I don't even know where to begin.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Lt. Col. Paul Calvert, also testifying on Welshofer's behalf, said attacks by Iraqi insurgents around the western Iraqi city of al Qaim, the area where Mowhoush was taken into custody, "went to practically none" when Mowhoush died.
I'd begin here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Arab media is going to have a field day with this.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
quote: A military jury on Monday ordered a reprimand but no jail time for an Army interrogator convicted of killing an Iraqi general by stuffing him headfirst into a sleeping bag and sitting on his chest.
Welshofer, 43, had originally been charged with murder and faced up to life in prison. But on Saturday he was convicted instead of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty.
On the lesser charges, he had faced a maximum of three years and three months in prison, a dishonorable discharge, loss of his pension and other penalties.
I don't know that I necessarily disagree with the verdict. I mean I don't know all the details, but it doesn't sound like he was trying to kill the general, and on the list of potential interrogation techniques, smothering sounds less atrocious than many other things. I mean being temporarily deprived of oxygen involuntarily is a frightening thing, that's why it was used, but most people can hold their breath for several minutes and recover again in less than ten minutes. I'm not saying it sounds fun, but it seems like a reasonable military interrogation technique as opposed to violent beatings, electric shock, being forced to drink poisonous liquids, long-term starvation, rape, and the list goes on. Obviously he should have realized that the man was dying, and he should be punished for killing him, but I think negligent homicide or even manslaughter is an appropriate sentence for what he did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Smothering is more enjoyable than electric shock, rape, or drinking poison. That's how you know we're the good guys.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:
quote:Lt. Col. Paul Calvert, also testifying on Welshofer's behalf, said attacks by Iraqi insurgents around the western Iraqi city of al Qaim, the area where Mowhoush was taken into custody, "went to practically none" when Mowhoush died.
I'd begin here.
I don't really think unintended consequences have much to do with determining guilt, innocence, OR sentencing.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
You're right of course, Tom, human rights shouldn't be conditional, and the existence of worse things doesn't make smothering good. On the other hand I can understand the frustration, desperation, and fear that would lead someone to consider more aggressive interrogation techniques. Not saying they are right or good, just understandable. And, under the atrocities that human kind is able to justify out of fear and self-protection, this seems to be a lesser violation of those moral standards. Killing the general was a worse violation than smothering, but it was not a deliberate murder, nor did the act seem to be motivated by a particular malice or sadism. Therefore it seems to be fair that Welshofer be punished for killing the general, though not necessarily for using smothering as an interrogation technique.
Regardless of intent, or later regret, he did kill a man who was not a direct threat (though he did represent an indirect threat). That being said I think Welshofer's sentence, basically two months of house arrest, and a fine, is fair, a little mild, but still fair. I think the fairest would be to reduce his rank and change his job from interrogator to something else. He has shown that he can't be trusted in that position. Overall this does not seem to be a gross miscarriage of justice.
It has nothing to do with us being 'good' guys. I think that if America had any pretense of being good guys going into Iraq, those pretenses were shattered by Abu Ghraib, which truly was an atrocity. So in summary I do not condone smothering as an interrogation technique, and I think that killing is even worse, but I do not agree that this is case is horrific. In fact it seems to be quite fair and reasonable; so I don't understand the extreme reaction; unless it was to the act of smothering, in which case perhaps I am just jaded by too much violence in the media, but it does not seem very surprising or atrocious in comparison to worse crimes.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am actually waiting to hear more about this before I start getting *too* excited.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Yes. Smothering is more enjoyable than electric shock, rape, or drinking poison. That's how you know we're the good guys.
Ha.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So a "Whoops, I accidentally killed him while torturing him." gets a "tsk tsk" as punishment. Wonder how that would work with "Whoops, I accidentally killed him while robbing a bank." Cute. A low-ranking female short-termer receives 3+years in prison for humiliating prisoners by posing in pictures with them. But it's alright for male officers, albeit a lifer warrant officer to murder them. Typical really.
[ January 24, 2006, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Originally posted by Audeo: QUOTE: but most people can hold their breath for several minutes UNQUOTE "most" people would have trouble holding their breath for ONE minute under non-stressful circumstances, let alone while in a fearful situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wonder how that would work with "Whoops, I accidentally killed him while robbing a bank."
Felony murder - death penalty-eligible in many states.
If military law is at all like civillian criminal law, then an implicit underlying aspect of this decision - and the more important one in the long term - is that the actual technique used was not considered torture or even illegal.
Food for thought.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's the legal definition of negligent homicide?
On the surface, it certainly appears, reagardless of the surrounding circumstances, that there'd be a good case against him for that. It said right in the article that his methods increased in their level of violence against the general before it ended up resulting in death, that shows a pattern of events which I'd think support the fact that there was some intent on the part of the guy to do harm.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To paraphrase the model penal code, one 1) whose conduct creates a risk of serious injury or death, 2) that he should be aware of, and 3) such conduct results in the death of another human being is guilty of negligent homicide.
It requires something worse than gross negligence in most states, but the prosecution does not have to prove the person was aware of the risk.
If someone is committing a violent felony (torture would presumably qualify) that results in death, it's usually murder.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Doesn't torture usually aggravate a (civilian) murder charge? So it would seem that if they're not charging him with murder, they're implying that the torture was not illegal? THAT makes me sad. Even if it's not, it should be.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)