US soldier admits mercy killing Iraqi teen

[CptStern]

GI Admits to Killing Hurt Iraqi Teenager

"A U.S. soldier pleaded guilty Friday to killing a severely wounded Iraqi teenager in what investigators say may have been a mercy killing, the latest of several similar incidents that have undercut efforts by the United States to win support among Iraqis and defeat a rampant insurgency.

As in Horne's case, witnesses have said Capt. Rogelio Maynulet, 29, of Chicago, shot the wounded man out of compassion. Maynulet will be tried on charges of assault with intent to commit murder and dereliction of duty, which carry a maximum combined sentence of 20 1/2 years.

Human rights groups have condemned the illegal killings of Iraqis — either civilians or wounded fighters — by the U.S. military, saying such acts amount to violations of international humanitarian rights and should be dealt with as war crimes.

Critics also say poor understanding by young U.S. troops of the rules of military engagement leads to the killing of civilians"

discuss

 

[bliink]

"A U.S. soldier pleaded guilty Friday to killing a severely wounded Iraqi teenager in what investigators say may have been a mercy killing

You'd bloody hope a "mercy killing" was all it was..

 

[seinfeldrules]

At least he is being punished, can you say the same for the terrorists?

 

[Raziaar]

We don't need Kevorkians over there. Another bad apple. I just hope we can get the rest out of there before they do more awful acts and spoil the whole bunch.

 

[CptStern]

At least he is being punished, can you say the same for the terrorists?

the terrorists arent there to "help" the iraqi people, unlike the americans

 

[Cerpin]

I guess "help" and "**** up their lives" are pretty much the same thing these days. I did see the joke though.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

the terrorists arent there to "help" the iraqi people, unlike the americans

Yep, noones there to help anyone. Good observation Stern! I want better beer!

 

[Bait]

Yep, noones there to help anyone. Good observation Stern! I want better beer!

Bombing their houses and killing their children helps? If you are going to debate, just debate.

 

[Tr0n]

If you are going to debate, just debate.

You should say the same to yourself...

Bombing their houses and killing their children helps?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^ Pwned. Urgh, uh, I mean ... good point! Give that man a cigar! :rolling:

 

[seinfeldrules]

the terrorists arent there to "help" the iraqi people, unlike the americans

I was pointing out that when we screw up, our people get punished. When they kill somebody, they are applauded.

 

[Absinthe]

When they kill somebody, they are applauded.

Applauded by who?

 

[Bait]

You should say the same to yourself...

It was a good point, and I fail to see the problem with it.

As for seinfeldrules, the killers of americans are applauded by the people who want the americans killed. Which is most likely a large number of Iraqis.

And you can't possibly hold american soldiers to the same standard as the average Iraqi. I do hope you remember that your country kinda invaded Iraq for no ligitimate reason. The Iraqis have a right to feel angry, and a right to fight back. But if a soldier unloads a clip into civilian girl, who was "wounded", that is just wrong. You do remember that whole "humanitarian" thing you were talking bout right?

 

[Gray Fox]

I was pointing out that when we screw up, our people get punished. When they kill somebody, they are applauded.

Bush is responsible for so many innocent deaths, and yet he is supperted and cheered by 150 mijloen Americans. How about rumsfeld who orderd the abu graib prisoners to be tortured. And the terrorists do get punished, they get captured by government forces and get punished thats it, the reason why so many Iraqis suppert them and aplaud them is simply because they see them as the lesser evil. Oh I just wish Burner69 was here so I could quot him.

