justice will prevail over evil

[Isaac]

US soldiers charged over Iraqi death


Sunday 25 June 2006, 13:41 Makka Time, 10:41 GMT


The US military has come under pressure over prisoner abuse



Related:
Factbox: Haditha
Report: Troops lied about Iraq deaths
Marines implicated in civilian deaths



Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback



Two US soldiers have been charged over the killing of an Iraqi civilian near Ramadi.


Specialist Nathan Lynn was charged with voluntary manslaughter for allegedly shooting an unarmed man on February 15.

Lynn and a second soldier, Sergeant Milton Ortiz Jr, were charged with obstructing justice for allegedly conspiring with another soldier who reportedly put an AK-47 near the body in an attempt to make it look as though the dead man was a fighter.

Ortiz was also charged with assault and communicating a threat in a separate incident on March 8. He allegedly put an unloaded weapon to the head of an Iraqi man and threatened to send him to prison.

The soldier who allegedly placed the weapon near the body was redeployed and left the army before criminal proceedings began.

Both soldiers - from the 1st Battalion, 109th Infantry (Mechanised) of the Pennsylvania National Guard - are being held in Baghdad while they await hearings which will determine if there is enough evidence to hold to a court martial.

Early release

A US soldier convicted of killing an Iraqi cow herder has been released from a military prison almost a year early, his lawyer said.

Army Specialist Edward Richmond Jr was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in August 2004 and sentenced to three years in jail.

Richmond was found guilty of shooting Muhamad Husain Kadir in the back of the head in the village of Taal Al Jal, which is about 65km southwest of Kirkuk.

Richmond was released on parole from an Oklahoma military prison on Friday.

"He told me this morning it feels good to be free," said his father, Edward Richmond Sr.

The soldier said that he shot Kadir because he thought he lunged at the soldier who was holding him and that he was not aware Kadir's hands were bound.

[Ninth_Scribe]

Specialist Nathan Lynn was charged with voluntary manslaughter for allegedly shooting an unarmed man on February 15.

Lynn and a second soldier, Sergeant Milton Ortiz Jr, were charged with obstructing justice for allegedly conspiring with another soldier who reportedly put an AK-47 near the body in an attempt to make it look as though the dead man was a fighter.

I'm not happy with this ruling. I would have charged them with premeditated murder, first degree, and obstruction of justice. How would you define the killing of an unarmed man?

Ninth Scribe

[wilberhum]

I would have charged them with premeditated murder, first degree,

What makes you think it was premeditated? Why first degree? Do you really understand the defination of those terms? I think not.

[Isaac]

hey i think we have a lawyeron this forum. elaborate please:happy:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Trumble]

I'm not happy with this ruling. I would have charged them with premeditated murder, first degree, and obstruction of justice. How would you define the killing of an unarmed man?

Wilberhum is quite right. Whether the victim was armed or not does not "define" whether the killing was premeditated or not. It can be relevant, but there are many cases you can think of where it would clearly be absurd. For example, say a fist-fight gets out of hand, and an unarmed person is killed - is that premeditated? Or say an armed robber lies in wait and shoots the (armed) police officer attempting to catch him - is that NOT premeditated?

The Prosecution will, as always, charge with the most severe offence that they think a Jury is actually likely to convict on. Clearly there was insufficient evidence to convince a jury that the killing was premeditated even if, of course, it actually was.

[abdmez]

Clearly there was insufficient evidence to convince a jury that the killing was premeditated even if, of course, it actually was.

Very true. Good post. There is no way evidence will be found to convict them of premeditated murder.

[lavikor201]

What would be the military punishment for pre-meditated Murder? Death penalty?

[Ninth_Scribe]

Wilberhum is quite right. Whether the victim was armed or not does not "define" whether the killing was premeditated or not. It can be relevant, but there are many cases you can think of where it would clearly be absurd. For example, say a fist-fight gets out of hand, and an unarmed person is killed - is that premeditated? Or say an armed robber lies in wait and shoots the (armed) police officer attempting to catch him - is that NOT premeditated?

The Prosecution will, as always, charge with the most severe offence that they think a Jury is actually likely to convict on. Clearly there was insufficient evidence to convince a jury that the killing was premeditated even if, of course, it actually was.

I didn't judge the men as guilty of the crime. I only wish they would answer to the first degree charge and prove their innocence. Manslaughter automatically implies the killing was not intentional.... despite the fact that they intentionally tried to cover it up. So basically, they are innocent, even though they behaved like they were guilty. If they were civilians, living here, their attempt to cover the death up alone would have been enough to indict them.

Ninth Scribe

[Ninth_Scribe]

Very true. Good post. There is no way evidence will be found to convict them of premeditated murder.

No evidence... but plenty of admissible testimony. Of course, this man's testimony will go unheard since the charges entered no longer require it. Nice one!

But I still have to ask, why did this man come foward... if he believed there was no guilt?

Ninth Scribe

[wilberhum]

despite the fact that they intentionally tried to cover it up.

Intentionally trying to cover up a crime is not Murder. Where in the world are you comming from?

[Ninth_Scribe]

Intentionally trying to cover up a crime is not Murder. Where in the world are you comming from?

I never said it was... but it does imply that his testimony is corrupt... therefore his actions may also be corrupt. But it's water under the bridge now, isn't it? What I would have done is irrelevant anyway.

Ninth Scribe

[wilberhum]

it does imply that his testimony is corrupt... therefore his actions may also be corrupt. Ninth Scribe

Of course it is up to the courts, but if they are quilty, they could be charged with obstruction of justice, not murder. I still doubt that they set out to kill them. It was a bad situation handled badly. Anyway, I hope justice is served in just proprotions.

[Ninth_Scribe]

Of course it is up to the courts, but if they are quilty, they could be charged with obstruction of justice, not murder. I still doubt that they set out to kill them. It was a bad situation handled badly. Anyway, I hope justice is served in just proprotions.

There are too many of these bad situations. I'll just say that I hope for his sake, his name doesn't come up again in the future.

Ninth Scribe