US Military judical hearings
 

HANAU, Germany (AP) - A U.S. Army tank company commander accused of murdering a man in Iraq fatally shot him out of pity at his injuries, a witness testified Wednesday at hearings to determine whether he should face a court-martial.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20040908FRA111

I hope that they find this soldier not-guilty in the charges of murder... while he could have used more "humane" methods he did act in a way that I do find honourable. It is an event that happens in combat that grevious and mortal wounds are dealt, but leaving the victim alive, aware, and sufering for a time - it cases like this I find it an acceptable action to help end the suffering of the victim, friendly or enemy.

In theory, I understand the feeling and the argument.

However, mercy killing isn't legal in most places. Ask Dr. Kevorkian.

In addition, it offers the precedent for murder. That is to say that it gives a potential defense to someone who might kill an enemy with less than moral reasons -- and claim that it was a mercy killing.

If the guy was that badly injured, he probably wouldn't have lasted long. Give him a pain killer and wait for the inevitible.

Dr. K is different. He wasn't dealing with people in a war with their skulls blown off.

As for pain killers, come on - really how many tank commanders carry pain killers to treat wounded enemy soldiers?

This is a case where the rules need to be bent and nothing is black and white. I would be upset if he becomes a victim of the system when we should be using the system to catch people who do our military harm.

-Rudey

Dr. K was dealing with patients who faced a long, painful death.

I doubt that was the case here.

As for pain killers, it's very likely that if their wasn't a medic or corpsman with the unit, that there was one pretty close by.

I don't know what the motives were here -- perhaps they were totally hamane and pure -- but the precedent here is dangerous.

I agree about the precedent. I think that the rules should be made very very clear but in rare cases, like this, they should be reviewed.

Dr. K's patients were in a different environment. Their environment didn't include guns, knowing they could die from actions they take, and instead included illness which could have the pain and discomfort managed.

I don't know who carries pain killers. I really don't. Then the question is would it be enough? Could he take it? What if a US soldier suffered because later there was no pain killer for him? What if there was no pain killer? All these are questions that are also hindsight.

-Rudey

I understand that... hence him being found not-guilty when it comes to murder. However that doesn't mean that he should get off scot-free, which would set a bad precedent. I don't know slap him with a lesser charge of some sort... just can't think of one right now.

When I refered to "humane" methods I was refering to pain-killers - there should have been a kit in his tank or one of the other vehicles in the patrol. Also I would have left the decision to the medic, as they can (well at least in the Canadian military) administer a dosage to end a victims suffering... although they still must face a trial to explain their actions.

No question that US medics have enough morophine to put somebody out of his misery for good. Seems like the SOP in battle injuries (although I never have been a medic) is a shot of morophine and a shot of anti-biotics -- hopefully after first stopping the bleeding. There was almost certainly a greatly inhanced first aid kit somewhere closeby.

But then it comes down to playing God.

Now, if this soldier's intent was to end the victim's suffering, murder is probably too strong of a charge.

My worry is that, as is the case in police high speed chases, adrenaline starts pumping and even highly discliplined men get into a "bloodlust" kind of condition. Consider how many times we've seen police beating handcuffed prisoners. Then, consider how other officers inherently back up their own. I hope that what happened here wasn't anything like that, but hopefully the courtmartial woud bring than kind of thing out into the open.

If the defendant's motivations were as he says (again, I'm not saying they aren't), then I agree that a lesser charge may be in order.

I can understand (and have seen) troops letting emotion and adrenaline get the better of them...

In this case I'm given the soldier the benifit of the doubt.. mainly for the context of the situation. The way I see it if the vicitim's wound was visible to an UAV (even with great optics) then it obviously was grevious...

That being said from the wording of the article it appears as if there wasn't much time given to considering the situation, and he shot the victim. I'd be more comfortable if the Capt. had appeared to take time to consider or had engaged in a discussion with at least the Lt. about this... instead of making a snap decision in this case.