Buthere is a quiestion!
Do you people think he should be punished if it really was a mercy killing, and there was no way to save his life.
I think not

 

[bliink]

I was pointing out that when we screw up, our people get punished. When they kill somebody, they are applauded.

meh, but their families and other civilians get blown up instead, so it evens things out

 

[Choscura]

this has probably been stated, but i think this is a good thing. whats that, outrage? stop and think before you bitch.

i think its a good thing because the kid probably had two options: option one is to live, be interrogated using the rules of a religious radical (donald rumsfeld) before being released back to the iraqi public, who would probably see him as a traitor and possibly kill, but at the very least torment him for it. thats the GOOD version. the bad version is he stays in a hospital for six months, comes out, is tried as a war criminal, and then killed anyway.

the other option? die and get it over with. its not like he would have lived forever anyway.

another angle is that since he's dead, and he probably wasn't somebody important, he can't come back to haunt the soldiers. if he lived, healed, and was released and gained face again, do you think he'd sit on his ass and watch the war? hell no, he'd be fighting. and if he was some minor warlord, he'd be a political rally point, as in 'do it in his memory!'. i'm sorry for all you aclu idiots out there, but this is the real world, being naive loses wars, stay out of it.

 

[CptStern]

this has probably been stated, but i think this is a good thing. whats that, outrage? stop and think before you bitch.

i think its a good thing because the kid probably had two options: option one is to live, be interrogated using the rules of a religious radical (donald rumsfeld) before being released back to the iraqi public, who would probably see him as a traitor and possibly kill, but at the very least torment him for it. thats the GOOD version. the bad version is he stays in a hospital for six months, comes out, is tried as a war criminal, and then killed anyway.

the other option? die and get it over with. its not like he would have lived forever anyway.

another angle is that since he's dead, and he probably wasn't somebody important, he can't come back to haunt the soldiers. if he lived, healed, and was released and gained face again, do you think he'd sit on his ass and watch the war? hell no, he'd be fighting. and if he was some minor warlord, he'd be a political rally point, as in 'do it in his memory!'. i'm sorry for all you aclu idiots out there, but this is the real world, being naive loses wars, stay out of it.

no where does it mention that the teenager that was killed was an insurgent .he could have been an innocent bystander ...it'll all come out in his trial

 

[The Mullinator]

If the kid was wounded so badly that he probably had no chance of survival then the only reason I see a mercy killing as being a bad thing would be because of other Iraqis who would either disagree or not realize it.

If the kid was dying then the soldier probably did him a favour by putting him out of his misery.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Applauded by who?

People were dancing in the streets after 9/11.

And you can't possibly hold american soldiers to the same standard as the average Iraqi.

Why are Americans any different than Iraqis? Isnt a human life a human life?

But if a soldier unloads a clip into civilian girl, who was "wounded", that is just wrong. You do remember that whole "humanitarian" thing you were talking bout right?

When did I say otherwise? Come on now, that is par to me posting this.

Bait

9/11 was cool because the terrorists got their revenge. America deserved it. Death to America!

Doesnt feel good when other people guess what your true feelings are, does it?

 

[Choscura]

Why are Americans any different than Iraqis? Isnt a human life a human life?

a human life most certainlyis a human life. but remember this is a war. its them or us. wait, wait, sorry, my bad, i forgot the international philosiphy on war. why make them die when we can instead?

as for him not being an insurgent... i don't care. at least this soldier had the decency to keep this kid from suffering any more than he had to: think about it. teenagers make bad 'poster children'. he wouldn't have been brought to germany to be healed by the best. the most he could hope for would be the american military doctors: great if you want a complimentary boob job, not great for much else (based on the footage i've seen of their treatment of the iraqis)

i can honestly say that if i was in that state, wounded and not likely to recover without SERIOUS medical help (transplants, prosthetics, etc), i would have wanted to die also.

 

[Sparta]

a human life most certainlyis a human life. but remember this is a war. its them or us. wait, wait, sorry, my bad, i forgot the international philosiphy on war. why make them die when we can instead?

as for him not being an insurgent... i don't care. at least this soldier had the decency to keep this kid from suffering any more than he had to: think about it.

But why didn't he get help instead of shooting him?

 

[Choscura]

help from where?

 

[Bolleh]

i think its a good thing because the kid probably had two options: option one is to live, be interrogated using the rules of a religious radical (donald rumsfeld) before being released back to the iraqi public, who would probably see him as a traitor and possibly kill, but at the very least torment him for it. thats the GOOD version. the bad version is he stays in a hospital for six months, comes out, is tried as a war criminal, and then killed anyway.

