrong,Senior Military officers,with legal backgrounds found otherwise.......face up to the facts,it was NOT A MERCY KILLING,as been proven in a Military Court of Law!!

[Argyll]

I still don't have any problem with what he did.

Regardless of some of you guys's typing!

The Military in which he served begs to differ from your opinion

Try reading WARPIGS comments as well...............they're worth heeding!

[Nightscope23]

You're racist. You take isolated incidents from your past regarding a "race" of human beings as a testament to how they all act. It may not please you to think of it that way, but that thinking is just as racist as any white supremacist's..

I don't belong to one race or ethnic group. I'm a mixed breed. It suites you well to label me anything you want because as soon as you do it makes it easier for you to brush me off and chalk it up to someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. You're no better than that so called media you were talking about earlier in this thread.

You seem to think that I have something personal against you. I can understand why. I've been debating the topic of this thread with you for the last few days. Then when I brought up the example about my teacher you started making assumptions about me.

Like you said, I know who I am and who my friends are. The fact of the matter is this: I'm trying to understand why you keep defending the convicted Capt.. You keep thinking that I'm after you because you're white. Please don't take this personally, but your judgment in the matter is clouded by your assumptions about me.


I don't have any needs in this thread. People seem to want to paint me as an asshole (I am, so what?), a racist (I hate all idiots equally, whether they are black white or purple), and someone who condones murder (it's all subjective it seems). Whatever, the opinions of people on this thread are meaningless.

No one wants to paint you as anything. Read my comments above.
By the way, if everyone's opinions are meaningless then why did you feel the need to post early on that we should all wait for the hard facts to come in before we judged him? It seems our opinions do matter after all.




I know what kind of man I am, as does everyone who knows me personally, because I shoot straight and I don't mince words. Not everyone likes that, and I'm cool with it. I have lots of friends, I won't miss you. I like to discuss things with people. I've learned a lot about people and various topics from discussing things, it's the only thing that keeps me coming back to these kind of forums.

The only reason I'm debating the original topic with you is because I'm trying to understand your reasoning. We all have a view of what doing the right thing means. I'm curious to know what your view on the matter is.





Like I said before, it is all subjective. I've been very up front about what I'm thinking, reread my posts, I haven't been deceptive or ambiguous, I'm rarely accused of that. Apparantly what I think is wrong doesn't mesh with what you think is wrong. That's fine, feel free to judge me, I don't find myself under your jurisdiction.

So if you were in that Captain's shoes what would you do? Would you call in a doctor to assess the situation? Or would you shoot him to rid him of his misery? I can understand that. But, the guy didn't even bother to do anything aside from asking the medic to take a look at him. Warpig nailed it. The Captain finished him off out of laziness.

[OMEGA7]

Jesus man the FACTS were all there you chose not to listen to them!!

You don't follow your own postings either,EVERYONE knew he wasn't charged with murder,the lawyers plea bargained for the lesser charge

I judged this guys based on facts I knew,but you thought you knew better,you were WRONG!!!

The unit medic did not assess him,he assumed,the drone did not pick up the guy even getting checked for fcuk sake,why do you think this case was almost as clear as a bell...............he(Cpt asshole) took a medic,a foking medic,not a doctor's word that the guy was unsaveable,you can defend this criminal all you want..............he was found guilty,and has brought his unit,and the Army and his country into disrepute!!

He's bloody lucky he wasn't getting done civvy because he'd be given a lethal injection!!

What you fail to comprehend is that this POS was found guilty by a Military Court,you of all people should be respecting the UCMJ,they were absoloute correct in their assesment,perspective is fine,but so's being so narrow minded that you still think this guys a hero,sadly you cannot ,and will not accept COLD HARD FACTS this guy was guilty of a crime!!!

in japan hasnt the army staying any more. and more. in japan occuired a signficant other . AMERICAN FORCES. who is defending for japan. would you country's same ?

[J-10]

Captain dismissed from US army for killing Iraqi
Fri, Apr 01, 2005

BERLIN (AFP) - A US army captain who shot dead a wounded Iraqi was dismissed from the military, but a court martial panel did not impose a prison sentence, a military spokesman said.

