US soldier jailed for Iraq murder

[Bronx Warlord]

Most of the time bombs target Americans and colaborators, not each other..

Yeah like Iraqi cops and soldiers, but I guess they are colaborators So are women and children in a packed marketplace, or hospital. There have been IDE and suicide car bombs that have killed scores of iraqis, one incident the total of dead not even counting wounded was 102. Not each other huh?

 

[neviden]

Yeah like Iraqi cops and soldiers, but I guess they are colaborators

Jep, good guess. Working for a foreign occupiers against your own people (you know.. "terrorists" in falujah..). Unless you have some other definition of a colaborator..

So are women and children in a packed marketplace, or hospital. There have been IDE and suicide car bombs that have killed scores of iraqis, one incident the total of dead not even counting wounded was 102. Not each other huh?

Most of IDEs are targeted against US soldiers. There are 1000 combat deaths and 17.000 wounded US soldiers so they seem to be pretty efective. Who bombs marketplace I do not know, but most of the fighting is directed against occupiers..

 

[BasketCase]

Who is a colaborator is in the eye of beholder.. water is important. Everybody needs it.. including US army.. so is oil.. so is everything else.. I do not agre with atacks on local water treatment plant, but I do see the reason why they are atacked.. US will spend manpower and money to secure all important buildings and personnel. That means more targets for insurgents. If US will not able to spend that much money/manpower it will have to abandon Iraq..

The money and manpower WILL eventually be spent to eliminate the rebels. Once the oil wells get hit hard enough and other nations who currently oppose the occupation get hit in the pocketbook, they will have a sudden change of heart (if you disagree, go read the thread about how the EU is considering re-opening arms trading with China).

If the U.S. abandons Iraq, this will simply happen faster (this is proven by the fact that terrorist attacks have been a lot more successful at forcing the UN and other nations to pull out). The most efficient solution would have been for the rest of the world to get in there and help us instead of crying foul--but it's always about short-term results.

If the U.S. says "screw all of you" and quits and just leaves Iraq to rot, most likely the rest of the world will happily re-install a dictatorship to get their oil back.

@those who say other nations are getting attacked because they're seen as U.S. puppets: the Sunnis DO NOT CARE who is trying to assemble elections in Iraq, UN primacy has nothing to do with it. The Sunnis want control of the nation, and that's the end of it.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Jep, good guess. Working for a foreign occupiers against your own people (you know.. "terrorists" in falujah..). Unless you have some other definition of a colaborator..

So being a cop in iraq is a no no... yeah, nice theroy there

You have to have cops and soliders that are iraqi for the purpose of law and order, and not only are the Iraqi cops and soldiers under the control of there own goverment, there going to be needed long after the US is gone.

" Well the US is imperalist "

Considering the ammount of money we are spending on Iraq I find that hard to belive...so now there are iraqi cops and soldiers, so the iraqis can manage there own affairs better... you know, like a free people.

" Um... there colaborators! yeah, that works "

YAWN, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred euros.

you know.. "terrorists" in falujah

Yeah cause freedom fighters often have slaughter houses and use religious sites to store weapontry. I also guess the dozzen or so guys from napal who did laundry were a threat to islam and really deserved a bullet in the back of there heads. Would you like me to go on with the list of " colaborators " as you call them? And by your own logic, it's ok for the coalition to kill the families of insurgents, as they are " colaborators " with the insurgency.

YAWN, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred euros.

Considering the Iraqi goverment has the right to ask us to leave at anytime, and even the iraqi people while they dislike being occupied do not want us to leave, I hardly call it an occupation in the... dare I say it... european imperialist sense.

 

[GEChallenger]

How would you describe it then? Where is the spin?

You are a US soldier. You see a truck. Bang, bang. You go look. Garbage, wonded and dead teens, no terrorist, no explosives. You see soldier shoot teenager. What words would you use, that would not be 'power of spin' ?

"Our brave soldiers dealt another blow to Iraqi terrorists. They kill all those guys that are driving at night despite our orders not to. When all the terrorists will be killed, democracy will prosper and we will be victrorious."

Again. Look at the words used. It clearly states that the soldier murdered the iraqi; that is a loaded word, just as terrorist is. The other article says that the boy was killed. Murder implies malicious intent and provokes the sort of reaction that many here showed. Read the article again and tell me it doesn't paint the situation in a negative light. It may not seem like much (and a couple of words really isn't) but judging from the reactions here, it's enough. Perhaps its less the papers fault than the readers....

What should be said? I think the CBC article goes a little further toward being objective. No loaded words, just a brief report of the incident.

