For previous threads, on this case, click at the LINK.
Posted on 02/09/2008 5:50:11 AM PST by RedRover
A trial unfolding in a makeshift courthouse in a dusty corner of the U.S. Army's main Baghdad base camp complex is demonstrating in stark and dramatic terms just how far some American soldiers are being pushed on the battlefield, just how doggedly the Army is willing to pursue serious alleged crimes like murder — and just how interested the Iraqi government is in the process.
Part of an elite parachute infantry sniper-scout platoon, Sgt. Evan Vela is accused of murdering an unarmed Iraqi that his five-man squad had taken captive after the man breached their hideout....
~ snip ~
As the first day of testimony in what is expected to be a four day trial kicked off on Friday before an eight-person jury of both officers and enlisted soldiers, Vela's civilian defense attorney James Culp argued that his client was not guilty of murdering Genei Nesir Khudair Al-Janabi because, at the time Vela pulled the trigger, he was so sleep-deprived and dehydrated after four days of non-stop battlefield action that he was neither in control of his actions nor fully aware of what he was doing. "It was a terrible accident," Culp said outside the courtroom during a recess, "but Evan didn't intentionally shoot anyone."
~ snip ~
Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, however, does not see the case as either a justified kill or a horrific accident by an exhaustion-impaired soldier. She was attending today's proceedings, she told TIME, because, "I want to be sure that any American soldier who wrongs an Iraqi will go on trial. [Vela] killed an Iraqi man, an unarmed man. He must be punished."
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
For previous threads, on this case, click at the LINK.
Nobody should be allowed to participate in a trial like this -- either as a judge, military "juror," government observer, or even a spectator -- without first spending three months serving with the defendant's unit under conditions that mirror (as closely as possible) the conditions that soldier faced in the field. If that means some @sshole JAG officers and an Iraqi "Minister of Human Rights" (why is it that these disgraceful American nation-building campaigns always end up implementing these Euro-weenie style bureaucracies like this? . . . but that's for another discussion) have to climb into Humvees and drive around Third World sh!t-holes every day for three months, then so be it.
Another US soldier thrown to the PC wolves. Meanwhile, the trial of PFC Phil Shore for “3rd degree murder” (thats what the military calls it when you shoot near someeone but dont hit them) begins next week in Hawaii. More efforts by the military to calm the savage PC beast.....throw a few soldiers their way and they will be happy, or so the Army hopes.
My hatred for those who abuse our own to show their devotion to our enemy is even greater than the hatred I feel for the enemy itself.
“innocent civilian” “accidentally stumbled into” prove it. Supposition without provable basis in true fact. We’ve lost sniper teams in Iraq. Prove this wasn’t a setup. A recon. An exploitation of known weakness in ROE?
Prove it.
This is an obvious attempt by the Iraqi government to influence the jury. If this person is identified in any way to the court, then this should be a mistrial. If it can be proven that the Iraqi government has received sympathetic communications of any variety from any level of the US government, and that those are even slightly known by any participant in the court martial, then this should be a mistrial or grounds for appeal in the event of any conviction.
One item that we've speculated on is what brought about the man's death.
The unit on the ground thought it was OBVIOUS that he was attempting to signal his whereabouts to the entire insurgent community...dangerous territory they were in.
In other words, he was acting as a COMBATANT. Therefore, killing a COMBATANT is justified.
It is NOT our job to be 2d guessing decisions on the ground made by the troops sent in on clandestine missions.
This is critical NEW information that we have only speculated on up to this point.
In his testimony today, Hensley, one of the soldiers already acquitted for his role in the death (but guilty of planting the AK-47), endeavored to justify the killing, saying that Al-Janabi would not stop yelling, crying and "flopping around like a fish" despite repeated efforts to silence him. It was then that Hensley says he decided, for the safety of his men, that Al-Janabi had to die. "I thought that he was trying alert insurgents," Hensley said.
BTW, I'm tracking news about the PFC Shore trial (and his two co-defendents in the 25th Div) at DefendOurTroops.
This is the first time that the media has acknowledged the role of the Iraqi government in the prosecution of our troops. We’ve suspected it, but to see it confirmed in print is absolutely sickening.
It becomes more apparent to me why the Govt. insisted on this trial be held in Iraq. Not to truly have the interests of Justice brought forth. But to further someone’s political agenda. Better than having it in Berkeley, though.
I can’t say I’m surprised at this. Can’t even say I’m disappointed, to be honest with you. This war was a farce from the start — and while I still get a lot of sh!t for saying that, it’s things like this nonsense that open more and more eyes to what’s really going on here.
