• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another US Soldier Charged

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
From Yahoo News

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041207/ap_on_re_eu/germany_us_soldier_charged&cid=518&ncid=1480

By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer BERLIN - [size=-1]A U.S. tank company commander accused of killing a critically injured Iraqi driver for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will be court-martialed, an Army spokesman said Tuesday[/size]

Capt. Rogelio Maynulet, 29, of Chicago, will be tried on charges of assault with intent to commit murder and dereliction of duty, which carry a maximum combined sentence of 20 1/2 years, said Maj. Michael Indovina.

During Maynulet's Article 32 hearing — the equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation — witnesses testified that the driver had been shot in the head when Maynulet saw him. A fellow officer said Maynulet told him he then shot the man out of compassion.

Maynulet was initially charged with murder, but 1st Armored Division commander Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey decided Monday to proceed with lesser charges at his court-martial. The Army would not say whether Dempsey was acting on the Article 32 hearing officer's recommendation or opted for lesser charges himself.

Maynulet's defense attorney, Capt. Will Helixon, could not be reached for comment.

In Iraq (news - web sites), meanwhile, a final witness testified Tuesday in a separate case of a U.S. soldier, who is accused of murdering an Iraqi man and making a false statement regarding the incident.

The U.S. military said a decision is expected by Sunday on whether to court martial Spc. Brent May, 22, of Salem, Ohio, who is charged with the August murder of an Iraqi civilian in Baghdad's impoverished Sadr City.

May is attached to Company C, 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, from Fort Riley, Kan., and was charged in September — along with Sgt. Michael P. Williams, 25, of Memphis, Tenn. — with three counts of premeditated murder of three Iraqis. Williams has not yet been brought before a military court.

Former commanders of Maynulet spoke highly of him during his hearing, saying he was a trustworthy officer and particularly good combat commander.

Prosecutors tried to paint a different picture, however, citing other incidents in which they maintained Maynulet broke military rules.

They said he had carried a non-regulation weapon and once broke into an Iraqi police station to retrieve an identification card for a civilian contractor.

The court-martial charges stem from a May 21 incident when Maynulet was leading his tank company on a patrol near Kufa, where heavy fighting had been reported.

They encountered a sedan thought to be carrying a driver for al-Sadr and another militiaman loyal to the cleric, whose supporters rose up against U.S. forces twice this year.

U.S. soldiers chased the vehicle and fired at it, wounding both the driver and passenger.

When a medic pulled the driver out of the car, it was clear he had suffered critical injuries, with part of his skull blown away, according to testimony during the Article 32 hearing held June 25-Oct. 14 in Baghdad and Hanau, Germany.

Maynulet's fellow officer, 1st Lt. Colin Cremin, testified that Maynulet told him he then shot the Iraqi in the base of the neck or the back of the head.

"It was something he didn't want to do, but it was the compassionate response," Cremin testified. "It was definitely the humane response."

A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing on video. The footage was replayed during the Article 32 hearings once the public and reporters were removed from the courtroom. Hearing officer Maj. Michael J. Fadden said the video would remain classified because it could reveal the Army's capabilities in Iraq.

The military has only referred to the driver as an "unidentified paramilitary member," but relatives named him as Karim Hassan, 36. The family does not dispute that he was working for al-Sadr.

Maynulet's command was suspended May 25 but he remains with his unit, serving on the division's planning staff.

The 1st Armored Division is headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany, although no venue has been chosen for the court-martial. No date has been set.
 
Last edited:

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Let's wait to see what the military has to say at the Court Martial.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
These type of stories should never hit the public news.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yes, but I also believe in responsibility of the press. Some things need to be addressed in private by the military.

Al gurab(sp) prison in Iraq - case and point.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
I'm not in favor of suppressing the presses right to report stories. Unless they directly effect national security and put others safety at risk. Like when Douch Bag for freedom Robert Novak outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. Other then cases of that nature I think the press has the right to report.
 

Tetsuo

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
vauge said:
Yes, but I also believe in responsibility of the press. Some things need to be addressed in private by the military.

Al gurab(sp) prison in Iraq - case and point.
Isn't responsability of the press an oxymoron?

The press always report what is in the best interests of the company that owns that media avenue. Look at the mess that the American elections got in to the time before last with Fox claiming man they wanted to win had won when other networks claimed outerwise. Or what about the coverage that suicide bombers get in Israel when the daily military bombardments on Palestine are ignored.

