Mercy Murder In Iraq By US Soldiers

Mercy and Murder at Issue in Iraq Death
Two U.S. soldiers face charges after taking life of injured youth. They say he was already gone.
By Edmund Sanders
Times Staff Writer
November 5, 2004

BAGHDAD � As a U.S. Army patrol rolled into Sadr City one night in August, soldiers received a tip that militants in dump trucks were planting roadside bombs.

American troops had been clashing regularly with Al Mahdi militiamen in the restive Baghdad slum. So when Staff Sgt. Cardenas Alban of Carson saw an object fall from a garbage truck in the distance, his company took positions around the vehicle and unleashed a barrage of fire from rifles and a 25-millimeter cannon atop a Bradley fighting vehicle. The truck exploded in flames.

As soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, approached the burning vehicle, they did not find insurgents. The victims were mainly teenagers, hired to work the late shift picking up trash for about $5 a night, witnesses said.

Medics scrambled to treat the half-dozen people strewn around the scene. A dispute broke out among a handful of soldiers standing over one severely wounded young man who was moaning in pain. An uninjured Iraqi claiming to be a relative pleaded in broken English for soldiers to help the victim.

But to the horror of bystanders, Alban, 29, a boyish-faced sergeant who joined the Army in 1997, retrieved an M-231 assault rifle and fired at the wounded man.

Seconds later, another soldier, Staff Sgt. Johnny Horne Jr., 30, of Winston-Salem, N.C., grabbed an M-16 rifle and also shot the victim.

The killing might have been forgotten but for a U.S. soldier who days later slipped an anonymous note under the door of the unit's commander, Capt. Robert Humphries, alleging that "soldiers had committed serious crimes that needed to be looked at."

U.S. officials have since characterized the shooting as a "mercy killing," citing statements by Alban and Horne that they shot the wounded Iraqi "to put him out of his misery."

NY Newsday

Innocent Iraqi kids that you attack and wound by accident aren't animals to be "put to sleep" by the same person who mistakingly shot them in the first place.

I can only imagine what that kid's family must be thinking. We are creating more and more hatred towards the US everyday. When will the senseless death in Iraq stop?

Would you rather have the kid suffer in unbearable pain or just simply 'relieve' him of it?

If I was mortally wounded, I would rather be killed quickly then to lay on the ground for a couple of hours in the worst pain I've ever experienced in my entire life.

What is the militarys position on mercy killing? How frequently does it occur and what are soldiers taught in military training?

Jemison

I would rather he be given medical attention, driven or a medivac, rather than having a cook or a mechanic or a fuel handler or a supply clerk or anyone clearly not qualified to make choices like that kill that kid.

Who decides if someone is mortally wounded? I think that would be a doctors decision. It's not like they were in the middle of no where.


The Army guys say the kid's spine was showing and intestines spilling out. The kid's brother said he only had some burns. Cleary a mercy murder should not be left in the hands of kids on the ground.

EDIT:
Jemison, there is no policy on mercy killing. I was in the Army, in Iraq. We were taught, even if a guy is shooting at you, and you shoot him first, after he is down, you give him first aid if he's not dead.



[edit on 7-11-2004 by curme]

Whether or not to finish off a wounded enemy combatant is a decision to be considered on a case by case basis.

In this case, it obviously was not the such a situation and the matter is being attended to by the command.

curme, if you ever were a member of the United States Armed Forces, I can only say that you improved the troop quality several hundred percent by leaving.

[edit on 04/11/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

curme, if you ever were a member of the United States Armed Forces, I can only say that you improved the troop quality several hundred percent by leaving.

[edit on 04/11/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Hey, since I left Iraq, things have gotten worse. I'm not saying it was because I left, but you have to wonder....

I thought Bush was pro-life. No abortion, no euthanasia... So How come there can happen something like mercy killings on the battlefield ?

this is truely sickening and shows how the US
follows the geneva convention

Originally posted by vibetic
I thought Bush was pro-life.... So How come there can happen something like mercy killings on the battlefield ?

Did you read the article? The perpetrators are being prosecuted.

Theirs always going to be innocent losses in any war so don't be b*tchin about it in this war. Look back in the past their were more innocennt killings in Vietnam then their will ever be in Iraq


(excuse my language)

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by vibetic
I thought Bush was pro-life.... So How come there can happen something like mercy killings on the battlefield ?

Did you read the article? The perpetrators are being prosecuted.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Whether or not to finish off a wounded enemy combatant is a decision to be considered on a case by case basis.

I was referring to this. But I do understand that it's not always about killing for mercy.

Originally posted by Simulacra
Would you rather have the kid suffer in unbearable pain or just simply 'relieve' him of it?

If I was mortally wounded, I would rather be killed quickly then to lay on the ground for a couple of hours in the worst pain I've ever experienced in my entire life.

Damn I hate to hear this but I think I finally agree with you on something, it is a case by case basis, but the investigation needs to be done.

Originally posted by THX 1138
Look back in the past their were more innocennt killings in Vietnam then their will ever be in Iraq

Indeed, this is true and the vast majority were carried out systematically by the NVA and Viet Cong.

For example:

www.vietquoc.com...

www.specialoperations.com...

www.kysales.com...

My opinion doesnt matter because as usual everybody here has prejudged the situation and the people involved and either understand and support the basis of thier actions or have condemned them.

Mercy killings on the battlefield have been an element of war since its inception, along with the atrocity factor.

I beleive officially it is not allowed, but given the likelyhood of being in that position theres an unspoken consent on the issue that you follow your conscience. I personally think if I was so badly wounded and in so much pain, I would prefer to think that my enemy or even a freind would do me the kindness of ending it. It is certainly preferable to me than someone watching me burn to death or writhe in agony, especially if for the "sport" of it.