I agre with Reuters that 'terrorist' is a loaded word.. Terrorist is a guy who's aim is to cause terror. If you are trying to kill ocupiers, then you are and rebel, insurgent or something like that. And US is ocupating Iraq. It's current plans are to keep 130.000 troops there at lest 2 years. It plans to spend 1 - 2 billion $ on "us embasy". It's building large camps. And after the election "Iraqi democratic goverment" will "invite" US to stay.. aren't liberators supposed to leave? Sadam is no more you know.. and WMD didn't exist.. hey, maybe all that oil has something to do with it..

Alright, by bringing up oil you kind of throw your argument in the garbage... but I'll answer anyway. Terrorist is indeed a loaded word and yes, insurgent is more applicable to some (but not all) of the fighters in Iraq (many of which are not Iraqi). Reuters and many other papers however avoid using terrorist for anything, including suicide bombers in Israel and even Al-Quada members
who have already carried out attacks. They prefer to used "alleged terrorist" or, better yet, militant. I'm not going to comment upon the accuracy of these terms, but if the paper is so willing to go out of its way to be objective about this sort of thing doesn't it stand to reason that it would say the soldier killed rather than murdered the Iraqi? Doesn't it sound a little hypocritical?

Because we treat both of them as persons?

I can see the point of "puting him out of a missery", but since autanasia is still a crime in US and in Iraq he is guilty. That's not something that could be blamed on "heat of a battle" or something like that..

I applaud you for your insight, although I have to disagree in that it was probably very much due to the heat of the moment. I don't think this is a cold, calculated killing. That said, many posters weren't nearly as insightful as you:

I usually side with the soldiers, but if he really shot some boys like that, then he deserves life without parole.

3 years is too short !!!

This guy should be jailed for life, and if the iraqis have their way, a life for a life. And i bet the iraqi teenager life is much more valuable than that damn soldier.

IMHO that's very short. He deserves life without parole.

He should get life, no parole. Murder in the first while on duty in a warzone - very very bad precedent.

Hmm... sounds a little like some "quick and negative" conclusions were made here...

 

[GEChallenger]

You call 3 years for murder being crucified?

would you feel like that, if an arab shot and killed an american "by misstake" and only got 3 years?

btw its a hypothetical question, i now the insurgents dont have rules or laws or COs, or an army or much of anything else for that matter

He never said he killed the boy by mistake. He said it was a "mercy killing" and it was likely a quick decision in the heat of the moment.

Now, I know it doesn't say specifically what condition the boy was in in the article, but "gaping wounds in his abdomen and serious burns" suggests some pretty horrific injuries. Were his intestines and other organs hanging out of his body? Was he burned beyond recognition? This could very well have been the case. The point is, we don't know, and as eyeri said nobody's in the position to judge this guy. He will be punished and it's likely necessary for public relations; whether as harsh punishment was necessary we'll likely never know.

 

[AVN]

@GEChallenger :
Regarding your claim that I jumped to conclusions (I said in a previous post that this soldier deserved life without parole). Maybe I did.

But the original article in the first post left an uncomfortable feeling with me.
I didn't have and still don't have the feeling that this was a mercy killing. The picture I see is a picture of soldiers which shoot at a truck without reasonable reason. After that they discover innocent hurt Iraqis and the soldier decide to finish his job.

Is this picture objective. No, but I have reasons to believe in that picture (even if it can be wrong for this particular case) and therefore I came to that statement.

But even if this was a mercy killing then I still think that this soldier acted incorrectly. If he believed that this Iraqi had no chance to survive anymore he should have given him an overdosis of morfine out of his emergency aid kit.
If he had done that I could have understand it. Now I don't.

And one question. How would the people in the USA react if he killed one of his own colleagues with a bullet out of mercy ?

 

[GEChallenger]

@GEChallenger :
Regarding your claim that I jumped to conclusions (I said in a previous post that this soldier deserved life without parole). Maybe I did.

But the original article in the first post left an uncomfortable feeling with me.
I didn't have and still don't have the feeling that this was a mercy killing. The picture I see is a picture of soldiers which shoot at a truck without reasonable reason. After that they discover innocent hurt Iraqis and the soldier decide to finish his job.

Is this picture objective. No, but I have reasons to believe in that picture (even if it can be wrong for this particular case) and therefore I came to that statement.

But even if this was a mercy killing then I still think that this soldier acted incorrectly. If he believed that this Iraqi had no chance to survive anymore he should have given him an overdosis of morfine out of his emergency aid kit.
If he had done that I could have understand it. Now I don't.

And one question. How would the people in the USA react if he killed one of his own colleagues with a bullet out of mercy ?

I guess I can't blame you for having that sort of opinion, as it seems well thought out.

You say that the original article left an uncomfortable feeling, an that's the point I'm trying to make: without perspective or alot of information it's easy to make quick assumptions. Someone who assumed the boy deserved to die and was acting suspicious would be just as guilty.

