Posted on 09/29/2007 5:30:50 AM PDT by bigheadfred
BAGHDAD - A military panel on Saturday sentenced an Army sniper to five months in prison, a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay for planting evidence in connection with the deaths of two Iraqi civilians.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I really feel terrible for these guys. Can you imagine this crap happening during WW2?
Sounds like the United States Army has not embraced those things required to win wars labled insurgencies.
Gary Myers, one of Vela’s lawyers, claimed this week that Army snipers hunting insurgents in Iraq were under orders to “bait” their targets with suspicious materials, such as detonation cords, then kill those who picked up the items. He said his client was acting on orders.
***Sounds like they were trying to flip his client to get him to start testifying against his superior officers and move up the chain of command.
“He planted evidence, was caught and convicted, and duly punished. We have to hold the good guys to the same standards or we become just as bad as the left.”
I’m not disagreeing with the sentence the sniper got. I’m just pointing out that the dead Iraqi was according to the story a combatant, not an innocent. Too bad our soldier felt he had to plant evidence.
The good news is he should be back on the job here soon... :-)
The UCMJ doesn’t but he obviously did.
Troops are not scared to kill bad guys. They ARE expected to take reasonable precautions to prevent killing innocent civilians, but regularly kill innocent civilians without punishment because the military legal system understands that mistakes are made in war, and that we cannot expect perfection during split second decisions.
We can and do expect reasonable care be taken to avoid civilian casualties. That has always been true.
The UCMJ doesn’t but he obviously did.
Does that make it right for him to break the law?
No but its worth considering at sentencing.
Oh I see! So in other words if others are breaking the law then that should get him a reduced sentence or even no conviction at all, because he was only doing what he did because he had seen what had happened to other people.
That’s like saying if I get busted for speeding I should get off because other people were speeding as well.
He’s a sniper! He is supposed to be good enough to pick and chose his targets carefully so that he only shoots those that were actually worthy of being killed not shoot anyone that came along and then try to justify it by placing on their person evidence that would make them a legitimate target.
In doing so he makes it even more difficult for other snipers to meet the standards he was supposed to be working under, his actions are going to call for even more scrutiny into how snipers choose their targets and who their kills really were.
In conclusion he has made things even worse for other snipers because he tried to hide what he did because he had seen what happened to others.
The snow ball effect.
Speeding and a war zone don’t compare.
Would rather I use O.J. as an example?
Why don’t we cut his hand off ?
Why don’t we cut his hand off ?
Because there is hope for him yet.
You may not understand it or like it but having to go through this could actually improve his effectiveness as a sniper. There is no soldier on the battlefield that requires more mental, physical, and fire discipline than a sniper.
They do not exist in a world where they can shoot anyone that crosses their sights and you think they should be unfettered by the rules they are under.
I didn’t realize OJ had joined the Marines.
I was talking about the Sergeant.
A real sniper would know when to back away slowly and quietly.
“In conclusion he has made things even worse for other snipers because he tried to hide what he did because he had seen what happened to others.”
Hugh...that’s a conclusion?
He was found not guilty of murder so it was found reasonable he killed a bad guy. Because of the desk chair generals at JAG, he felt compelled to protect himself. Is that a war you want your children fighting in?
I would have no problem fighting in this war, He didn’t have to shoot, just like he didn’t have to plant evidence on the person he shot to cover his rear.
There are literally thousands of missions involving Soldiers and Marines in Iraq where they didn’t need to plant evidence on the bad guys because they knew they killed the bad guys.
There in lies the difference, he wasn’t sure, so he attempted to set up a situation where at least he was covered for a mistake.
Do you believe cops should shoot first a suspect first and throw down a gun later to cover their mistakes?
The difference is of course that a sniper is allowed to shoot first, but with that option comes a very great responsibility, he must be absolutely right in all cases, or he is not supposed to take the shot.
The way many here that wring their hands in anger would have it is that our snipers would be free to kill any one they see because they must not be placed under any sort of legal limitations. Sorry but only the other side plays by those rules. I don’t want my children to become like those animals.
“There in lies the difference, he wasn’t sure, so he attempted to set up a situation where at least he was covered for a mistake.”
You simply cannot know what you just stated. You assume he is guilty. But he was found not guilty of murder. He was found guilty of planting a det cord on the kill. Interesting that even though he was found not guilty - you insinuate he is guilty and that he “wasn’t sure”. Perhaps he was absolutely sure of his job but unsure of his country’s and military’s legal system’s integrity.
Either way - you cannot support your above statement. It’s just your opinion.
Are we all on the same mental plane here? Hmm....lets think about that.
civilians, insurgents, terrorist, did the military neglect to teach our snipers the class on identyfing the difference? Hmmm..... Guess they forgot we’re in a war. or have they ever realized that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.