Posted on 08/27/2008 8:08:13 PM PDT by xzins
Witnesses ID three in Iraq detainee deaths
VILSECK, Germany — At least four Iraqis detained by soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade during a patrol in April 2007 were killed, but none of the four Germany-based U.S. soldiers charged last month in the incident pulled the trigger, according to witnesses who testified at an Article 32 hearing Tuesday in Vilseck.
During some seven hours of sworn testimony, soldiers who were on the patrol suggested that the four soldiers charged with conspiracy to commit premeditated murder — Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham, Sgt. Charles Quigley, Spc. Stephen Ribordy and Spc. Belmor Ramos — had either minor roles or no role at all in the deaths, but may have been involved in the alleged cover-up.
The soldiers who pulled the triggers, according to Sgt. Daniel Evoy, were 1st Sgt. John Hatley, who he called a beloved company first sergeant; Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Mayo, the company’s master gunner; and Sgt. Michael Leahy, a medic.
Evoy was the only witness questioned so far who saw the shootings. He testified that the patrol detained four Iraqis, returned to their combat outpost to drop off a disabled vehicle, and then left again, driving to a nearby canal. Once there, the Iraqis, who had been blindfolded and handcuffed and transported in the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle, were made to get on their knees.
Evoy said that when Hatley and Mayo told him they were going to shoot the detainees, he didn’t believe they meant it.
But as he watched the three men from his Bradley, he saw Leahy shoot one of the Iraqis with his handgun, and heard other shots, then dropped down into his vehicle in disbelief, he said.
"It all happened in mere seconds,” he said.
The first two witnesses to testify in the proceedings — Evoy and Spc. Joshua Hartson — said they’d kept quiet mostly out of fear for what might happen to them if they disobeyed Hatley’s order that they not talk about what happened to the detainees. A third witness, Spc. Humberto Navarro, said he didn’t say anything because he didn’t think the soldiers should get in trouble for shooting the detainees.
Evoy said that after the shootings, the patrol returned to the combat outpost and Hatley grabbed everyone up and told them not to talk about what happened.
All the soldiers on the patrol were members of Company A, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, when the incident took place.
Cunningham, Quigley, Ribordy and Ramos are the only soldiers charged so far in the case. The investigation, however, is ongoing, according to officials.
Ribordy and Ramos both waived their right to an Article 32 hearing before Tuesday’s proceedings and were in the process of negotiating pleas, according to an Army attorney.
The detainees’ deaths appear to have been kept a secret by members of the patrol for some eight months. Cunningham’s civilian defense counsel, attorney James Culp, said his client was the first person to come forward about the incident.
In January, Criminal Investigation Command investigators began questioning members of the unit about the incident, and by then many of those involved had moved on to other assignments.
The Article 32 hearing is scheduled to resume Wednesday
So, if for the sake of argument, we assume the facts as presented (which is not a safe thing to do), what do we do to support these troops if we accept:
1. They were certain the Mahdi army fighters they had captured had just killed 1/18 team members
2. They were told to release the detainees erroneously, because the unit felt they had insufficient support for detaining them.
3. Iraqi Army commanders of Iraqi units are now reporting that they think detainees get released too easily before proof can be found.
4. The unit was certain these Mahdi would kill again.
Thanks very much for posting this, xzins. We need to get up to speed.
If you know your rules are going to get some more of your people killed, then what do you do?
I’ve knocked on doors as part of a notification team to a next of kin.
It is not fun.
There should be a defense called, “Temporary Battlefield Insane Sanity”
i have found the word erroneously in no account of this incident.
Whether in error or not, it is a LAWFUL ORDER, and the soldiers were required to follow that order.
An E-7 and an E-8 are without excuse for not following the lawful orders of their commanders.
You trust your people on the ground. Assuming the facts as presented are correct, this beloved 1SG didn't shoot because he likes to kill. He shot because he was certain he was right.
Here's the challenge: defend this 1st Sergeant. How would you do it?