As far as him killing a fellow soldier out of mercy... I doubt it would have raised too much comment other than being seen as sad situation. It would certainly recieve less attention than this case did. I've heard of things like that happening during war. He might have still been punished, though; I guess it depends.

 

[nonconformist]

I've been wondering something:
how many people who side with the soldier in this case are also against abortion and Euthanasia?

 

[Ramius75]

As far as him killing a fellow soldier out of mercy... I doubt it would have raised too much comment other than being seen as sad situation. It would certainly recieve less attention than this case did. I've heard of things like that happening during war. He might have still been punished, though; I guess it depends.

It will be a big hooha if the soldier dont want to be put out of his misery and against his will.

Wonder how many years will the Soldier involve gets ??

 

[GEChallenger]

If you mean to say: "It would be a big deal if soldier kills a mortally wounded comrade against his will," then yes, it would be a big deal. I doubt that would happen, and I'm sure if a mortally wounded soldier was killed out of mercy by a comrade by choice it would not even make the papers. I believe this happened as recently as Somalia (although there could have been instances in Iraq or Afghanistan) and nothing was made of it. Although the soldier who did the mercy killing had an incredibly hard time afterwards for obvious reasons...

@nonconformsit: I support early term abortion and euthanasia in certain instances.

 

[neviden]

The money and manpower WILL eventually be spent to eliminate the rebels..

Since Insurgency is geting stronger, i kind of disagree..

You have to have cops and soliders that are iraqi for the purpose of law and order, and not only are the Iraqi cops and soldiers under the control of there own goverment, there going to be needed long after the US is gone.

I don't see US going anywhere.. they are prepearing for a long stay. Look at US plans, look at bases they are building, look at facts. If US said: "ok, fellas. Last US soldier will leave in 12 months" you would see large decrease in support for "terrorists". Why do you think Iraqi police do not want to fight? Would you fight for other country?

" Well the US is imperalist " Considering the ammount of money we are spending on Iraq I find that hard to belive...so now there are iraqi cops and soldiers, so the iraqis can manage there own affairs better... you know, like a free people.

And how much money is US spending? They spent 150 billion on occupation and few on rebuilding. That "free people" may work for you, but to outsiders US is spending that money to KEEP Iraq. If it only wanted to "free people" everybody else would help.. they do in Afganistan.. IN IRAQ US WANTS CONTROL. Ask yourself why that is soo..

Alright, by bringing up oil you kind of throw your argument in the garbage... but I'll answer anyway. Terrorist is indeed a loaded word and yes, insurgent is more applicable to some (but not all) of the fighters in Iraq (many of which are not Iraqi). Reuters and many other papers however avoid using terrorist for anything, including suicide bombers in Israel and even Al-Quada members who have already carried out attacks...

The problem with word "terrorist" is that means basicly atacks on civilians with aim of causing terror. Most of the "terrorists" are not in to cause terror, but to atack occupators (i hope you agree that US is occupating Iraq). Another problem is, that most of the public thinks "terrorists" are all the same. "terrorists" in Iraq are not the same as "terrorists" that blew up WTC. Even now large percentage of Americans think that Iraq was involved in WTC atack. Which of course is false (they would kill each other first). So, once you call anyone you kill a "terrorist" - then everybody thinks "yeah.. we are protecting ourselfs - WTC", but in reality that's far from the trouth.

If you say "militant, insurgent, suicide bomber,..." you refine what you say. That's why we have different words. In falujah (according to US military itself) there were 10% of foreign fighters at most. Yet, everybody is saying "terrorists"..

I applaud you for your insight, although I have to disagree in that it was probably very much due to the heat of the moment. I don't think this is a cold, calculated killing. That said, many posters weren't nearly as insightful as you:

This story has more info on what was going on (of course if he is telling the truth - he better, he pleabargined). There were three soldiers, all said he couldn't survive and he shot him. It may be mercy killing but that is against the law. War or no war. Since he plead guilty and just got sentenced for a charge of a "murder", i see no wrong in calling it that..

 

[Jack the Ripper]

In that case Kerry is a murderer.

 

[Ramius75]

If you mean to say: "It would be a big deal if soldier kills a mortally wounded comrade against his will," then yes, it would be a big deal. I doubt that would happen, and I'm sure if a mortally wounded soldier was killed out of mercy by a comrade by choice it would not even make the papers. I believe this happened as recently as Somalia (although there could have been instances in Iraq or Afghanistan) and nothing was made of it. Although the soldier who did the mercy killing had an incredibly hard time afterwards for obvious reasons...

@nonconformsit: I support early term abortion and euthanasia in certain instances.

yes, and i think that the kid did not asking the US soldier to end his life but instead to help him, sending him into hospital.

 

[neviden]

Well.. if Kerry is a murderer is for a court of law to decide. I don't care one way or another.. It's not like there is much difference betwen Kerry and Bush. Kerry is maybe only less bad..

