A soldier is tried for killing the enemy

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

U.S. soldier convicted in Iraqi killing

 

WIESBADEN, Germany (AP) -- A military court on Thursday found a U.S. Army tank company commander guilty of charges related to the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi last year.

 

Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet stood at attention as Lt. Col. Laurence Mixon, the head of the six-member panel, read the verdict.

 

The court was to reconvene later Thursday to consider Maynulet's sentence. The charge -- assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter -- carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

 

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

 

Maynulet, 30, maintained that the man was gravely wounded and he shot him to end his suffering.

 

Maynulet's 1st Armored Division tank company had been on patrol near Kufa, south of Baghdad, when it was alerted to a car thought to be carrying a driver for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and another militiaman loyal to the Shiite cleric, who led uprisings against American-led forces in Iraq last year.

 

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

 

Source

 

I may not have agreed with the initial reasoning behind the war, but this is ridiculous. A soldier is supposed to kill the enemy. That's what he did, he chased down the vehicle and finished his job by killing he guy. I understand the guy was pretty much defenseless, but apparently he asked for death. Even if he didn't, it's a war. Soldiers kill each other. It doesn't matter how defenseless a guy seems to be, are you really gonna trust the man in a situation like this? When did the U.S. Military start to become soft like this? I would guess after that whole prison scandal, that they have tried to look "nicer" or something in the eyes of the media, but a) that situation and this situation are completely different and b) you're sacrificing ten years most likely of a man who risked his life for you, for good PR? Wonderful.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's even more inexplicable when you realize how often the soldiers have been fired upon by "surrendering" and "injured" Iraqis.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

This is actually VERY difficult to get a conviction for at a court martial. It was probably something a lot more blatant than you might think, believe me.

[NoCalMike 0]

The fact that the military court actually came back with a guilty verdict, tends to make me think there is more to the story then we know.

[Guest Cerebus]

Actually, military courts are hardly rubber stamps, but when your job is to kill the enemy, this sort of charge (let alone conviction) is pretty damn rare.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Maynulet, 30, maintained that the man was gravely wounded and he shot him to end his suffering.

 

Should have just removed his feeding tube...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well, I just heard on RIGHT-WING RADIO that this guy won't get jail time, which pisses me off because this jack-booted thug should have received...

 

Nah, I'm not doing it this year. I'll just change my Avatar and subject line...

[Guest Deadbolt]

I may not have agreed with the initial reasoning behind the war, but this is ridiculous. A soldier is supposed to kill the enemy. That's what he did, he chased down the vehicle and finished his job by killing he guy. I understand the guy was pretty much defenseless, but apparently he asked for death. Even if he didn't, it's a war. Soldiers kill each other. It doesn't matter how defenseless a guy seems to be, are you really gonna trust the man in a situation like this? When did the U.S. Military start to become soft like this? I would guess after that whole prison scandal, that they have tried to look "nicer" or something in the eyes of the media, but a) that situation and this situation are completely different and b) you're sacrificing ten years most likely of a man who risked his life for you, for good PR? Wonderful.

Oh yeah sure, just let them run wild and kill whoever they want. What are you insane? If it was the other way around you’d be crying out that they are terrorists but because it’s an American doing it to an Iraqi it’s suddenly Ok. Everyone saw the video, the soldier is a murder, and should be tried as such. There is such a thing as POWs, Bush’s America has started an illegal war, but now people want them to be able to go again the rules of War? Can you say “terrorism?” Because that’s what it is. You can’t invade a person’s country then call that person a terrorist for defending his countries nature resources, i.e. oil. It wasn’t Iraqis who attacked America, yet people think it’s alright to kill them without regulations? People need to stop and think who is committing the act of terrorism here…

[Guest BDC]

Yeah, it ain't him. Insurgents had a history of faking injury or blowing themselves up when soldiers get near them. Thanks, next please.

[Guest MikeSC]

I may not have agreed with the initial reasoning behind the war, but this is ridiculous. A soldier is supposed to kill the enemy. That's what he did, he chased down the vehicle and finished his job by killing he guy. I understand the guy was pretty much defenseless, but apparently he asked for death. Even if he didn't, it's a war. Soldiers kill each other. It doesn't matter how defenseless a guy seems to be, are you really gonna trust the man in a situation like this? When did the U.S. Military start to become soft like this? I would guess after that whole prison scandal, that they have tried to look "nicer" or something in the eyes of the media, but a) that situation and this situation are completely different and b) you're sacrificing ten years most likely of a man who risked his life for you, for good PR? Wonderful.

Oh yeah sure, just let them run wild and kill whoever they want.

Because they do that so often. Yup, just slaughtering folks all willy-nilly.

What are you insane? If it was the other way around you’d be crying out that they are terrorists but because it’s an American doing it to an Iraqi it’s suddenly Ok.

