Mercy or murder

Shallon · Post by **Shallon** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:56 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151963,00.html

If what the Captain said is true, then was it a humane gesture? It's a hard choice either way.

Cartumandua · Post by **Cartumandua** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:12 pm

Murder.

Soldiers don't get the right to walk through battlefields and decide which wounded gets to die right now.

Furthermore, you create a horrible precendent fraught with opportunities for abuse if you permit this behavior.

It may suck that this soldier is made an example of, but the alternative a very ugly, slippery slope of soldiers justifying themselves for committing murder by saying it was a mercy killing.

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:38 pm

Legally this one will have to go down as murder, I would guess. Sucks, but that's the way it goes.

Dd

Post by **Ddrak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:22 pm

Went down as "assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter". Maximum 10 years, but I doubt he'll get more than the minimum. All of which sounds about right to me as far as setting precedent goes.

Essentially they are saying it was wrong, but gave the minimum possible sentence.

Dd

Shallon · Post by **Shallon** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:02 pm

I agree witht he verdict, I do not think he deserves prison for it, a discharge yes, but I do think he felt it was the merciful thing to do. Tough call either way, its definetly not something you want people doing, but seeing someone suffer isnt easy either.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:23 pm

The lesson learned here? Toss the guy a canteen of water and let Allah do the rest.

Beestyall · Post by **Beestyall** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:33 pm

Embar Angylwrath wrote:The lesson learned here? Toss the guy a canteen of water and let Allah do the rest.

Why toss him a canteen of water? It's doubtful he could have used it. Better to just walk away, if your that worried about your company's health.

Post by **Ddrak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:12 pm

Embar's right - do something to show you care for the suffering (ie toss them a canteen) and walk away.

Dd

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:52 pm

Yeah, keep the canteen, it was good enough for Terry.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:21 pm

ya know, if you give the guy some water, he might live another 20 mins or so.. You would be stopping him from being released from his obvoiusly painful prison of a body and robbing him of heaven time with all the virgins.

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:34 pm

Yup all that culture of life stuff goes out the window when it's not an American.

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:39 pm

Seems the message is pretty straightforward to me. Call in the medics and leave it up to them to decide how best to handle wounded enemy combatants. Shouldn't take an ethicist to figure that one out.

Akhbar

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:47 pm

You don't call in medics to a hot zone to treat enemy wounded. Pisses 'em off. Also gets 'em killed needlessly (which is why it pisses 'em off).

1. Secure the zone
2. Evac your own wounded
3. Treat civilan wounded
4. Treat enemy wounded.

In that order.

Shallon · Post by **Shallon** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:29 pm

From what I read the medic looked at him, said, no fucking way he will live, and then he shot him.

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:11 pm

I read a medic was there as well but even if what Embar said is an absolute truth (which seems highly unlikely) "call in" could just as easily be changed to "cart him off to".

/shrug

Akhbar

Torakus · Post by **Torakus** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:28 pm

Akhbarali wrote:I read a medic was there as well but even if what Embar said is an absolute truth (which seems highly unlikely) "call in" could just as easily be changed to "cart him off to".

/shrug

Akhbar

Haha, you don't have a clue do you. No sane unit commander is going to take any of his ground forces out of combat to cart off some dying enemy combatant. Nor should they. This wasn't a fricken soccer game skippy, it was a battle.

I don't want to sound like I am justifying what this guy did. I am not. It was wrong, it was against standing orders, and international laws that the U.S. agreed to abide by. But he is under no obligation to endanger his men, by committing combat troops or his own medics to the evacuation or treatment of the enemy.

Ron

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:53 am

I will pretend for a minute that you aren't a half-witted troll and give a serious answer to your drivel.

First off, there is no indication they were under fire or that a commander was "taking any of his ground forces out of combat". There were two wounded Sadr militants. One was shot in the "mercy killing" the other fled. I have read nothing that suggests there were ongoing combat operations after the initial firefight.

Second, are you suggesting that US forces never take wounded enemies from the battlefield amd provide them with treatment? Even if they aren't doing it for altruistic reasons might not some of these people have intelligence value? I know you are a self professed druken idiot but thoughts like this must occur even to simple minds such as your own in a sober moment. BTW, the other "wounded combatant" was taken into custody and one would assume given treatment. Apparently the commander in this case was bright enough to see what is clearly beyond your capacity.

Finally, I never suggested that a US commander endanger his men in any way. Carting off a wounded enemy in a situation where there is no longer combat occuring in the area hardly qualifies as "endanger(ing) his men, by committing combat troops or his own medics to the evacuation or treatment of the enemy. "

Sorry you lose. You are either a complete idiot that lacks any reading comprehension skills or a really bad troll. If the later, I apologize to the board for wasting time responding to your nonsense. You might want to crawl out of the bottle some evening long enough to get a clue yourself.

Akhbar

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:49 am

If there was a wounded enemy by him, there must have been a recent conflict. If it was in a city, I have no clue how long it takes to secure an area with that many hiding places.

Given the terrorist strategies for breaking rules (wating to ambush a red cross vehicle if it is the easiest target) and using deception to kill at any cost, I personally would be quite nervous about moving any bodies wounded or dead of the enemy for fear of a booby trap.

I haven't seen indication either way that the zone was "secure". I suspect there is more caution than altruism to risk ones life on a wounded terrorist enemy that might have a grenade under them. Our altruistic troops probably die a lot faster helping wounded enemy than the cautious ones.

Rykilth · Post by **Rykilth** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:00 am

According to the article that was linked, he was still worried about securing the area. Torakus is right about that. While still securing the area, he's not going to lose two men to carry out a wounded enemy soldier.

After the area is secure medical treatment is usually given to those in need through triage.