| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. sergeants killed blindfolded Iraqis, statements say |
| 2008-08-27 |
| In March or April 2007, three noncommissioned U.S. Army officers, including a first sergeant, a platoon sergeant and a senior medic, killed four Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots to the head as the men stood handcuffed and blindfolded beside a Baghdad canal, two of the officers said in sworn statements. After the killings, the first sergeant - the senior noncommissioned officer of his army company - told the other two to remove the men's bloody blindfolds and plastic handcuffs, according to the statements made to army investigators, which were obtained by The New York Times, whose global edition is the International Herald Tribune. The statements and other court documents were provided by a person close to one of the soldiers in the unit who insisted on anonymity and who has an interest in the outcome of the legal proceedings. After removing the blindfolds and handcuffs, the three soldiers shoved the four bodies into the canal, rejoined other members of their unit waiting in nearby vehicles and drove back to their combat outpost in southwest Baghdad, the statements said. The officers, all from Company D, 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry, 172nd Infantry Brigade, have not been charged with a crime. But lawyers representing other members of the platoon who said they witnessed or heard the killings, which were said to have occurred on a combat patrol west of Baghdad, said all three would probably be charged with murder. The accounts of and confessions to the killings, by Sergeant First Class Joseph Mayo, the platoon sergeant, and Sergeant Michael Leahy Jr., Company D's senior medic and an acting squad leader, were made in January in signed statements to army investigators in Schweinfurt, Germany. In their statements, Mayo and Leahy each described killing at least one of the Iraqi detainees on instructions from First Sergeant John Hatley, who the soldiers said killed two of the detainees with pistol shots to the backs of their heads. Hatley's civilian lawyer in Germany, David Court, did not respond to phone calls and e-mail messages early Tuesday. Last month, four other soldiers from Hatley's unit were charged with conspiracy for agreeing to go along with the plan to kill the four prisoners, in violation of military laws that forbid harming enemy combatants once they are disarmed and in custody. In an army evidentiary hearing on Tuesday in Vilseck, Germany, two of those soldiers - Specialists Steven Ribordy and Belmor Ramos - invoked their right against self-incrimination. Reached by telephone, James Culp, a civilian lawyer for one of the other two soldiers charged, Staff Sergeant Jess Cunningham, declined to comment. A lawyer for the fourth soldier, Sergeant Charles Quigley, could not be reached. In their sworn statements, Mayo and Leahy described the events that preceded the shooting of the Iraqi men, who apparently were Shiite fighters linked to the Mahdi army militia, which controlled the West Rashid area of southwest Baghdad. After taking small-arms fire, the patrol chased some men into a building, arresting them and finding several automatic weapons, grenades and a sniper rifle, they said. On the way to their combat outpost, Hatley's convoy was informed by army superiors that the evidence to detain the Iraqis was insufficient, Leahy said in his statement. The unit was told to release the men, according to the statement. "First Sergeant Hatley then made the call to take the detainees to a canal and kill them," Leahy said, as retribution for the deaths of two soldiers from the unit: Staff Sergeant Karl Soto-Pinedo, who died from a sniper's bullet, and Specialist Marieo Guerrero, who was killed by a roadside bomb. "So the patrol went to the canal, and First Sergeant, Sergeant First Class Mayo and I took the detainees out of the back of the Bradley, lined them up and shot them," Leahy said, referring to a Bradley fighting vehicle. "We then pushed the bodies into the canal and left." Mayo, in his statement, attributed his decision to kill the men to "anger," apparently at the recent deaths of his two comrades. Leahy, in his statement, said, "I'm ashamed of what I've done," later adding: "When I did it, I thought I was doing it for my family. Now I realize that I'm hurting my family more now than if I wouldn't have done it." |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #10 We can be sure the NYT used the same precise vetting and fact checking methodology they employed in the Edwards affair, not relying upon 'hearsay'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-08-27 22:10 |
| #9 I'll reserve judgment until Murtha declares them murderers. |
| Posted by: Kirk 2008-08-27 16:54 |
| #8 Then, of course there is the issue of the NYTs fabricating stories in the past. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-08-27 16:20 |
| #7 This is the JAG lawyer's fault. They had made a clean bust and were going to bring them back, but he told them to let them go--in the field. Serious no no. Even a DA would *never* tell the police who had collared a dangerous and hated perp that they had to let him walk even before they had booked him, by phone. That would be a great way for the perp to get killed "in an accident" by pissed off cops, right after they had hung up. The JAG should have told them to bring them in, then a few hours later had somebody else take them away for release--a long way away. And tell them not to come back or the guys who captured them last time would kill them next time. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-08-27 13:40 |
| #6 If the allegations are true then this is a serious breakdown in professionalism in that unit. If true then these guys are going to do life. Sad thing is, that if you go by the Geneva Conventions to which we are a signatory, these were illegal combatants and could have simply been summarily executed, as was done. However the UCMJ says otherwise in this instance, due to orders and the lawyered up ROE. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-08-27 13:32 |
| #5 The statements and other court documents were provided by a person close to one of the soldiers in the unit who insisted on anonymity and who has an interest in the outcome of the legal proceedings. I think I'm going to wait until something official comes out. This reads like something that little idiot at the New Republic would write, less the heavy breathing adjectives. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-27 12:53 |
| #4 Isn't that what is usually done with irregulars? I mean by every other army in the world, and us too before just a couple of years ago? Maybe its time to revive the tradition, the exectution of irregulars, spies, saboteurs and criminals in a war zone don't really keep me up at night. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-27 11:36 |
| #3 Leahy = Rat. |
| Posted by: Menhaden Glomonter1020 2008-08-27 11:18 |
| #2 It seems to me that if the senior guy at the scene says they need to be interrogated that's all it should take. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2008-08-27 10:55 |
| #1 This is the result of a couple of things - our extremely prissy rules of engagement and the fact that our adversaries execute American prisoners. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-08-27 10:26 |