If it was "the other way around", it'd be the USUAL WAY American POW's are treated.

Everyone saw the video, the soldier is a murder, and should be tried as such.

You mean the video where a soldier, who had been fired upon by a guy doing the same thing days earlier, didn't take a chance here?

 

Blame the sub-humans for doing that shit.

There is such a thing as POWs, Bush’s America has started an illegal war, but now people want them to be able to go again the rules of War?

And just the most cursory of study -- something you CLEARLY are incapable of --- would show that the terrorists don't fall under POW protections.

Can you say “terrorism?”

Yup. Too bad you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Because that’s what it is. You can’t invade a person’s country then call that person a terrorist for defending his countries nature resources, i.e. oil.

Even when they're targeting innocents who don't support them?

 

BWA HA HA HA!

It wasn’t Iraqis who attacked America, yet people think it’s alright to kill them without regulations? People need to stop and think who is committing the act of terrorism here…

Well, your jihad against logic and intellect is entertaining.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Did you even read what I said? I didn't want the war in the first place, but when you're in a war it's a life or death situation, and I'm not gonna trust the enemy long enough, especially when they just spent their time trying to kill me, so that I just leave them be.

[Guest Deadbolt]

Because they do that so often. Yup, just slaughtering folks all willy-nilly.

 

Agreed.

 

If it was "the other way around", it'd be the USUAL WAY American POW's are treated.

 

A. How many American POWs are there?

B. How much of a kick up was made over those hostage videos? (rightfully so, but the question still remains)

C. Even if so, since when did two wrongs make a right?

 

You mean the video where a soldier, who had been fired upon by a guy doing the same thing days earlier, didn't take a chance here?

 

Blame the sub-humans for doing that shit.

 

Oh you mean the guy defending his country, who was shot dead in cold blood? Yeah that one.

 

And just the most cursory of study -- something you CLEARLY are incapable of --- would show that the terrorists don't fall under POW protections.

 

And who called Iraqi terrorists? Hitler called the allied forces Terrorists, did that mean they were? If Iraqis say the American invaders are terrorists, does that mean they are?

 

Yup. Too bad you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

To bad you’re so ignorant you don’t have a clue what a discussion is.

 

Even when they're targeting innocents who don't support them?

 

BWA HA HA HA!

 

So your over their and know the different groups and people then? Ay, ok then.

 

Well, your jihad against logic and intellect is entertaining.

 

Sense = Zero.

 

Did you even read what I said? I didn't want the war in the first place, but when you're in a war it's a life or death situation, and I'm not gonna trust the enemy long enough, especially when they just spent their time trying to kill me, so that I just leave them be.

 

Trying to “kill you” yeah, those Iraqis are all over the United States aren’t they. Maybe if the country wasn’t invaded you wouldn’t have a resistance to American and British rule.

[Guest BDC]

Because they do that so often. Yup, just slaughtering folks all willy-nilly.

 

Agreed.

 

 

My friend would kick the ever-living hell out of you for accusing people like himself of mass slaughter. American troops deserve better than to be spit on by idiots like you. Go to Hell, you sanctimonious prick.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

About invading, that's not the point.

 

It's a war, people will fight back, either kill or be killed. It seems so simple yet you don't seem to grasp it. I never thought I'd have to be the "token conservative" in any CE thread.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I really get a kick out of the liberal line "I support the troops, but not the war." That's a bunch of BS.

 

No one can realize what it's like to be out in the field unless they've experienced it. A sixth sense takes over. You are fighting for your country and your life at the same time.

 

This verdict is nothing more than the military making it look like they are "doing something" about "stuff like this." Let the boys do their job and we'll do ours.

[Ripper 0]

I really get a kick out of the liberal line "I support the troops, but not the war." That's a bunch of BS.

How is it BS?

 

They don't think that there should be a war, but they aren't exactly rooting for the women and men to die either. They support the troops(do your job and don't do that whole dying thing) but they don't support the war(don't think the troops should be there in the first place). Makes sense to me.

[Guest BDC]

Well, Deadbolt is a liar if he's using that line, Ripper.

 

People that can stand by that and actually support it? Fine. But I've had it thrown at me as a way of defending a desire that the insurgents winning.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Well, Deadbolt is a liar if he's using that line, Ripper.

 

People that can stand by that and actually support it? Fine. But I've had it thrown at me as a way of defending a desire that the insurgents winning.

That was actually machismo that said that.

 

I sort of feel that way, though I've never really thought about it. I find myself with each passing day though supporting the war more, even though there's so much bullshit involved. The end result will be good.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I really get a kick out of the liberal line "I support the troops, but not the war."  That's a bunch of BS.

How is it BS?