You're an idiot. Why would the American's interrogate a wounded civilian? If he was known as a non-combatant, this wouldn't happen, or atleast wouldn't go any further than simple questioning.

Why would the Iraqi people see someone who was wounded by the Americans as a traitor?

Why would a civilian be tried as a war criminal?

Maybe you should stop and think.

 

[burner69]

You can argue that if he was severely injured, and highly likely in a large amount of pain, that shooting him was the compassionate thing to do. Hell, I do. If it comes out that this man shot the teenager because it would be inhumane to leave him to suffer then, well, I think it would be unfair to imprison him for a quarter of his life - although a punishment should definately be given, to stop others thinking they can 'get away with it'.

But wait.... what was an Iraqi teenager doing dying in his home country anyway?

I couldn't find anything in the article that explained exactly how he was injured, other than it was similar to a previous incident.

Now; if the coalition can come into a country telling its people that they are here to find WMDs which are a threat to the US (despite Saddam never attacking America, giving no intention of doing so, and after Bush and Powell admitted the previous year that he had no WMDs), and that they will restore peace and order, and then kill innocent people - how can they not expect opposition from people previously not involved?

We went into Iraq to get WMDs and kill all those terrorists teeming there now we have opposition from the terrorists, the previous ruling regime's followers, and the Iraqi people. And it's because of incidents like this, and the daft opinions of some people (including one in this thread) that lump all Iraqis as the enemy, terrorists, that should be killed because they might become the enemy at a later date - which doom this war to be a faliure. And not only a faliure, but a catalyst for what they're trying to avoid.

Look at the terrorist figures of this year and you'll see that there's no way of getting around it - the war on terror isn't helping prevent terrorists, it's creating them.

Both those opposed to the war, and those who support it, must realise that its incidents like the killing of the teenager, the torture in prison cells, the bombing and the boisterousness of the invasion - "Here we come to save your country and protect our own" Bang boom crash splat - are issues that need addressing seriously, and not shrugged off as the cost of war.

Cost of war? What is it in this case?
Well, Iraq had WMDs to start, so the cost of getting rid of these was willing to be paid by most people.
But wait... it seems Saddam never had them.

So what about the terrorist links Iraq has - which were massively exageratted in the run up to the war? Is that worth the cost of war? Well seeing as fighting them seems to be the whole reason why they attacked in the first place (and not the "Jealous of freedom" crap we were fed after 9/11) it seems daft. It IS daft, to to expect to be able to stop terrorism by increasing the very thing that brings them about in the first place.

How about freeing the Iraq people? That, in my books, is worth it. But why was this not done previously? Clearly if America had wanted to do this the UN could not have stopped them, as some people claim. Why do it in the middle of a war on terrorism - billed as protecting Western people. Surely if you're fighting terrorism to protect your people you should concentrate on terrorists, not dictators. Have a war on dictators by all means - infact I'd love to see that happen, so long as it was done carefully and with consideration for politics and lives. But having this mixed bag of priorities does not help anything.
So the cost of saving the Iraqi people, in this case, is not worth it. All we're doing is freeing them at a dangerous time, making the world a more danegrous place, increasing the number of terrorists, and decreasing the popularity of the coalition. After all, who wants to be freed only to be controlled by the very people you hate (The West).

If we're going to run around baring the flag of freedom, let's do it right.

Let's sort out countries when they need sorting out, not just when it suits. Let's start on a job, and finish it, not move onto another. Let's practise what we preach, freedom - torturing the opposition, and killing the people we intend to save, accidently maybe, is not doing this. Let's go into a war on the same premise we come out on, and then maybe, just maybe people will WANT to be saved by the Coalition, people will not resort to blowing themselves up in order to strike a blow at the people taking over their country, people will not question their president over his methods and his true intentions, and then incidents like the teenage boy being killed will become shocking headline news, not an everyday, shrugged off occurance.