Captain Rogelio Maynulet, 30, had been found guilty on Thursday of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter by a court martial in Wiesbaden, western Germany.

The court martial ruled on Friday that he should be dismissed from the army.

Maynulet was charged with murdering the Iraqi man on May 21 last year in an incident during which US troops fired at a civilian vehicle they suspected was carrying insurgents near the central Iraqi town of Kufa.

Under the US Army's rules of engagement in Iraq, shooting at suspect cars is allowed under certain circumstances.

The passenger in the car died instantly and the driver was badly injured.

Maynulet, who had pleaded not guilty to the charges, told the court martial that he had shot dead the driver at close range because he believed the man would have died from his injuries anyway.
From (http://rds.yahoo.com/S=53720272/K=US/v=2/SID=e/l=NSR/R=9/SIG=13r47g6ej/EXP=1112500263/*-http%3A//news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050401/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusmilitaryjustice_050401183437)

[JTAR7242]

Jesus man the FACTS were all there you chose not to listen to them!!I haven't seen any facts that have said that this soldier didn't shoot the man as a mercy killing. Kindly point them out.
They were all given and presented in his trial!!........hello is anyone in?
Just because you personally didn't know all the facts is totally irrelevant,his SUPERIORS and those judging him were in possesion of the facts,without having them there would not have been a conviction!

No, they proved that he disobeyed and order and assaulted the man with the intent to commit voluntary manslaughter. You can commit manslaughter simply by killing someone, it doesn't prove or disprove intent. The fact that they didn't charge him with murder and didn't sentence him to any prison time suggests the court believed that he didn't have any truly evil intentions. You don't simply dismiss a murderer from service.



The unit medic did not assess him,he assumed,
Funny...

He argued that Maynulet, who was trained in first aid, should not have relied on a medic who said the man was beyond saving and told him "there's nothing I can do."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17010-2005Mar31.html
Where in that statement does it say he physically checked over the wounded Iraqi,and concluded that he was not going to make it,because the drone did NOT pick up any kind of physical assesment,had it done so then the outcome might have been different,and again,a medic would have been in possesion of morphine he could have given him a lethal dose,that would have been the "humane thing to do"......I don't know about the US,but when Triage takes place,you still make an attempt to do something,not just say "fcuk it........shoot him I can't be arsed!!"
He's trained as a combat life saver, the medic is a trained medic. THat would be like me having the Corpsman, a trained combat medic, look over a dying man, and then not taking his expert word for it and using my basic combat first aid to make a better assessment. The prosecutor may believe that he failed, but as a leader, you have to know when to do the work yourself and when to delegate to those with more knowledge and experience than you. Morphine is a precious commodity in a combat unit in a combat zone, simply injecting a lethal dose would have meant the medic would be on trial, not the Captian. You're suggesting one form of euthanasia over another doesn't really support your cause too much, just makes you a hypocrite.




That you fail to comprehend is that this POS was found guilty by a Military Court,you of all people should be respecting the UCMJ,they were absoloute correct in their assesment,perspective is fine,but so's being so narrow minded that you still think this guys a hero,sadly you cannot ,and will not accept COLD HARD FACTS this guy was guilty of a crime!!!

I've never disputed his guilt, I've never called him a hero. Why do you continue to suggest this? Youre being quite obtuse for a well respected moderator. I guess the old saying about respect being earned and not given doesn't hold true here. Is English not the native language of us both? If this is a problem, I can type it out in Spanish, or Arabic and maybe struggle to get it down in German...
Because you still think this was only an act of mercy,it wasn't and that came from his peers.....I could type this out in every language under the sun,hell I could even use your own Presidents words about always valuing life,when he made the comments about Terri Schiavo.....or is this a different set of values the Military operate under?
I care not whether you respect me or not,but you're not respecting that a Military court,under the rules of the UCMJ found this Captain guilty of a crime against an unarmed and wounded Iraqi!!!
Review the parts in bold and analyze the failure of your response.