I agree that’s critical testimony. The defense has reason to be confident that Sgt Vela will be exonerated. The Minister of Human Rights should go chase Al Qaeda.
While in enemy held territory and physically engaged with was believed to be an insurgent or insurgent scout that was desperately trying to attract attention, Vela's commanding officer ordered him to shoot.
Besides the fact that I don't see how Vela had a choice in the matter, this should be SOP.
The tone of the article is a tad bit different than McGirk's.
top command in our armed forces has been a pit of smelly bull——, since the firing of McCarthur (if not before). While civilian control of the military, is a constitutional and necessary thing, the politicization of the top brass has been disastrous. What has the military accomplished in the last few decades (Grenada and Panama being small exceptions)?
Political concerns, and not good patriotic concerns, have so defined the battles, that we fight with at least one hand tied behind our backs. We have not struck when and where we should and we have struck in places that we probably should not have.
Morale has survived to some extent, no thanks to feminization of the military and other goofy policies, mostly because of the all-volunteer policy.
I believe there is a huge gap between citizen-soldier and politician-soldier.
Now we know the name for Obama's VP choice.
Any soldier who harms an Iraqi huh.
Well then, to avoid any harm to them, I suggest we let them fix their own damn country. :(
Mikhail, Huh? Wonder if he has a birthmark on his butt that matches another famous Mikhail?
BTW, that reference to sand rubs me raw! :-)
What? Go wash your mouth out and keep your snarky comments about the War in Iraq to yourself, who cares what you “disapprove” of? I support America in this War on Terror and the brave military men who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ya...I have a friend who said there's a Burger King at Camp Victory. He said there's nothing worse then eating a sandy burger. Darn wind.
Here’s some other links:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq9feb09,1,1199511.story
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-zT8WvZY-uYK3d-CARtfDJgnR-wD8UM5U580
Thanks for the links, bighead! Glad to see the media is thwarting the Army’s goal of keeping this trial under wraps. Some of that may be due to the presence of media-friendly Dr Baden.
You mean all male citizens, which will not include the "guest workers", will be issued a full auto assault rifle, along with a tin of ammunition to keep at home? I could live with that. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: "Shoot twice and go home." That Switzerland? We could do a lot worse, as Romney said, we are on our way to becoming the France of the 21st Century. Multi ethnic (4 official languages!) Switzerland looks darn good compared to Muzzified France.
Oh, kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 hours of ground combat. Also kicked him out of his own country, and into Hell, with considerably fewer resources after the DemonRats and RINOs had cut their numbers unmercifully. Overthrew the Taliban, who sheltered those who attacked us in September of '01, with very few troops. Oh, and helped the Ethiopians kick the snot out of the "Black Hawk Down" Somali Muzzies.
Other than those things, not much of anything.
It surprises me that her statement was printed in the media, it only confirms to me this is a show trial for the Iraqis at the expense of our brave and dedicated soldiers.
These charges should have never been brought against any of the three of them, this PC crap has got to end if we're going to prosecute the WOT.
“It’s tragic because the PC beast will never be satisfied until America is a larger version of Switzerland.”
A nation founded by mercenaries, Napoleon described it as not being a nation with an army, but that it was an army that became a nation.
Many of their modern building codes require a war capability built into their infrastructure, parking lots usable for aviation, pre planned areas to place explosives in bridge structures, concealed mountain pass artillery placement, etc, and the ever popular requirement to keep your automatic assault rifle at home.
I thought that this may be one of the two nightmare situations that LRS people discuss so often where you have to kill an innocent (or not so innocent) to protect the team’s mission.
After reading the articles at your links we learn that there were two men and that one was told to leave, which seems to negate the need to kill this man, this doesn’t look good.
This thoroughly meets the criteria for a good killing.
The team was hidden from view in an insurgent stronghold area. The iraqi discovered their location. They attempted to subdue the man, but he would not stopping flopping and screaming. In other words, he continued to resist.
They thought he would signal the enemy. (They were right.)
They shot him.
>> This war was a farce from the start — and while I still get a lot of sh!t for saying that,
At least you’re getting something for your irrelevant remarks.
You deserve all the sh!t you get for posting remarks like you have on a thread like this.
Yeah, ‘cause God forbid anyone voice an opinion different from yours.
Perfectly stated - I agree 100%.
Did you read the links from 20, where they released his 17 year old son to do what he pleased?
Yeah, I think Sgt. Hensley’s testimony says all we need to know.
And just what is really going on here?
The Sunni Muslim father is captured.