 

[smwScott]

If he really did kill him in order to stop his suffering, then he probably did the right thing. The only thing worse than dying in a horribly painful way would be to have it stretched out over many hours. If there was no chance he could be saved, then he did the right thing by the kid.

 

[ferd]

At least he is being punished, can you say the same for the terrorists?

the only difference is most terrorists have already been punished...

 

[Razor]

If he really did kill him in order to stop his suffering, then he probably did the right thing. The only thing worse than dying in a horribly painful way would be to have it stretched out over many hours. If there was no chance he could be saved, then he did the right thing by the kid.

I would have to agree, if it was a mercy killing to give the civilian a quick, painless death rather than a long, drawn out, painful one, he should be applauded, not arrested.

 

[burner69]

the only difference is most terrorists have already been punished...

Usually its the 'punishment' that makes the terrorist in the first place.

 

[^Ben]

:golfclap:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Usually its the 'punishment' that makes the terrorist in the first place.

I say, we should just withdraw from the whole world, and let it stew.

Who knows? Maybe thats just better. ^^

 

[burner69]

I say, we should just withdraw from the whole world, and let it stew.

Who knows? Maybe thats just better. ^^

Well it would prevent many of todays more recent problems from ever occuring. Though I don't pretend to believe that foreign intervention isn't important in some places... in others, usually when its primarily about profit, it is just catastrophic.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Agreed. Will live out our Civil Liberties, pull out of Iraq (as it is now), pull out of Afghanistan (as it is now), and let the world be free from our Imperialistic demands!

Oh I forgot, if we leave, the war comes home! Hooray! ^^

 

[burner69]

No. We've started something, it must be finished. Pulling troops out now would be bad for all nations involved.

And inicidently, it's the whole 'getting into these messes' that brings the terrorists to you. Your president should look at trying to avoid them in the future.

For the record I had no problems with Afghanistan being invaded. And Iraq should not have been invaded WHEN IT WAS. It is a dangerous time and we had plenty of oppurtunities to do it before - when we hadn't just pissed off a nation's supply of terrorists.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It would be bad, buts lets emphasize for the future -- its not exactly the best idea to pull out now, either.

 

[CptStern]

look the simple solution is the US needs to stop meddling in other countries affairs. The US created the situation in iraq and afghanistan by supporting madmen and tyrannts

 

[Shad0hawK]

Bombing their houses and killing their children helps? If you are going to debate, just debate.

yes, leaving them to be killed by saddam by the hundreds of thousands and buried in mass graves was the better option...funny how no one seemed to give a shit when that was happening. the UN, france, GErmany and the leftists here in the US did not seem to mind "blood for oil" as long as the UN and europe benefitted.

 

[willyd]

i just wish the US finally learns that the best way to fight terrorism will be to try to lower our oil dependency as much as possible. were practically paying the terrorists to attack us.

 

[CptStern]

yes, leaving them to be killed by saddam by the hundreds of thousands and buried in mass graves was the better option...funny how no one seemed to give a shit when that was happening. the UN, france, GErmany and the leftists here in the US did not seem to mind "blood for oil" as long as the UN and europe benefitted.

bullshit, there were many protests against saddam ...btw did you protest when hundreds of thousands of children died during the sanctions imposed by your country?

"It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."
- Madeline Albright's response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the [Iraqi] sanctions

 

[seinfeldrules]

Stern why not post on how Saddam squandered 12 + billion dollars in aid he was given in the Oil for Food program? Why not blame the UN for not looking into this before it was too late? 12+billion dollars buys a LOT of food.

 

[CptStern]

Stern why not post on how Saddam squandered 12 + billion dollars in aid he was given in the Oil for Food program? Why not blame the UN for not looking into this before it was too late? 12+billion dollars buys a LOT of food.

the majority of deaths happened before 1996. The first shipments of food was in early 1997, it was was nowhere near enough. BTW the majority of children that died during that period died as a result of not having clean drinking water ...here's the actual US documents that proves the US deliberately targeted water-treatment plants during desert storm


oh and diverting blame on saddam doesnt work cuz we all know he was a murderous tyrant, what's america's excuse?