And I never said I didn't respect the judgement of the military court, it was just and fair according to the rules and regulations of the UCMJ, a set of rules I have always followed to the letter. But you're suggesting that simply because I am in the military that I automatically allow them to force feed me my thinking. I will uphold the UCMJ because that is what I have to do, it doesn't mean I have to like it, or agree with it. Hell, the UCMJ says is against the rules for me to get a blowjob, but I don't buy the thought that the military can tell me which hole I'm going to stick it in my consenting girlfriend.


I perfectly respect the UCMJ, and I agree they were perfectly correct in their judgement. But that doesn't make it right, only just. If you're having difficulty determining the fundamental difference between being just and being right, I suggest a trip to dictionary.com.
Run that by me again,correct in their judgement,but that doesn't make it right....................which is it,right or wrong,because you've totally contradicted your self in that very statement!! Just as in it was the Right thing to do? :roll: You are defending this man,although you keep denying it!!

http://www.dictionary.com


just1 ( P ) ****unciation Key (jst)
adj.
Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.


right ( P ) ****unciation Key (rt)
adj. right·er, right·est
Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer
The ruling of the court was honorable and fair. The Captain knew, or reasonably should have known, that killing that man was in violation of his orders.

However if (enlarged so you can understand the significance of the word if in this sentence) he was killing the man to put him out of his misery (the moral, correct thing to do, in my opinion) then I don't agree with the fact that the UCMJ requires the Army to charge him.

Are we understanding these concepts yet? I don't think it is hard, but you seem to have proved me wrong thus far. The words if and or may be small, but they convey a great amount of meaning.



Regardless, this thread is a lost cause. I can't ever convince you guys of my side of the argument because it has become painfully obvious that you guys don't have the first clue what my argument even is. It's like I am saying "Wow, the sky is blue", and you're replying with "I don't like monkeys, they smell bad."

What exactly was your side of the argument,you claimed it was a mercy killing

You're putting words in my mouth. I demand a quotation from this thread where I ever said that. Right now, seriously, or stop claiming that. I'm waiting.


,the Military tribunal and others,who were correct in case you hadn't noticed said it was nothing of the sort!!
Fact the case was already underway,and the information was there,you were using the Captains word,and taking it at face value,you added NOTHING to the topic

"Kettle this is Pot."

"Pot this is Kettle, send your traffic over."

"You're black."

"Say again over"

"You're black"


other than that we,those who chose to believe that what the Captain did was wrong,were all wrong in our assesment,and that WE were pre judging him,hell yes we did,and we were exhonerated in doing so
Hey, if you feel vindicated, that's all that matters. After all, the truth doesn't seem to be your forte, merely opinions.


.......did you bother reading WARPIGS comment,if you didn't which is obviousl you didn't,otherwise you would have found out he was guilty,then I suggest you do............bottom line,you personaly think result was wrong,Senior Military officers,with legal backgrounds found otherwise.......face up to the facts,it was NOT A MERCY KILLING,as been proven in a Military Court of Law!!

Not proven. Find the part where a conviction of Assault with intent to commit manslaughter proves that he didn't kill that Iraqi out of mercy. You can't, unless you live in some fantasy world.

[JTAR7242]

You're racist. You take isolated incidents from your past regarding a "race" of human beings as a testament to how they all act. It may not please you to think of it that way, but that thinking is just as racist as any white supremacist's..
I don't belong to one race or ethnic group. I'm a mixed breed. It suites you well to label me anything you want because as soon as you do it makes it easier for you to brush me off and chalk it up to someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. You're no better than that so called media you were talking about earlier in this thread.

I'm not labeling you.

Here, I'll make it better for you. You;re not a racist, but you have made racist comments in this thread. There, all the same truth, none of the labels.

And just in case you;re confused (supporting my claim of stupid, by the way), you don't have to be "racially pure" to be a racist.


rac·ism ( P ) ****unciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Boom. Nothing in that definition about having to be racially pure. A mixed breed bigot can be as racist as a purebred Ku Klux Klan member.