The Sunni, 17 year old son comes looking for the father and is captured.
They notice men in the distance.
The son is released.
The unit believes the people are then looking for them and think they are within 500 feet.
The captive is struggling, making noise, attempting to signal.
The soldiers shoot him.
Why was the son released? I imagine he was released to get the men to DEPART the area and give them the clearance they needed to egress.
That would be my guess.
Instead, the troops are treated to continuing struggle from the prisoner, and they believe his intent is to signal their location.
This is ALL in the context of brains fogged by fatigue and fear.
The Sunni Muslim father is captured.
The Sunni, 17 year old son comes looking for the father and is captured.
They notice men in the distance.
The son is released.
The unit believes the people are then looking for them and think they are within 500 feet.
The captive is struggling, making noise, attempting to signal.
The soldiers shoot him.
Why was the son released? I imagine he was released to get the men to DEPART the area and give them the clearance they needed to egress.
That would be my guess.
Are you saying that the men in the distance appeared after the boy was sent home, or that the men appeared and that the boy was (possibly or probably) sent to get the men to leave that area?
The latter.
It’s hard to put the sequence together using the 3 links, but the NYT seems to make it sure that some men appeared before the son was released.
We don’t know what happened after that, whether the insurgents the unit feared were the same men that were spotted leading to the son’s release or whether the insurgents were a later group arriving after the initial group departed.
It doesn’t say.
They see men 500 yards away, they release one of the two men they are holding, and then they kill the unarmed father because the team could not keep him from thrashing?
I know that it is hard to get answers from these article, but it is a strange story.
I know what flame bait it is to keep an open mind on things like this on these threads, but I used to be in a LRRP/LRS Company and I have a real interest in this type of story.
Why would they release the boy?
It does not make sense
EXCEPT
If they were hoping for security even if they could not remain hidden.
That’s why I’m inclined to think that the sense that “insurgents” were coming indicates a NEW group of men.
Hensley’s in contact with his HQ. Why doesn’t he call for a helicopter to pick them up? Or does he, and we just don’t know about it because it wasn’t reported?
Why the charade of the radio about the guy approaching their position? I assume they had not reported capturing the man yet. Radio silence except for certain times of the day?
Too many questions, too little info.
“Too many questions, too little info.”
True, the average reporter doesn’t even know the kind of details that so many of us want to know, they all think that the big story is the killing, but our interest is in the details surrounding it.
Take a look at the Civil War, for example. That entire conflict was basically one long episode of gross incompetence on the part of the so-called "military leadership" in this country.
If you have any questions about where I stand, check out the bottom of my profile page.
Well, let's see . . .
We're supposed to be fighting a "war on terror," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Maybe I'm just naive, but I thought warfare means fighting against an ENEMY, not a method of violence. But then I guess I'm just old-fashioned, eh? If FDR had stood up on December 8, 1941 and referred to totalitarian fascism as a "religion of peace" while he called on Congress to declare war against "sneak attacks" and "blitzkrieg tactics," he would have been chained to his wheelchair and dumped in the Potomac River.
But that's exactly the kind of nonsense we've been reduced to these days . . . warfare against all sorts of things that can't be fought and don't require anyone to be offended, or obligated to actually do something -- i.e., "war on poverty," "war on drugs," "war on illiteracy," etc. How are those "wars" coming along?
This is what happens when a government has to gear up a propaganda campaign to generate public support for a military campaign that has nothing to do with its openly stated purpose. Some of us are skeptical enough to wonder how the hell the U.S. could possibly wage a "war on terror" to install a government in a Third World sh!t-hole -- in which ISLAM is enshrined as the official state religion, mind you -- even as the world's primary sponsors of radical Islam (the Saudi royal family) get invited to barbecues in Crawford, Texas.
Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that the U.S. would send 135,000+ soldiers to engage in active combat in the Middle East -- only to prosecute them when they actually do what soldiers are trained to do?
Thanks for reading my rant, folks.
Here is another link:
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=105&sid=577832
Mostly the same, a few added details.
Thank, bighead. Rumor has it that the defense rested today and will present closing arguments tomorrow.
o.where.o.where.were.you.when.we.needed.to.know.what.is.means
Yes and no.
Yes, the military leadership remaining in our country was not a battlefield leadership for the most part.
No, in that the military leadership was on the side of the south, and they did just fine at the outset of the war until the North could get their act together.
Remember that Lee was offered the generalship of the Army of the North but turned it down rather than fight against his beloved Virginia.
Yeah, I heard the same rumor.
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.