 

They don't think that there should be a war, but they aren't exactly rooting for the women and men to die either. They support the troops(do your job and don't do that whole dying thing) but they don't support the war(don't think the troops should be there in the first place). Makes sense to me.

But these people are putting their lives on the line for something they believe in. They are following orders. The whole "we don't support the war, though" is a form of patronization. I see it as more of a gesture of pity than of support.

[Ripper 0]

I really get a kick out of the liberal line "I support the troops, but not the war."  That's a bunch of BS.

How is it BS?

 

They don't think that there should be a war, but they aren't exactly rooting for the women and men to die either. They support the troops(do your job and don't do that whole dying thing) but they don't support the war(don't think the troops should be there in the first place). Makes sense to me.

But these people are putting their lives on the line for something they believe in. They are following orders. The whole "we don't support the war, though" is a form of patronization. I see it as more of a gesture of pity than of support.

All of the soilders there aren't a hundred precent for the war. I can name about 10 right now. But they signed up to do a job and they have said they are going to do it well because that is what they pledged to do. I think it would be foolish to assume that all the troops support the reason that they are there, but they are doing their jobs and for that they should be commended.

 

If I didn't support the war, I know I would still be routing for the troops to go ahead and win the thing and get back home safely. Yeah, you have your cockasses who will say that they hope the war goes bad for america because we shouldn't be there, but they aren't the ones saying they support the troops and not the war.

[BUTT 0]

So wait, is this the case that we were all talking about last year? Or is it something different?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

How is it BS?

 

They don't think that there should be a war, but they aren't exactly rooting for the women and men to die either.  They support the troops(do your job and don't do that whole dying thing) but they don't support the war(don't think the troops should be there in the first place).  Makes sense to me.

But these people are putting their lives on the line for something they believe in.  They are following orders.  The whole "we don't support the war, though" is a form of patronization.  I see it as more of a gesture of pity than of support.

How is that patronizing? If anything, I think it indicates a paramount respect for the people doing the actual fighting. That's how I feel: I still don't think this war was particularly necessary, but we're in it, so I hope we win it with absolutely the fewest possible casualties. I don't think most people who oppose the war are so self-important that they think their individual opinions are nearly as important as the lives of American soldiers.

[2GOLD 0]

The only "I don't support the war but I support the troops" people I call bs on are the ones who then come back with "the people in Iraq firing back are freedom fighters!"

 

Here's an idea, go to hell.

 

I'm fine with the ones who support the troops but not the war. That's cool. Hell, I supported the war but even I'll freely admit that major parts of it were botched to hell and back.

 

There really is a major problem with an enemy who will pretend to surrender only because they are setting up an ambush or are wired to explode. It seems the rules of war, which at one time did apply, no longer apply. Right now it seems the only time a soldier should be charged is if they kill an unarmed civilian. Not through their actions but I mean if they actually shoot them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Because they do that so often. Yup, just slaughtering folks all willy-nilly.

Agreed.

 

Wow, you really are blinded by your cluelessness, aren't ya?

If it was "the other way around", it'd be the USUAL WAY American POW's are treated.

 

A. How many American POWs are there?

B. How much of a kick up was made over those hostage videos? (rightfully so, but the question still remains)

C. Even if so, since when did two wrongs make a right?

A) Well, Nick Berg got beheaded.

Ditto Daniel Pearl.

Those contractors got burned alive.

 

Yup, that's DAMNED comparable.

 

B) And there was a major outcry here over them --- but, for some ODD reason, it seems the world didn't care all that much about beheadings.

 

But a guy with panties on his head? Oh, that's evil!

 

C) Funny, you only mentioned our alleged wrong-doing.

You mean the video where a soldier, who had been fired upon by a guy doing the same thing days earlier, didn't take a chance here?

 

Blame the sub-humans for doing that shit.

Oh you mean the guy defending his country, who was shot dead in cold blood? Yeah that one.

Defending his country?

 

You HONESTLY believe that?

 

BWA HA HA HA HA!

 

IRAQIS hate the insurgents.

And just the most cursory of study -- something you CLEARLY are incapable of --- would show that the terrorists don't fall under POW protections.

And who called Iraqi terrorists?

Anybody who studied the situation and had an IQ hovering above room temperature.

Hitler called the allied forces Terrorists, did that mean they were? If Iraqis say the American invaders are terrorists, does that mean they are?

Seeing as how Americans WEAR UNIFORMS, do not INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIANS (see, if we did, our casualties would be damned low), and HAVE A CLEAR CHAIN OF COMMAND --- they are, according to the Geneva Conventions, an ARMY and not TERRORISTS.

Yup. Too bad you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

To bad you’re so ignorant you don’t have a clue what a discussion is.

I've already shown you know shit about the 2000 election, what constitutes an army v terrorists, and the situation in the Balkans.