You seem to think that I have something personal against you. I can understand why. I've been debating the topic of this thread with you for the last few days. Then when I brought up the example about my teacher you started making assumptions about me.

I didn't make a single assumption about you. You said that you believed that because the Captain was white and your racist teacher was white that he would have some kind of racial bias against Iraqis. That's a racist comment. Nothing to assume, condemned out of your own filthy mouth.



I don't think you're after me, I think you're a fool.


[quote=JTAR7242] I don't have any needs in this thread. People seem to want to paint me as an asshole (I am, so what?), a racist (I hate all idiots equally, whether they are black white or purple), and someone who condones murder (it's all subjective it seems). Whatever, the opinions of people on this thread are meaningless.
No one wants to paint you as anything. Read my comments above.
By the way, if everyone's opinions are meaningless then why did you feel the need to post early on that we should all wait for the hard facts to come in before we judged him? It seems our opinions do matter after all.
Jesus McChrist, your Scottish savior, you're as dense as Argyll. Your opinions of me don't matter.




I know what kind of man I am, as does everyone who knows me personally, because I shoot straight and I don't mince words. Not everyone likes that, and I'm cool with it. I have lots of friends, I won't miss you. I like to discuss things with people. I've learned a lot about people and various topics from discussing things, it's the only thing that keeps me coming back to these kind of forums.

The only reason I'm debating the original topic with you is because I'm trying to understand your reasoning. We all have a view of what doing the right thing means. I'm curious to know what your view on the matter is. I invite you to actually read the thread.


I'd like a show of hands from anyone else who is confused on my stance on mercy killing (the only thing I have taken a stand on in this thread beyond the idea of not pre-judging without any facts)



So if you were in that Captain's shoes what would you do? Would you call in a doctor to assess the situation? Or would you shoot him to rid him of his misery? I can understand that. But, the guy didn't even bother to do anything aside from asking the medic to take a look at him. Warpig nailed it. The Captain finished him off out of laziness.
You started off good, finished back at stupid.

I don't know what I would have done, I wasn't there. I would likely have not shot the Iraqi, because I had my orders not to mercy kill anyone. I would feel bad about it, but honestly, in the end, I'm going to be selfish and put my own career and future ahead of my feelings. I'm not really proud to say that, but nobody in this world looks out for you, but you.

He asked his medic to look at him? What was he supposed to do, dial up a trauma surgeon to fly all the way out to the scene to do something? Battlefield medicine isn't an exact science, and it isn't always pretty. His qualified subordinate said that the man was beyond saving. How can that not be considered sufficient? Do you waste resources (a doctor) that might be needed elsewhere on what your expert (pay atention to things I bold or italicize, usually means they are important) has told you that it will not do any good? No, you don't.

WARPIG, this scholar you all worship, hasn't actually made any real points or offered any evidence, he simply offered an opinion that coicided with yours. The only evidence presented as to the Captain's intentions say that he killed the man out of mercy. The conviction did not say otherwise, and if you say it did, you don't understand the law, or legal proceedings, at all.

[James]

... treated the guy for his wounds and put him in the back of the HMMWV.
.

does the HMMWV terrible when does the american soldier riding on the vhicle. but in this question . this range's limitation the American soldier. and any other people has been to on the HMMWV only. please.
but how does iraq happend no good be. what's worse bad bad bad.

remind operation enduring freedom, what're you feeling in now? rofl :lol:

either good nor badly. its either goodness. this the good ness will enable to change to the f*** war's finish. but to end the war toward to effort and encourage against insurgent. any way . i'll take the some thing .
its an AMERICAN FORCES and ALLIAS ARMY sign ficant other . the other's a UNION JACK, JAPAN , KOREAN without the accident of TU ISLAND and
still dont particular in this war the france . but i hope in war of the iraq will come to the end. untill come to the end . i including they'll come for it .

hey guys we will clap on the hand distribute 3 time!

and more. please look the movie WIND OF GOD. sorry about this questions said to them suddenly.

the WIND OF GOD japanese say . KAMIKAZE. ;)

What does this mean? :|

[Nightscope23]

JTAR7242,

You still have much to learn. Stick to doing the physical work. That’s what you do best. What would you be without your muscles is anyone’s guess.