Its one of those times where I think "there but for the grace of god go I" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" must come to mind.

To people who have seen some of the injuries inflicted in this war, can you honestly say that if you were able you would want to survive. especially if only for a couple of hours of pure agony.

We have no way and we never will have the ability to judge this unless we have been standing there AS IT HAPPENED. The only Truth is we may never know the Truth...only those young men will have to live with it for the rest of thier lives. Even if one of them does a Kerry or a Macnamara, we can never be sure. Well at least I can't. One groups act of mercy is anothers war crime.

I watched my mother die for six weeks from terminal bowel cancer that there was nothing we could do about. She had said she didnt want to linger and suffer once the intense pain began, but there was nothing for the doctors to do but up the meds until she seemed relaxed. Unfortunately in her last days that mean't being unable to communicate. In the eyes you could see an alert mind with out the means of reaching out or speaking. All we could do was talk to her and watch her frustration.

The though of being killed in war only scares me a little.Its lingering uselessly and needlessly that wouldve terrified me.

The 19th Century English and the Americans portrayed thier Zulu and Indian foes as barbaric animals and superstitious savages in reports of the mulilation of bodies and the killing of the injured. Whist some of this was the terror of war, modern researchers and scientific experts found a just cause for the actions.

They found in tribal tales or remedies that the bodies of thier enemies (and thier own dead) would be laid open. In some cases to release the evil spirits or by the more practical to reduce the risk of illness. Bodies left to the elements would breed insect born diseases. The science confirmed these were reduced when they were laid open. They had no developed medical services to treat the wounded or lay on long term care and support for them, so much as medeval Europeans and enlightened muslims once did, they usually did the most merciful thing they thought the could. They finished them off. I'm not intending to make a comparison but its the same as they would do with diseased or seriously injured livestock to prevent disease or "the bad spirits" from coming.

Its easy to say its un-necessary in the world of modern medical science, that the boy might have been saved. But my guess is a good proportion of the combat troops have seen more death and injury than you or I would care for,or part veterans wish to remember. It might have been meant as a good humane call on thier part.

I will not prejudge thier intention. I will leave that to a board of inquiry. If they were lying about thier intent, as one soldiers seems concerned by the action, others may follow. But we will never know for sure.

One side or the other will no doubt take comfort from a judgement, regardless of the truth.

And if it was an honest act of mercy I will not judge thier action in making the call.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by craigandrew]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by craigandrew]

Noone has the right to take life of another person. This is a crime.

It amazes me how the so call compashioned american people in this forums can talk so cold about a human life just because if from another country and they can be expendable.

Any way you put it is cold hard murder of a breathing human being with a life a name and a family.

Curme I read this a while back but it seems that nobody care.

A cop pulls up to a HORRIFIC motorcycle accident.
The rider is lying on the street, blood is coming from his ears, eyes, mouth, and nose. Lots of it.
He is moving, but cannot communicate.
The ambulance is on the way, but it's a rural area, and it could take 15 minutes, or longer.
The cop, does not administer first aid, instead, he begins to take photos of the accident, and draws a chalk line around the body.
The victim dies, before the ambulance arrives.

Was the cop wrong, in not administering first aid?

This is a true story. I know some of the parties involved.
I thought it was similar to this, story, in that the cop made a determination.
But was he right or wrong?

Originally posted by spacedoubt
A cop pulls up to a HORRIFIC motorcycle accident.
The rider is lying on the street, blood is coming from his ears, eyes, mouth, and nose. Lots of it.
He is moving, but cannot communicate.
The ambulance is on the way, but it's a rural area, and it could take 15 minutes, or longer.
The cop, does not administer first aid, instead, he begins to take photos of the accident, and draws a chalk line around the body.
The victim dies, before the ambulance arrives.

Was the cop wrong, in not administering first aid?

This is a true story. I know some of the parties involved.
I thought it was similar to this, story, in that the cop made a determination.
But was he right or wrong?

Good comparison, but there ae too few details in either case to determine if they are similiar.

In World War II, if a soldier was mortally wounded, the medic would simply give him enough morphine that he didn't feel any pain and let him die. There was no point to wasting life-saving resources such as bandages and time on somebody who is on his way out regardless.

However, in this case, it doesn't seem that a trained medic made the call, even though they were present. I would say that if a qualified individual declared the boy un-saveable, then the mercy killing may have been justified under law. But having someone else make that call, well, I can't agree with that. Maybe it was the best thing to do in a bad situation, but there are still rules that need to be followed. Had no medics been present at all, it would have been a totally different scenario.

Originally posted by marg6043
It amazes me how the so call compashioned american people in this forums can talk so cold about a human life just because if from another country and they can be expendable.

when someone is so bitter from hate
they will think of anything to justify their acts

Originally posted by spacedoubt
A cop pulls up to a HORRIFIC motorcycle accident.
The rider is lying on the street, blood is coming from his ears, eyes, mouth, and nose. Lots of it.
He is moving, but cannot communicate.
The ambulance is on the way, but it's a rural area, and it could take 15 minutes, or longer.
The cop, does not administer first aid, instead, he begins to take photos of the accident, and draws a chalk line around the body.
The victim dies, before the ambulance arrives.

Was the cop wrong, in not administering first aid?

This is a true story. I know some of the parties involved.
I thought it was similar to this, story, in that the cop made a determination.
But was he right or wrong?

Of course the cop was wrong. No first aid, no attempt whatsoever? Sounds pretty hard to believe but if it's true, of course the cop was wrong.