It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Army court-martials captain for mercy killing

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
US Army court-martials captain for mercy killing

Geneva Conventions don't apply but US Laws do? But wasn't he trying to put the guy out of his misery?


Army captain is being court-martialed in Wiesbaden, Germany, and facing 20 years for the mercy killing of a suspected Iraqi terrorist under battlefield conditions.

The tank commander, Capt. Rogelio Maynulet of Chicago, is being tried on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder in the May 21, 2004, mercy killing near Kufa, south of Baghdad.

Defense attorneys at the court-martial maintain that Maynulet, convinced that the man would not live, acted out of mercy. Prosecutors argue he violated military rules of engagement by shooting an Iraqi who was wounded and unarmed.


Why do dogs and horses get better treatment than humans...?

Oddly the Army is stepping in to regulate 'law' and set a counterbalance

to the whole Shiavo dillema...odd.




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Trying to maintain a set of "rules" for war is absurd.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Yeah, I was pretty amused when I saw this take on the front page of the Chicago Tribune. I remember a few months ago a soldier shot an Iraqi who was definately going to die, but looked like he was trying to do something the soldier couldn't see. He was condemned as a barbarian, murderer, etc.

Now, suddenly, they're called mercy killings. And they start being refered to as such right after the Schaivo controversy. I get a kick out of this hypocracy. Anyone else notice the sudden shift in attitudes towards this?

EDIT: Oh, and a horse gets plugged if it breaks a leg. Oh, if only humans could have those rights...

[edit on 3-30-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Was there any witnesses to the soldier being merciful? without one it would be hard to prove he was doing it out of mercy.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   


Geneva Conventions don't apply but US Laws do?


Correct.

Geneva Conventions don't apply because the enemy force doesn't fit the criteria of a force covered by the convention (which we've already done to death in another thread).

But certainly the US trooper is still bound by US law, as well as Army regulations in the rules of engagement. Was what he did morally right? Sounds like it. Was what he did legally wrong? Yep. Sucks, but hopefully extenuating circumstances will be considered in cases that aren't so black and white....



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hush up, Gazrok!

You know that to OOPS and others that what you say is not true.


Gosh dern it all, where is that applause button when you need one?
*goes looking around for it*




seekerof




top topics
 
0

log in

join