The only reason you use the words stupid, fool and filthy so much is because that's what people call you on a daily basis. You are what you eat.

[Argyll]

Jesus man the FACTS were all there you chose not to listen to them!!I haven't seen any facts that have said that this soldier didn't shoot the man as a mercy killing. Kindly point them out.
They were all given and presented in his trial!!........hello is anyone in?
Just because you personally didn't know all the facts is totally irrelevant,his SUPERIORS and those judging him were in possesion of the facts,without having them there would not have been a conviction!

No, they proved that he disobeyed and order and assaulted the man with the intent to commit voluntary manslaughter. You can commit manslaughter simply by killing someone, it doesn't prove or disprove intent. The fact that they didn't charge him with murder and didn't sentence him to any prison time suggests the court believed that he didn't have any truly evil intentions. You don't simply dismiss a murderer from service.

Good morning!! ;) ........which means they found him guilty then doesn't it ;),and he's been dismissed from the service with a DISHONORABLE discharge!!



The unit medic did not assess him,he assumed,
Funny...

He argued that Maynulet, who was trained in first aid, should not have relied on a medic who said the man was beyond saving and told him "there's nothing I can do."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17010-2005Mar31.html
Where in that statement does it say he physically checked over the wounded Iraqi,and concluded that he was not going to make it,because the drone did NOT pick up any kind of physical assesment,had it done so then the outcome might have been different,and again,a medic would have been in possesion of morphine he could have given him a lethal dose,that would have been the "humane thing to do"......I don't know about the US,but when Triage takes place,you still make an attempt to do something,not just say "fcuk it........shoot him I can't be arsed!!"

He's trained as a combat life saver, the medic is a trained medic. THat would be like me having the Corpsman, a trained combat medic, look over a dying man, and then not taking his expert word for it and using my basic combat first aid to make a better assessment. The prosecutor may believe that he failed, but as a leader, you have to know when to do the work yourself and when to delegate to those with more knowledge and experience than you. Morphine is a precious commodity in a combat unit in a combat zone, simply injecting a lethal dose would have meant the medic would be on trial, not the Captian. You're suggesting one form of euthanasia over another doesn't really support your cause too much, just makes you a hypocrite.

No my first suggestion was that the medic didn't even bother his arse checking the wounded man in the first place,because it was not picked up by the drone,in order to make the assesment "he's done for Captain",you have to physically check the mans wounds,it appears this DID NOT HAPPEN...otherwise it would have been mentioned during the trial.......Try this,your kid brother gets knocked down in the street,the ambulance is called,a cop is there first,takes one look at your brother without ever checking him over,and says he's done for,so his partner shoots him twice in the head from distance....it should be okay then as he only put your brother out of his misery,he acted out of mercy,is this okay by you then?
Reference using morphine on him,I'm offering out to you that surely if the Captain wished to be "humane" then using the morhine to lethaly inject him would have been better than shooting him to death from distance,not with one bullet,but two!!




That you fail to comprehend is that this POS was found guilty by a Military Court,you of all people should be respecting the UCMJ,they were absoloute correct in their assesment,perspective is fine,but so's being so narrow minded that you still think this guys a hero,sadly you cannot ,and will not accept COLD HARD FACTS this guy was guilty of a crime!!!

I've never disputed his guilt, I've never called him a hero. Why do you continue to suggest this? Youre being quite obtuse for a well respected moderator. I guess the old saying about respect being earned and not given doesn't hold true here. Is English not the native language of us both? If this is a problem, I can type it out in Spanish, or Arabic and maybe struggle to get it down in German...
Because you still think this was only an act of mercy,it wasn't and that came from his peers.....I could type this out in every language under the sun,hell I could even use your own Presidents words about always valuing life,when he made the comments about Terri Schiavo.....or is this a different set of values the Military operate under?
I care not whether you respect me or not,but you're not respecting that a Military court,under the rules of the UCMJ found this Captain guilty of a crime against an unarmed and wounded Iraqi!!!