Sorry, doesn't cut it. The Iraqi Army opinion, while perhaps a basis for a CHANGE in US policy, has absolutely no bearing on the disobedience of lawful orders given by US Authorities. You know better than that.
These guys screwed themselves because they weren't thinking. And because of their rank, the Army isn't going to cut them a bit of slack. They knew better.
How would you defend them?
DISCLAIMER:
IF the story is true, i don't believe that these men have an excuse for their actions. However, my opinion aside...Keep in mind that i am not a lawyer. </DISCLAIMER>
i'd probably challenge the supposed eye witness accounts. i believe that the story as published has at least one account of hear-say testimony. If these guys keep their mouths shut, and nobody saw them shoot, or nobody can credibly say that they saw these men shoot...
Bodies are long gone. No balistics evidence.
While I disagree on one point....I do think their reasons for shooting would be entirely sane...I am in agreement that a defense lawyer has to attack the facts as presented.
As least one of the accusers has animosity toward the 1st Sergeant.
I’ve wanted to see someone challenge deadly dangerous policies or rules of engagement. What do you do when your Roes are insane and will get you killed?
Refuse the mission and face the consequences. That is also leadership.
Rules of Engagement are way above my pay grade, they've always sucked, and always will. Look hard enough, you can always find situations where any set of Rules of Engagement were not adequate for force protection. It's not an excuse. Soldiers do not make policy, they enforce policy.
You do realise that disobedience of a Lawful Order in a combat situation is a case for an officer's discression to use immediate deadly force against that subordinate, don't you?
The guy disobeys my lawful order while we're taking fire, i put my .45 to his head and repeat the order, or maybe just pull the trigger (safer for me to do so, cause the guy knows that he's facing telephone numbers of time in Leavenworth if i live to make an after action report), cause there is no way he's going to let me come out alive if it's in his power to do so.
If the unit is not taking fire (as was the case here), i have him disarmed, arrested, bound, and placed into custody.
Imagine your son in a unit with a sniper. He gotten one man a week over the last few weeks. They are dead certain they know who he is, but so far there's no legal proof. He likes to take out the guy carrying the Saw. Your son inherited that job after the last man died. You son takes care of business in the middle of the night. The suspect is eliminated. Is your son wrong?
Funny that we hear virtually nothing about our forces and citizens that have been captured and murdered nor of the thousands of innocents routinely slaughtered by the enemy.
My son IS a sniper.
Wow. Just full of good news tonight, eh?
Thanks for the info, sadly.
i don't have to imagine any of that. My boy is now a fire team leader. His primary weapon is the M-240. He also qualified on the M-24 sniper weapon system...outshot a senior NCO from Delta the first time he picked up the weapon...the kid is scary.
What you've described has already happened in my son's theatre of operation. The Marines involved were cleared, all charges dismissed. Turns out that they were following orders, and some three star general (who was not on the scene, and had no understanding of the particular situation) got a burr up his ass about it and filed charges against those Marines for doing their job, following their ROE's, and completing their mission.
NONE OF THAT APPLIES
This was a case of willful disobedience of a lawful order. Second, in your senerio, the boy takes care of business without witnesses, and keeps his mouth shut, unlike the situation that we are presently addressing.
These men, if the story is true, were not only wrong, they were stupid about how they did it.
I wrote that poorly. I should have said, "Imagine your son is in a unit that is afflicted by an enemy sniper. This enemy sniper has killed one man from your son's unit each week over the last few weeks. Your son and his friends are dead certain they know who the enemy sniper is, but so far there's no "legal" proof. The enemy sniper likes to take out the guy carrying the SAW. Your son inherited that job of carrying the SAW after the last man died. Suspecting who the enemy sniper is, your son takes care of business in the middle of the night. The suspected enemy sniper is eliminated. Is your son wrong to take him out?"
I'm sorry to seem lacking in compassion, but if those detainees were mortar-and-rocket-launching, IED-laying Mahdi Army Sadrist scum, the world is far better off without them.
I agree that the world is better off without them.
If you were the 1SG’s lawyer, how would you defend him?
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.