 

Are you just trying to pile up the list?

Even when they're targeting innocents who don't support them?

 

BWA HA HA HA!

So your over their and know the different groups and people then? Ay, ok then.

It's called BASIC research.

 

Really, not that complicated.

Did you even read what I said? I didn't want the war in the first place, but when you're in a war it's a life or death situation, and I'm not gonna trust the enemy long enough, especially when they just spent their time trying to kill me, so that I just leave them be.

Trying to “kill you” yeah, those Iraqis are all over the United States aren’t they. Maybe if the country wasn’t invaded you wouldn’t have a resistance to American and British rule.

We don't. We have subhuman monkey dictators pouring money into people who want anarchy rather than freedom for their people.

 

But, hey, feel free siding with people who hate freedom.

 

You live in Canada.

 

Nobody takes you seriously anyway.

-=Mike

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

You live in Canada.

 

Nobody takes you seriously anyway.

-=Mike

 

That was uncalled for.

 

His opinions are as valid as the next man's. The fact that you brought up his nationality undid the fact that you can argue better than he can. Dickhead.

 

Maybe if the U.S had taken the Canadian compromise at the U.N seriously instead of just brushing it off, there wouldn't be the mess that we see now.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

How is it BS?

 

They don't think that there should be a war, but they aren't exactly rooting for the women and men to die either.  They support the troops(do your job and don't do that whole dying thing) but they don't support the war(don't think the troops should be there in the first place).  Makes sense to me.

But these people are putting their lives on the line for something they believe in.  They are following orders.  The whole "we don't support the war, though" is a form of patronization.  I see it as more of a gesture of pity than of support.

How is that patronizing? If anything, I think it indicates a paramount respect for the people doing the actual fighting. That's how I feel: I still don't think this war was particularly necessary, but we're in it, so I hope we win it with absolutely the fewest possible casualties. I don't think most people who oppose the war are so self-important that they think their individual opinions are nearly as important as the lives of American soldiers.

For one, I think they say that because if they said they didn't support the troops, they'd lose votes or the respect of others, depending upon their position in life. Secondly, if some troops don't believe in the war, then by the liberal logic they shouldn't fight in it. They should go AWOL and act upon their convictions. How can you support someone doing a job the duty of which you disagree with?

 

On Babylon 5, Earth has a civil war. Many in EarthForce take the side of the despotic president, even after he declared martial law, dissolved the Senate and even bombed civilian targets on Mars. Would you say, "Well, I don't agree with that stuff, but the troops are just doing their jobs!?"

 

The point is...if going into Iraq was so wrong, then why didn't the troops revolt? How can you support someone who followed orders that you think are wrong? And some did, a few months back, refusing to follow orders, if I remember correctly.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

You live in Canada.

 

Nobody takes you seriously anyway.

-=Mike

 

That was uncalled for.

 

His opinions are as valid as the next man's. The fact that you brought up his nationality undid the fact that you can argue better than he can. Dickhead.

 

Maybe if the U.S had taken the Canadian compromise at the U.N seriously instead of just brushing it off, there wouldn't be the mess that we see now.

Maybe if Canada would have dealt with Gerard Bull themselves, the Mossad wouldn't have had to deal with him...their way.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

On Babylon 5, Earth has a civil war. Many in EarthForce take the side of the despotic president, even after he declared martial law, dissolved the Senate and even bombed civilian targets on Mars. Would you say, "Well, I don't agree with that stuff, but the troops are just doing their jobs!?"

 

The point is...if going into Iraq was so wrong, then why didn't the troops revolt? How can you support someone who followed orders that you think are wrong? And some did, a few months back, refusing to follow orders, if I remember correctly.

I agreed with everything you said, except surely you could have found a better example than Babylon 5

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

The point is...if going into Iraq was so wrong, then why didn't the troops revolt?

Prison.

 

 

But to expand on that, we went to war with Iraq under false pretenses. So the whole going in to war/revolt thing is sort of a moot point.

 

I look at it like this. The US troops are like construction workers. They were told they'd be getting paid to build a house which would be given to a homeless family. Instead, the house was sold off at a profit. Maybe some of them cared enough to never build a house again, but most of them don't give a shit, as long as they see their paycheck.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

On Babylon 5, Earth has a civil war.  Many in EarthForce take the side of the despotic president, even after he declared martial law, dissolved the Senate and even bombed civilian targets on Mars.  Would you say, "Well, I don't agree with that stuff, but the troops are just doing their jobs!?"

 

The point is...if going into Iraq was so wrong, then why didn't the troops revolt?  How can you support someone who followed orders that you think are wrong?  And some did, a few months back, refusing to follow orders, if I remember correctly.

I agreed with everything you said, except surely you could have found a better example than Babylon 5

B5 rocks all.