Review the parts in bold and analyze the failure of your response.

I don't need to because he was found GUILTY of the crime in which he was charged with!!,YOU still think it was an act of mercy,your peers deemed it otherwise,they being the ruling body!!

And I never said I didn't respect the judgement of the military court, it was just and fair according to the rules and regulations of the UCMJ, a set of rules I have always followed to the letter. But you're suggesting that simply because I am in the military that I automatically allow them to force feed me my thinking. I will uphold the UCMJ because that is what I have to do, it doesn't mean I have to like it, or agree with it. Hell, the UCMJ says is against the rules for me to get a blowjob, but I don't buy the thought that the military can tell me which hole I'm going to stick it in my consenting girlfriend.

Then why are you getting upset about a Captain who's been found guilty of killing a wounded Iraqi,he knew the rules,he disobeyed them,he got punished,you a serving soldier are bound by the same ethics of the UCMJ,if you break them then you can expect to get punished for whater part you've broken and been charged with,if you don't like it,then I suggest you leave the Army.The rules and regs are there for reasons!!
Mainly discipline,something the Captain lacked and was punished for it!!


I perfectly respect the UCMJ, and I agree they were perfectly correct in their judgement. But that doesn't make it right, only just. If you're having difficulty determining the fundamental difference between being just and being right, I suggest a trip to dictionary.com.

Run that by me again,correct in their judgement,but that doesn't make it right....................which is it,right or wrong,because you've totally contradicted your self in that very statement!! Just as in it was the Right thing to do? :roll: You are defending this man,although you keep denying it!!

http://www.dictionary.com


just1 ( P ) ****unciation Key (jst)
adj.
Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.


right ( P ) ****unciation Key (rt)
adj. right·er, right·est
Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer
The ruling of the court was honorable and fair. The Captain knew, or reasonably should have known, that killing that man was in violation of his orders.

Well there it is you've written it down yourself

However if (enlarged so you can understand the significance of the word if in this sentence) he was killing the man to put him out of his misery (the moral, correct thing to do, in my opinion) then I don't agree with the fact that the UCMJ requires the Army to charge him.

It's not for you to disagree with the UCMJ,it's for you to abide by,if you have such a trouble with the UCMJ then perhaps the Army is not for you,when I served it was under Queens Regulations,I didn't have a problem following them,even when I fell foul of them sometimes !!!He was found guilty,not of killing out of mercy,(and again,in your opinion ,which is irrelevant in this case,as it wasn't you charged!!),but unlawfully,start accepting what he did was wrong,he's been punished,and thrown out of the Army and an example set to others who act rash!!

Are we understanding these concepts yet? I don't think it is hard, but you seem to have proved me wrong thus far. The words if and or may be small, but they convey a great amount of meaning.

Oh I understand,shame you cannot accept that in the views of the United States Military the Captain was charged,found guilty,and dishonourably discharged for his crime!!



Regardless, this thread is a lost cause. I can't ever convince you guys of my side of the argument because it has become painfully obvious that you guys don't have the first clue what my argument even is. It's like I am saying "Wow, the sky is blue", and you're replying with "I don't like monkeys, they smell bad."


What exactly was your side of the argument,you claimed it was a mercy killing

You're putting words in my mouth. I demand a quotation from this thread where I ever said that. Right now, seriously, or stop claiming that. I'm waiting.

OK.....


He could very well be the cold blooded murderer that some of you would like to believe he is, and he could very well be someone who had the very best of intentions and is going to take the fall for it.


He indded fell!!


I defend that Captain not because I want to excuse murder, but because I know that myself, if I saw a man suffering in pain I might myself find it hard to know he was dying and not be able to help him. Is it true I want to believe he wasn't just killing someone in cold blood? Of course. But all I've said is that I think it is unfair to convict him based on our limited knowledge of the situation.

Read the bold bit!!


