Army recommends death in Iraq slayings

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer Sun Sep 3, 2:23 AM ET

An Army investigator has recommended that four soldiers accused of murder in a raid in Iraq should face the death penalty if convicted, according to a report obtained Saturday by The Associated Press.

Lt. Col. James P. Daniel Jr. concluded that the slayings were premeditated and warranted the death sentence based on evidence he heard at an August hearing. The case will now be forwarded to Army officials, who will decide whether Daniel's recommendation should be followed.

The soldiers, all from the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division's 187th Infantry Regiment, are accused of killing three Iraqi men taken from a house May 9 on a marshy island outside Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett and Spc. Juston R. Graber have claimed they were ordered to "kill all military age males" during the raid on the island. According to statements from some of the soldiers, they were told the target was an al-Qaida training camp.

Hunsaker told investigators that he and Clagett were attacked by the three men, who were being handcuffed, and shot them in self-defense. Clagett said he was hit in the face, and Hunsaker claimed he was stabbed during the attack.

Prosecutors argue the soldiers conspired to kill the men and then altered the scene to fit their story. They contend Girouard stabbed Hunsaker as part of the killing plot.

Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker also are accused of threatening to kill another soldier who witnessed the slayings. Girouard, the most senior soldier charged, faces several additional charges, including sexual harassment and carrying a personal weapon on duty.

Paul Bergrin, Clagett's civilian attorney, said he was surprised that Daniel recommended the case be taken to trial at all.

"I'm extremely disappointed and disheartened," Bergrin said Saturday. "They are being used as pawns in the war on terror. They followed the rules of engagement. They were confronted with violence by a known al-Qaida training camp member."

Other lawyers in the case, several of whom are deployed to Iraq, did not immediately respond to e-mail requests for comment.

The soldiers are expected to be tried at Fort Campbell. They have been jailed in Kuwait since their arrests this year.

The U.S. military has not executed a soldier since the 1960 hanging of a soldier convicted rape and attempted murder.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060903/ap_on_re_us/iraq_soldiers_charged

http://www.bartcop.com/bfee-gitmo.jpg

[clarker]

If they are convicted they should get the death penalty. But they deserve a trail first.

[Rohirrim]

Hasn't there been enough death?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obviously, you can't give these guys a pass, but I believe the sh*tty leadership from the top on down is partially to blame for the ongoing recurrence of these kinds of incidents.

[clarker]

Obviously, you can't give these guys a pass, but I believe the sh*tty leadership from the top on down is partially to blame for the ongoing recurrence of these kinds of incidents.I agree with that. But in the end they are responsible for the own actions. In a perfect world Rummy would have been fired along time ago for his stupid actions. That doesn't mean he should be put to death for actions of the other people. They knew right from wrong path and they took the wrong path. It is on their heads alone as far as the being put to death for this.

I would say that some of their leadership should be held accountable for not seeing these people were about to snap. I just don't know what the punishment should be.

[TailgateNut]

I agree with that. But in the end they are responsible for the own actions. In a perfect world Rummy would have been fired along time ago for his stupid actions. That doesn't mean he should be put to death for actions of the other people. They knew right from wrong path and they took the wrong path. It is on their heads alone as far as the being put to death for this.

I would say that some of their leadership should be held accountable for not seeing these people were about to snap. I just don't know what the punishment should be.


The problem with the military "rewards" system is the fact that when something good happens the upper crust get the "rewards", but if something bad happens the guy at the bottom has to swallow the "rewards" and those who are in charge walk away smelling like a rose.
Don't get me wrong. These guys need to be punished, but military investigations seem to stop when they start revealing the failed policies of the leaders.

[clarker]

The problem with the military "rewards" system is the fact that when something good happens the upper crust get the "rewards", but if something bad happens the guy at the bottom has to swallow the "rewards" and those who are in charge walk away smelling like a rose.
Don't get me wrong. These guys need to be punished, but military investigations seem to stop when they start revealing the failed policies of the leaders.
But just because a policy is failed doesn't mean the leadership of military is guilty of these actions. Hell even the guys who on trial are suppose to be presumed to be not guilty until they are convicted.

If they are convicted then they deserve what they get, IMO.

[TailgateNut]

But just because a policy is failed doesn't mean the leadership of military is guilty of these actions. Hell even the guys who on trial are suppose to be presumed to be not guilty until they are convicted.

If they are convicted then they deserve what they get, IMO.


Failed policy and shoddy leadership causes these types actions. Your typical soldier generally will not resort to these types of actions. Although they make the final move, someone generally condones this type of behavior or events may have driven the soldier to go "overboard". It is the responsibility of his superiors to recognize these problems. If their superiors had a "hand" in this, they should also be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

[clarker]

Failed policy and shoddy leadership causes these types actions. Your typical soldier generally will not resort to these types of actions. Although they make the final move, someone generally condones this type of behavior or events may have driven the soldier to go "overboard". It is the responsibility of his superiors to recognize these problems. If their superiors had a "hand" in this, they should also be held accountable to the full extent of the law.I agree that their superiors should have been able to recognize these problems. But you can't put them to death for that. Perhaps they should lose their jobs, perhaps time in jail(although I think that might too much.) but that is it.

Bottom line is that they pulled the trigger. They are responsable. Perhaps their lawyers can argue that these failed policy and shoddy leadership drove them to it and get them off by pleading that they were insane.

[Rohirrim]

IMO, it's extremely hypocritical to take a boy, teach him to kill, teach him the rules of combat, then put him in a situation where those rules do not apply, fail to provide him with the leadership, forces and equipment to deal with this new paradigm, then - when he thinks his tour is up - you put him back in for another tour, meanwhile, the leadership makes no effort to change its tactics, increase its forces, or alter its training, while every day this boy sees his strategic situation descending into chaos and more of his buddies being killed, while he sees his leaders on the news saying such chaos does not exist and is a media lie, and there's no reason to change anything because we're winning, and finally - when this boy blows a gasket and takes it out on those whose presence threatens his survival every single day (or at least, appears to be a threat - or MAY be a threat at any moment), then you arrest him, try him, and what... shoot him?

[TailgateNut]

IMO, it's extremely hypocritical to take a boy, teach him to kill, teach him the rules of combat, then put him in a situation where those rules do not apply, fail to provide him with the leadership, forces and equipment to deal with this new paradigm, then - when he thinks his tour is up - you put him back in for another tour, meanwhile, the leadership makes no effort to change its tactics, increase its forces, or alter its training, while every day this boy sees his strategic situation descending into chaos and more of his buddies being killed, while he sees his leaders on the news saying such chaos does not exist and is a media lie, and there's no reason to change anything because we're winning, and finally - when this boy blows a gasket and takes it out on those whose presence threatens his survival every single day (or at least, appears to be a threat - or MAY be a threat at any moment), then you arrest him, try him, and what... shoot him?

That appears to be the fix. War is hell and things happen to young soldiers' minds while in combat. I still argue that the superiors are the ones who ultimately have the responsibility to control these situations, monitor and educate/ train the lower echelon to avoid these types of occurances.