 

[GEChallenger]

@neviden: Good point about calling it murder... you're right, according to the court he did in fact commit murder, regardless of my feelings on the word. Sorry if I seemed a little hostile. Maybe I was a little too quick to blame the articles for the response... but I do still feel that many people respond to things like this (not you) by jumping to conclusions without knowing the whole story.

Thanks for the article, that clears it all up. The whole situation is a shame, and I feel for Mr. Horne, but I don't see how else it could be handled. In my opinion he acted in the best way he could... but that's not up to me to decide.

For those who called for Horne to suffer additional punishment... read this, from the link neviden provided:

The murder of Kassim Hassan took place when US soldiers spotted a garbage truck apparently dropping homemade bombs in Sadr City, the capital's most populous Shiite Muslim neighbourhood.

The soldiers started shooting at the truck, which caught fire, and Horne said he pulled a severely wounded Hassan out of the burning truck.

"About seven or eight minutes later, he fell to the ground," said Horne.

"When I found him, I came to the conclusion that he needed to be put out of his misery," Horne said. "I fired a shot into his head and his attempts to breathe ceased."

Judge Colonel Stephanie Browne asked Horne what his intention was.

"I wanted to end his suffering," Horne said. "It was my opinion that he could not be helped."

Horne was also found guilty of conspiracy with two other soldiers, Staff Sergeant Cardenas Alban and Second Lieutenant Erick Anderson, to commit murder. They have yet to stand trial.

Horne said that after seeing Hassan lying on the ground, he contacted Alban and Anderson.

Anderson "asked what I needed and I took him to see the victim. His response was 'Holy Christ, what do you want to do?'"

"I can't leave him, I want to put him out of his misery. Anderson said 'So do it.'"

Horne said that he shone a flashlight on Hassan, and quoted Alban as saying: "My God, he's just a kid, he's not going to survive."

Horne said he then heard a burst of gunfire from Alban.

"I could hear gurgling sounds, attempts to breathe. I took a few steps back and fired one round ... I hit him in the back of the head. There were no signs of life."

Anderson "agreed it needed to be done," said Horne, adding that when he consulted his superior officer on the wounded Iraqi it was "like a sanity check, to make sure we were both thinking in the same terms. We both had the assumption that he was suffering and wasn't going to survive."

Sergeant Jacob Smith, also on the operation, said there was nothing to be done for Hassan.

"Everywhere from his ribs to his hip was a hole ... you could see his intestines and spinal cord ... it looked like his skin had just melted off ... everything pretty much fell out of his stomach."

Horne was found not guilty on another charge of solicitation to commit premeditated murder.

He was originally charged with premeditated murder, but pleaded guilty to the lesser charge as part of the pre-trial agreement.

A forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Horne said that he had "lost his sense of professional distance from victims ... he showed signs of being emotionally overwhelmed ... there is no indication he is prone to violence".

A 10-member panel of Horne's fellow soldiers expected to agree a sentence on Saturday was reduced to seven after three were requested to be removed by defence attorney, First Lieutenant Stanley Martin, and prosecutor Captain John Maloney.

@ Ramius: Really? You were there? No? Then how do you know that the kid was begging for help? It sounds like he was unconcious based on the above. Try not to project your own ideas into things like this. Stick with the facts.

@ Jack: Like I said in another thread, throwing out random things like that doesn't really make you too convicing. It's as bad as other people pulling a race card or whatever.

 

[ainwood]

In that case Kerry is a murderer.

Moderator Action: You've posted this three times in this thread - and nothing else. Kindly stop the trolling / threadjacking now. Warned.

@BronxWarlord - Kindly stop trolling europeans.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ramius75]

@ Ramius: Really? You were there? No? Then how do you know that the kid was begging for help? It sounds like he was unconcious based on the above. Try not to project your own ideas into things like this. Stick with the facts.

Thats right,i wasnt there, i shoudnt be, so are the Americans. Else all these tragedies will not happened.

Anyway, Im very sure myself, that an Iraqi Kids will NOT ask an US soldier to put him out of misery, and in this case he was unconsious, so the 1 pulling the trigger is a murderer and should be dealt with as one.

3 years is too short for a punishment. With "good" conduct he will be out in no time.

All in all the soldier is a victim of politics and US dominance, he shouldnt be in Iraq.

 

[E-Raser]

Original joke from Bagdad (no joke, they tell it)
In Falludja noone is allowed to go out after 20:00
One Iraqui was shot by a GI at 19:30. His chief asked him why he shot this guy and he answered:"I know where he lives, he would never hafe managed home in half an hour."
As always during war, life is pretty cheap. Too easy just to bow one finger.
IMO this guy should burn in prison for much longer than 3 years.
But the real responsible ppl are those who send the soldiers there. Who will ever condemn them?