An if he wasn't lying about wanting to put the man out of his misery after his unit's medic said the man was beyond help, I'd defend him any day of the week

Bold again ;)

He was lying,because the Courts didn't believe him!




,the Military tribunal and others,who were correct in case you hadn't noticed said it was nothing of the sort!!
Fact the case was already underway,and the information was there,you were using the Captains word,and taking it at face value,you added NOTHING to the topic

"Kettle this is Pot."

"Pot this is Kettle, send your traffic over."

"You're black."

"Say again over"

"You're black"


other than that we,those who chose to believe that what the Captain did was wrong,were all wrong in our assesment,and that WE were pre judging him,hell yes we did,and we were exhonerated in doing so
Hey, if you feel vindicated, that's all that matters. After all, the truth doesn't seem to be your forte, merely opinions.

Ha ha you couldn't handle the truth mate,the Captain was found guilty,and booted out the Army..........that's the truth !!!


.......did you bother reading WARPIGS comment,if you didn't which is obviousl you didn't,otherwise you would have found out he was guilty,then I suggest you do............bottom line,you personaly think result was wrong,Senior Military officers,with legal backgrounds found otherwise.......face up to the facts,it was NOT A MERCY KILLING,as been proven in a Military Court of Law!!

Not proven. Find the part where a conviction of Assault with intent to commit manslaughter proves that he didn't kill that Iraqi out of mercy. You can't, unless you live in some fantasy world.

Good point but neither can you disprove he committed the act of mercy,care to join me in my fantasy world?


Capt. Rogelio Maynulet was found guilty of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter,


Full item here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17010-2005Mar31.html

[Argyll]

JTAR7242,

I've done some further research on this,which is perhaps what you should have done,and some interesting points have become more clearer!

Especially in reference to the medic,Sgt Thomas Cassady

Apparently he spent one minute with the casualty,but failed to take any vital signs,he apparently freaked out at the head wound,and made the assesment "he's not gonna make it"......he also felt guilty it was through this assesment that the Captain took the actions he did.


The medic, Sgt. Thomas Cassady, conceded Monday under questioning by defense attorney Capt. Will Helixon that his failure to treat the man contributed to the shooting.

"You felt guilty, that it was your fault because you didn't do your job," Helixon asked. Cassady responded: "That's correct, sir."

"You felt you should be the one in trouble," Helixon said. "Correct," Cassady replied.

Cassady testified he told Maynulet the man "wasn't going to make it."

Cassady said yesterday he failed to treat the man because he "spazzed out" at the sight of his head wound, which he described as the worst he had seen in four years as an Army medic.


Now without sounding arrogant here,but we had a guy suffer Severe head injuries in a drive by shooting,that man was treated by US Medics,he was given less than 25% survival,they however took him to the Hospital in Baghdad..........he's alive today,walking and talking,slowly,but despite recieving such an injury,he can still get around unaided.

The Medic in this case also admitted lying during the hearing


Video from a U.S. drone surveillance aircraft showed the outline of a soldier in a helmet and battle gear, identified by a witness as Maynulet, aiming a weapon at an Iraqi man lying on the ground, followed by a flash.

The man on the ground appeared to be waving his right arm before the shot. Several seconds later, he appeared to twitch as though hit again.

Defense attorneys maintain that Maynulet, convinced the man would not live, shot him to end his suffering.

In addition, Cassady conceded that he had lied during Maynulet's Article 32 hearing – the military equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation – giving testimony about injuries the man had not suffered because he felt guilty about the incident.



The whole episide is tragic for all concerned,and I mean this sincerely,the decision to end the Iraqi's life was not his to make,and that I do believe is what the Courts Martial considered,Maynulet aknowledged that they,his prosecutors and his jury had a difficult decision to make,and he fully respected their decision whetever it may be.

Mate,my whole point about this case was you cannot go around acting like GOD ,just because of serious injuries,by killing them mercifully,it will open up the flood gates,and will be abused,if knowing "mercy killing" is an acceptable thing to do when wearing the Uniform of ones country!!