A proper press needs to not be owned by a company as companies have an agenda, also it needs not to be owned by the government as it will be used for propaganda. It needs to be owned by the people but I have no idea how this would happen, the nearest thing to that is the BBC which is also the most objective news corporation in the world. As for most of the American news networks I sometimes wonder if bias has even been put on the weather reports.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Isn't responsability of the press an oxymoron?
It shouldn't be. There is nothing wrong with keeping your mouth shut sometimes.

Which is more important, covering a murder for news - or doing something to keep that murder from happening? I would hope that humanity would set in and they try to help, but that is not always the case. The journalist should be held just as accountable as the public.

Adding to that - should that video be submitted as evidence before it even hits public airwaves?
 

IronTongue

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
Tetsuo said:
A proper press needs to not be owned by a company as companies have an agenda, also it needs not to be owned by the government as it will be used for propaganda. It needs to be owned by the people...
How much would you be willing to pay for a news network?

BTW, if that is true about FOXNews, then couldn't the same thing be said about CNN, whose owner Ted Turner, despises President Bush?
 

Tetsuo

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I do not doubt that CNN has as much bias or coercion in its broadcasts than Fox (apart from maybe the election scandal considering the personnel on the news desk) and I agree with your point 100% but if you were to ask me how much I would pay for a news service I would point out to you that the BBC is paid for by the people of Britain via a license that all have to pay if they own a television. The license fee is in BGP £119 so if you ask how much I would pay the answer if roughly $226.
 

IronTongue

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
I have a problem with forcing people to pay for a license just to buy a T.V. What if I just wanted to play video games, or what if I really don't want the news at all?
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
I do not doubt that CNN has as much bias or coercion in its broadcasts than Fox (apart from maybe the election scandal considering the personnel on the news desk) and I agree with your point 100% but if you were to ask me how much I would pay for a news service I would point out to you that the BBC is paid for by the people of Britain via a license that all have to pay if they own a television. The license fee is in BGP £119 so if you ask how much I would pay the answer if roughly $226.
Corperate radion blows and from what I've heard about the BBC, government radio wouldn't be much better.

AAAH! Flash back! "It's 1300 hrs in central europe, you are listening to the Armed Forces Network." Yep. Government radio blows.
 

Tetsuo

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
IronTongue said:
I have a problem with forcing people to pay for a license just to buy a T.V. What if I just wanted to play video games, or what if I really don't want the news at all?
I don't know for sure but I was told that if you have no ariel going in to your house for TV and no ariels in the house then a TV can be counted as a monitor. The BBC as well as being a news network also is an entertainment network so if you dont watch the news you will watch the other programmes I guess.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Tetsuo said:
I don't know for sure but I was told that if you have no ariel going in to your house for TV and no ariels in the house then a TV can be counted as a monitor. The BBC as well as being a news network also is an entertainment network so if you dont watch the news you will watch the other programmes I guess.
Huh? Did I miss something?
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
We got a little off topic. Hopefully we'll be back on target soon. My apologies for my part in it.
 

Tetsuo

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
My bad, anyway back to the point.
Mine was that despite the US having a genuine freedom of press all of the media channels that news comes down are controlled by large companies that have agendas and so freedom of press does not ensure relevant, unbiased commentary.
Also that in my own humble opinnion the BBC is the best newsnetwork in the world.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Tetsuo said:
My bad, anyway back to the point.
Mine was that despite the US having a genuine freedom of press all of the media channels that news comes down are controlled by large companies that have agendas and so freedom of press does not ensure relevant, unbiased commentary.
Also that in my own humble opinnion the BBC is the best newsnetwork in the world.
The here in the US is certainly slanted. But it depends on which network you watch as to what slant you get. Though under the Bush regime they been real effective at cutting off press that disagrees with their position. Here just recently they cut off a newspaper in Colorado that ran a piece about soldiers being treated unfairly by the National Guard's health care system. That paper was immediately removed from having access to the base and was no longer "invited" to press conferences. Several reporters have noted that if they report anything neg. about the President and or the Adiminstration they're removed from having access to the White House briefings. Of course most of this has been quiet because if they make too much noise they loose their access. No access, no reports, no job. And trust me now is not a good time to be loosing your job.

I read the BBC stuff on-line and I think they're not bad. But over here you get people that claim they're totally bias against Bush. Personally I think that's because you have a large group of people who scream "media bias" anytime there is a report that has any neg. tone directed at this administration. It really doesn't matter whether not the report is factual or accurate. If it doesn't basically say "Bush is great, doing great things" then it's bias and full of rubbish and therefore not worth listening or reading. For those people we have Fox Network. And they love Fox, it is by far the most widely watched cable news network. Studies show if you watch Fox for your news you're likely to have misconceptions about all kinds of facts. And that's not by accident-there's a reason for that.
 
Top Bottom