Posted on 09/29/2007 5:30:50 AM PDT by bigheadfred
Right with ya baby!
While I think the sentence was appropriate, it should be commuted. What drove Sgt. Sandoval to think he *needed* to plant evidence on the object of a righteous shoot? You know as well as I do that the specter of earlier prosecutions was hovering over his shoulder when he did that.
There was no "barbarism" involved, it was completely within the ROE, and the Laws of War, to have shot the terrorist. The planting of false evidence was not aimed at covering up illegitimate actions, but rather to try to avoid being prosecuted for legitimate ones. As I say, he violated a rule, but he didn't do anything barbarous, nor was there even any appearance of having done so, other than in the eyes of the Murthas and Kerrys of the world.
And that's exactly what he did. Thus the acquittal on the murder charges. It was his fear of his own side that caused him to guild the lily. He had done his job, but then was afraid he'd be punished, very severely, for having done it. But perhaps that was the minimum allowable punishment given the charge. After all, 5 months is a misdemeanor conviction in civilian life, not a felony.
5 months in confinement, loss of pay, and loss of rank, seems a bit stiff for such an action.. but probably not all that stiff. I'd have left it at time served and loss of rank, why punish his family, assuming he has one.
His actions had nothing to do with the target being a legitimate one. He was, and that's why the sniper was not convicted of murder. He was convicted of obstruction or misdirection of an investigation that he should not have to worry about even taking place. In a way he was playing lawyer instead of sniper, after he'd done his job as a sniper.
I think the sentence was probably reasonable for the offense, although more severe than I'd have made it had I sat on the Court. I'd have given him time served, reduction in rank by one grade, back dated to the time of the offense, but no loss of pay. Why? Becuase if he hadn't been accused of murder, the whole thing would have been a non-judicial punishment affair, and he'd not have been confined anywhere near as long, if at all. The murder charges were bogus, and he and his family should not have to bear the burden of loss of pay for all that time on top of whatever expenses he/they had in providing for his defense. It's just not right.
A better comparison might be getting caught speeding because your wife was in major heavy labor and you were on your way to the hospital. Once upon a time, that would get you an escort instead of a ticket.
"Extenuating circumstances" is the term often used. Those circumstances are why I'd not have given him any confinement or loss of pay, other than that due to loss of rank. Even loss is not the minor penally it once was, because there is really no practical way for the soldier to "make it up", since promotions are very centralized these days. The "black mark" alone will make promotion difficult. Loss of rank amounts to a rather large fine, quite large in fact over the length of a soldier's service.
It's my understanding that the spotter calls the shot, not the sniper. But that's beside the point in this case. He's not being punished for shooting. He's being punished for attempting to cover up that which did not need covering up. And, according to the testimony, under orders from his spotter, the senior soldier present.
What we need are three man teams
1. The Shooter
2. The Spotter
3. The Lawyer
Let me clarify this for anyone that cares, there is no reason why an American soldier should ever resort to an illegal act to cover their actions in time of war.
None what so ever.
In fact what has happened to others should be a clue that to do so will bring the wraith of the law down upon their heads.
Our soldiers should never resort to criminal acts to cover up what they have done.
That is the bottom line.
“That is the bottom line”
No, that is your bottom line. One that does not recognize that the sniper was found not guilty on the charge of murder. Your bottom line has your head in the sand of the facts of the case.
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.