You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Sgt. Werst cleared in killing of Iraqi detainee
2005-05-28
EFL and content.
WASHINGTON -A US soldier accused of killing Iraqi detainees was acquitted in the shooting of an Iraqi detainee, news reports said Friday. Army Staff Sergeant Shane Werst claimed self-defence in the January 2004 shooting of a detainee although a subordinate testified at his trial in Fort Hood, Texas, that the killing was unprovoked. A jury on Thursday acquitted the sergeant of murder after a four-day trial, and the judge declared him not guilty of obstructing justice as they accepted Werst's version of events over his subordinate's. Werst, 32, said he shot an unarmed suspected insurgent named Naser Ismail as many as eight times during house-to-house raids in Balad because Ismail had made a move toward another soldier's rifle. But he admitted that he had planted a gun on Ismail after the shooting and urged two members of his squad to lie about what had happened.
That's not proper. You should believe in the system and do what's right, Sarge.
One of those soldiers, Specialist Nathan Stewart, the only other witness to the shooting, said Ismail, identified as a supporter of the Iraq insurgency, was unrestrained and cooperative when Werst began beating him. Stewart testified that he joined in on the beating before following Werst's order to stand Ismail up and Werst shot the detainee repeatedly. Werst, who had faced a life sentence if convicted, said in his own defence that Ismail and Stewart were fighting and he shot Ismail after the suspect lunged for Stewart's gun. "I would still to this day fire on that man," Werst testified.
Posted by:Steve White

#8  Good to know that common sense is still alive.
Posted by: gromgoru   2005-05-28 20:00  

#7  Here's a more complete account: An Army staff sergeant was acquitted of murder Thursday in the death of an unarmed Iraqi he said he shot to save a fellow soldier.

A jury of four soldiers and two officers deliberated for less than three hours before finding Staff Sgt. Shane Werst not guilty of premeditated murder. He had faced a maximum of life in prison without parole.

Before the jury announced the verdict, the judge found Werst innocent of obstruction of justice, so the jury's verdict on that charge was not revealed. Col. Theodore Dixon said he decided to rule on that charge.

Werst's family shrieked, cried and hugged after the verdict was read.

"Soldiers have to be able to know that they're not being second-guessed in the battlefield and in close-quarters combat," defense attorney David Sheldon said.

Prosecutors said the killing of Naser Ismail, a suspected insurgent, was in retaliation for an Army captain's death earlier that day. Werst, 32, said he only shot Ismail because he was lunging for an unsuspecting soldier's weapon during house raids in Iraq. Prosecutors declined to comment after the verdict.

Werst testified Thursday that he doesn't regret gunning down Ismail, but admitted his actions afterward in making the slaying look like self-defense were wrong.

"I would still to this day fire on that man, sir," said Werst.

Werst said he and a fellow soldier went into a house with Ismail because he thought the Iraqi would turn over more weapons. Werst earlier found and confiscated a pistol in Ismail's house.

After shooting Ismail, Werst said he quickly fired the Iraqi pistol into a couch and told the other soldier, Pfc. Nathan Stewart, to put the man's fingerprints on it.

Werst said he was scared because he had never shot anyone before, and that Stewart also was "freaking out." He said he should not have tried to make the shooting look like self-defense.

"It was wrong. I have no idea why I did that," Werst said.

Prosecutor Capt. Evan Seamone said Werst's story doesn't make sense.

"If this is a legitimate kill, if this follows the rules of engagement ... why in the world would he have to create a lie?" Seamone said in closing arguments.

Seamone also reminded jurors of the testimony of Stewart, who said Werst got mad because he thought Ismail lied about his identity. Werst then said, "Come on, Stewart _ we're going to kill this (expletive)," Stewart testified.

Werst, of El Toro, Calif., was a combat engineer in the 3rd Brigade Combat Team at Fort Carson, Colo., part of the Fort Hood-based 4th Infantry Division.

I can see why he planted evidence. He had just shot an *unarmed* man who was lunging for a gun. He assumed that the fact that the guy was unarmed would result in him being convicted and punished. He was wrong in that assumption, but he had to make sure he was in the clear.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-05-28 13:39  

#6  Well said Ptah. That was my point, and although (not having served a day in the military) I'm reluctant to say that a jury in a court-martial blew it, I'm very concerned that he got off for something for which he should have been convicted. Maybe it was self-defense; I wasn't there and I haven't heard the testimony. Planting a gun? Asking people to lie? Nope, that's not right.
Posted by: Steve White   2005-05-28 11:48  

#5  Well, it wasn't like he put panties on his head...
Posted by: Raj   2005-05-28 10:34  

#4  Moving towards him...sort of like these guys
Posted by: Shaviling Thromotle9261   2005-05-28 08:29  

#3  He will probably be facing other charges,now.
Posted by: raptor   2005-05-28 07:54  

#2  With all due respect, but this finding was wrong. The guy lied, DID obstruct justice, and tried to subborn his subordinates. Why do that unless the circumstances WERE suspicious?

Although I have not been on a house-to-house search, much less the Military, I can sympathise and TRY to imagine the stresses placed on our soliders. I sympathize with a commanding officer who gives a damn about his men and is trying to get them home intact, but this looks to me that he went over the line, tried to cover it up, and so needs to be disciplined.

My problem is, that in letting this guy off the hook when he should have been punished, the court compromised the integrity of the Military judicial process. Every stupid call like this casts suspicion on the entire process. So how exactly will a compromised system HELP the next officer or soldier who is TRULY justified and is justly acquitted avoid a cloud of suspicion unfairly hanging over them because the guys who said he did right has earned a record of letting off the guilty? Guilt by association is a liberal specialty, so why give the REAL enemy REAL ammunition like this?

The american electorate will tolerate leaning toward the defendant in the REALLY HARD CASES, but will not tolerate stupidity, incompetence, or blatant injustice in the EASY cases. The guy who shot the prone terrorist in Fajulla was a HARD CASE. Unless the MSM filtered out the mitigating circumstances (very likely) then this was an EASY case.

it was blown.

Real nice result for THIS guy.

Not so good for the NEXT guy.

And the NEXT.

And the NEXT.

And the NEXT.
Posted by: Ptah   2005-05-28 07:09  

#1  And I wouldn't trust SGT Werst to be at my back.

(Sorry if this offends anyone, but Steve White pointed out his sin, the whole planting-a-gun-and-urging-his-squad members-to-lie thing. A justified shooting, but a failure of leadership nonetheless in what happened afterwards?)
Posted by: Edward Yee   2005-05-28 03:33  

00:00