Court martial for "mercy" killing

[KevinB]

Well I for one think I would likely do exactly what the Capt did.

There are a number of things we do not do in Combat Casualty Care
#1 being CPR - so all you St John's guy can go back to bed.

Unlike us for the most part US units do not have morphine at sub unit or individual level, so regardless if you just blew the crap out of the vehicle you are now left with wounded.  Now having seen what bullets can do - it is not really a pretty scene - what are you going to do.  If you want to take it another step - imagine it is one of your buddies burning on fire with desiel...  Unfortunately you can do ONLY ONE THING TO EASE HIS MISERY.  Is it going to suck, are you going to be sick, and likely see it over and over in your thoughts?

Maybe it was de jure illegal - but it was the decent thing IMHO - I believe that is why he did not enter a plea - he plans on convincing the board that his actiosn where the right one at the time.

I for one don't feel we have the right to second guess his decision - made in moments after close combat, when we were not there.  Especially views from the couch, where you have never been placed in a situation where this could unfold.

 

[48Highlander]

Well I for one think I would likely do exactly what the Capt did.

There are a number of things we do not do in Combat Casualty Care
#1 being CPR - so all you St John's guy can go back to bed.

Unlike us for the most part US units do not have morphine at sub unit or individual level, so regardless if you just blew the crap out of the vehicle you are now left with wounded.  Now having seen what bullets can do - it is not really a pretty scene - what are you going to do.  If you want to take it another step - imagine it is one of your buddies burning on fire with desiel...  Unfortunately you can do ONLY ONE THING TO EASE HIS MISERY.  Is it going to suck, are you going to be sick, and likely see it over and over in your thoughts?

Maybe it was de jure illegal - but it was the decent thing IMHO - I believe that is why he did not enter a plea - he plans on convincing the board that his actiosn where the right one at the time.

I for one don't feel we have the right to second guess his decision - made in moments after close combat, when we were not there.  Especially views from the couch, where you have never been placed in a situation where this could unfold.

    Remionds me of that SF scene in Canadian Bacon.  "I'm fine, I just sprained my ankle!  *bang*"
    If you're going to be shooting buddies who are on fire instead of maybe trying to put them out and evacuate them, well, I deffinitely don't want you anywhere near me.  Pain is temporary, death is quite permanent.

    Just to back that up a little more, one of the current members of this board took 4 rounds in the head.  Should his partner have "helped him out" with a quick double tap?

 

[KevinB]

I was more refering to a charred lump that is moaning, not just someone flaming around - I guess I was nto specific enough

I am all for doing the utmost one can do for an individual - however there comes a point in time that in the situation you are in you can do no more.


You got lucky. 

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I am all for doing the utmost one can do for an individual - however there comes a point in time that in the situation you are in you can do no more.

Tell that to a family that believes in God and miracles...  Either human life is sacrosanct, or it isn't.  We as a society have judged that it is (allowing,  of course, for rare exceptions such as soldiers in war, policemen acting in the public good, public executioners).  That means guys on the spot don't get to make the rules, no matter how cut and dried it might seem.  If anyone did want to play God, Judge, Jury, Executioner or whatever combination of the above, I'd hope they wouldn't be dumb enough to brag about it.  I have no doubt that decisions like that have been made in the past, and will probably be made in future, but advocating it to others in open forum doesn't strike me as anything but bravado.

I also don't think a judge or jury should allow "mercy" as an excuse; we have laws for a reason, and convenience is not one of them...

Just my opinion.

 

[KevinB]

Michael for 99.9% of the population would never consider it, for the circumstances are not in anyway going to happen.

But just think about discovering a burned charred remains only to find out it is still alive - no more features are left, and it is in extreme pain - going to go into shock and there is NOTHING you can do.

Rightly or Worngly we all have our own experiences and values that we will use to formulate our own action/inaction.

BTW I am against euthenasia and strongly anti-abortion before anyone beleives that I am cavalierly dismissing human life.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I fully see your point and obviously cannot say what I would or wouldn't do in such a situation.  I also admit you probably have much more relevant experiences than I have.

I would imagine those kinds of decisions are made as privately as possible and nothing gets said about them.  Which brings us to the problem in this case, the presence of the camera...

I tend to believe more in divine intervention, which I think puts my perspective a little further than yours (apologies if I am incorrect).

 

[Infanteer]

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
-William Tecumseh Sherman

I think we can all admit that this was an ugly thing and that war is full of ugly things.   I also think that none of us want to be put in the situations that have been brought up.

The only reason I made an issue on this thread is that ugly things do not mean that soldiers are racists committed acts of premeditated murder (as John would like to have us believe).

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The only reason I made an issue on this thread is that ugly things do not mean that soldiers are racists committed acts of premeditated murder (as John would like to have us believe).

But if we talk like we are, it is easy for John to believe so, right?

 

[KevinB]

Double edged sword - the same with embeded reporters.

  By and large I think the more open we as soliders are about our experiences and values the more public will accept that we are human (odd and somewhat strange - but human).

Most civilians cannot fathom what it woudl be like to approach a village that had been burned away and only charred remains of the previous inhabitants left.  Similarily most civilians dont have to make live and death judgments day in day out.  We (when deployed) don't live in the 911 world as a result EVERYTHING takes on a whole new dynamic.

I mean if people saw how I drove in Afghan - I'd have my license revoked for EVER 

 

[bossi]

... By and large I think the more open we as soliders are about our experiences and values the more public will accept that we are human (odd and somewhat strange - but human).

Most civilians cannot fathom what it woudl be like to approach a village that had been burned away and only charred remains of the previous inhabitants left.   Similarily most civilians dont have to make live and death judgments day in day out.   We (when deployed) don't live in the 911 world as a result EVERYTHING takes on a whole new dynamic. ...

Well said.  The only way that couch potatoes and armchair quarterbacks are ever going to be effectively silenced (and shown for what they truly are) is if the REAL players tell the story.

It is not the critic that counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If they want to prosecute for an unlawful killing, they should stick to that.  It's very small of the prosecution to try to portray him as some sort of wild outlaw for trivialities such as carrying an unauthorized weapon.  I suppose the practice of law isn't necessarily the search for justice.

 

[Cloud Cover]

If they want to prosecute for an unlawful killing, they should stick to that.   It's very small of the prosecution to try to portray him as some sort of wild outlaw for trivialities such as carrying an unauthorized weapon.   I suppose the practice of law isn't necessarily the search for justice.

I'm not so sure of how trivial it is to carry an unauthorized weapon in the US Army on operations, but I am quite certain someone would get their balls slapped in ours, war zone or not. Same with breaking into a police station. The prosecutor's role is that of "truth seeker", it's the accused who search for "justice", not the "law" and certainly not the prosecutor. Also, it is not uncommon to refuse to enter a plea, and no plea is necessary in a preliminary proceeding such as a grand jury.

This court martial, whether it succeeds or not, will most certainly backfire in the greater scheme of things as any outcome will create confusion and add further factors into the already complicated split second decision making process of soldiers, particularly the infantry. This gentleman's lawyer is going to be presented with the opportunity to attempt to raise a defence of necessity in the form of a battlefield mercy killing in front of a jury of his peers. There probably is no established defence in law, but he will be permitted to advance the argument anyway. The jury will most certainly be asked to put themselves in the position of both the deceased and the good captain. The jury will empathize with both, and will not be happy with any verdict that is rendered. The lawyer will also be permitted to argue that denying the practice of mercy killings on battlefields simply creates an artificial duty to rescue the wounded where such a duty existed previously only in exigent circumstances. The result may well be that leaving the wounded to bleed out is just as culpable an act as pulling the trigger, in any circumstances.

It's just one more example of how crazy this war is becoming in the efforts to justify what should already be obvious to anybody with the blinders off. Perhaps if the enemy did not recieve so much support from our own citizens here, Sadrs wouldn't had a driver in place on that day, in that place and at that time.      



 

 

[JAG_Corps]

This is an incredibly complicated issue, and is certainly not black and white.   Protections under the Geneva Convention require wounded and sick to be treated humanely, while protection under Hague Regulations governing weapons and tactic require tactics/weapons that do not cause unnecessary suffering.   So two guiding principles in law of war seems to provide, not necessarily a justification, but certainly an explanation as to what motivated the CPT.   It is very easy to just say the actions were wrong, but on a dusty, hot, battlefield, with an ongoing mission, where MEDEVAC is not possible because the LZ is "hot", and ground evac would risk mission failure, maybe his actions were humane.

As for him kicking in an IPs door to retrieve a identification badge of an interpreter, what happens if the insurgents get the badge and access to all the posts? As for the unauthorized weapons, I am reminded of an account of a battle where the US weapon jammed, and the acting commander picked up an AK-47 to continue fighting, and was ultimately awarded a silver star for the courage and valour displayed in that battle.   What happens if there are not enough rifles for all soldiers to have one in this tank company?   Or this weapon is a coalition authorized weapon that fires standard NATO rounds?

The diverse opinions are refreshing, but this is not a simple call?