• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Accused troops: We were under orders to kill

1prophet

Diamond Member
Accused troops: We were under orders to kill

EL PASO, Texas - Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to ?kill all military age males,? according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

The soldiers first took some of the men into custody because they were using two women and a toddler as human shields. They shot three of the men after the women and child were safe and say the men attacked them.

?The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray,? Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.

That target, an island on a canal in the northern Salhuddin province, was believed to be an al-Qaida training camp. The soldiers said officers in their chain of command gave them the order and explained that special forces had tried before to target the island and had come under fire from insurgents.

Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are charged with murder and other offenses in the shooting deaths of three of the men during the May 9 raid.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

?They did it admirably?
In sworn statements obtained this week by the AP, Girouard, Hunsaker, Clagett, and a witness, Sgt. Leonel Lemus, told Army investigators they were ordered to attack an island in northern Salahuddin province on May 9 and kill anti-Iraqi fighters with ties to al-Qaida.

All four soldiers charged are members of the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. They have been jailed in Kuwait since their June arrests. Their first hearing is Aug. 1 near Tikrit, Iraq.

Michael Waddington, Hunsaker?s civilian lawyer, said his client followed orders and killed the detainees in self-defense after he and Clagett were attacked.

?They did (their job) honorably, they did it admirably,? said Paul Bergrin, Clagett?s civilian attorney. ?If they did want to kill these men, they could have and been within the rules of engagement.?

Officers from their unit initially cleared the soldiers of wrongdoing. Charges were filed when witnesses changed their testimony after repeated interviews with Army investigators, Bergrin said.

Military declines to comment
Reached by e-mail in Iraq, Girouard?s Army lawyer, Capt. Theodore Miller, declined to comment because the investigation was continuing.

An Army prosecutor, also deployed to Iraq, did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Army spokesman Sheldon Smith asked that a request for comment be e-mailed to him in Virginia. He did not immediately respond.

Military officials have released few details of the case.


But statements from Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett describe a tense early morning scene, with soldiers immediately opening fire on buildings.

Girouard told investigators he expected he and his comrades would immediately be attacked when they landed on the island. Intelligence officials had warned that at least 20 al-Qaida operatives were hiding there.

But it was only once the men moved to the northern half of the island that they found anyone, Girouard said. He said he and others shot and killed a man they spied in a window in one building and then rushed into a house where they found three other men hiding behind two women.

A fifth man, holding a 2-year-old girl in front of him, later came out of another building, Girouard and Hunsaker told investigators.



?Struck on the face?
Girouard said the four surviving men were not immediately killed because of the human shields. Once the women and child were moved to safety, he told investigators, the men did not appear to pose a threat and the soldiers took them into custody.

But Hunsaker said three of the men then attacked him and Clagett as the soldiers were trying to bind the men?s hands with heavy-duty plastic ties.

?I had felt this action necessary for they had tried to use deadly force on me and my comrade,? Hunsaker wrote about the shooting.

Hunsaker told investigators he was stabbed. Clagett said he was ?struck on the face with a fist or something.?

Lemus, who only saw the men fall to the ground, told investigators he thought the killings were justified.

?Proper escalation of force was used when the detainee became hostile and armed himself with a weapon and wounded one soldier and struck another,? Lemus said. ?Our actions ... were in accordance to the ROE (rule of engagement) briefed to us prior to our mission and moments before our air assault was conducted.?

?Telling the truth?
Girouard said he did not see the shooting either but was immediately told what happened.

?I think they are telling the truth,? Girouard?s statement said. ?If it would have happened another way they would have told me and the story has been the same the whole time.?

Clagett and Hunsaker also told investigators they found AK-47 assault rifles, ammunition and gun parts after the men were killed.

Bergrin said the weapons and other evidence not mentioned in the statements were proof that the Iraqi men were a threat.

Several other service members face similar charges in unrelated cases involving the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum penalty for murder is death, but it was unclear if the government will seek the death penalty in any of the pending cases.



I find this part most interesting
Officers from their unit initially cleared the soldiers of wrongdoing. Charges were filed when witnesses changed their testimony after repeated interviews with Army investigators, Bergrin said.
Are these soldiers war criminals or political fallguys because of what previous soldiers did?
 
Read closer. They claim their orders were to kill all military age males at their objective, NOT all military age males in Iraq!

Either the media is up to its usual tricks, or the author made a mistake with the headline.
 
So they kill the entire familly they are guilty.

They put there lives at risk to spare the woman and children they are guilty.

How the hell do you charge someone for murder in a warzone 😕

I mean, obviously there are some limits, but when you are under fire, or in hostile territory you would think young males would be fair game.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
So they kill the entire familly they are guilty.

They put there lives at risk to spare the woman and children they are guilty.

How the hell do you charge someone for murder in a warzone 😕

I mean, obviously there are some limits, but when you are under fire, or in hostile territory you would think young males would be fair game.

It is murder if the rules of engagement are not followed or if they follow an illiegal order.
 
RichardE

I mean, obviously there are some limits, but when you are under fire, or in hostile territory you would think young males would be fair game.

What an assinine, uncivilized statement. (And if you don't know why, I doubt any amount of explaination would help!)
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RichardE

I mean, obviously there are some limits, but when you are under fire, or in hostile territory you would think young males would be fair game.

What an assinine, uncivilized statement. (And if you don't know why, I doubt any amount of explaination would help!)

The enemy we fight is uncivilized and barbaric. Thinking anything else is denying the truth. If you want soldiers lifes on your hands because you think we should take the moral high ground than that is on you. I would rather we get as many of the soldiers back to these countries where they belong, than to die so we could sleep with a clear consious at night.
 
RichardE

So if the people we are fighting are real "bad guys", then just discard all honor and principle and become mass murderers. Why waste bullits? Let's just let Haliburtan build some gas chambers and ovens. Why risk any grunts at all? Just send in the B-52s and turn the island into dust, no matter who is there.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RichardE

So if the people we are fighting are real "bad guys", then just discard all honor and principle and become mass murderers. Why waste bullits? Let's just let Haliburtan build some gas chambers and ovens. Why risk any grunts at all? Just send in the B-52s and turn the island into dust, no matter who is there.

Bombing it to dust would have been best. The humanity we have means we should send people in to risk there lives, which is foolish.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RichardE

So if the people we are fighting are real "bad guys", then just discard all honor and principle and become mass murderers. Why waste bullits? Let's just let Haliburtan build some gas chambers and ovens. Why risk any grunts at all? Just send in the B-52s and turn the island into dust, no matter who is there.

Bombing it to dust would have been best. The humanity we have means we should send people in to risk there lives, which is foolish.

Yep just lower ouselves to their level and become like them. We met the enemy and they are us!

18 and 19 year old recruits are prefered because they are less likely to question orders and think for themselves.
 
1prophet,

What's your point??

In the Army, you go to jail for following an unlawful order. EVERY SOLDIER knows this. EVERY SOLDIER also is trained on human rights and Geneva Convention as it applies to combatants. If the soldiers followed an order such as this, they were wrong and should go to prison as murderers. The UCMJ will see to it.
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
1prophet,

What's your point??

In the Army, you go to jail for following an unlawful order. EVERY SOLDIER knows this. EVERY SOLDIER also is trained on human rights and Geneva Convention as it applies to combatants. If the soldiers followed an order such as this, they were wrong and should go to prison as murderers. The UCMJ will see to it.

What about the officers that issued it in that case? Also, extending that line of thought, what if the Commander in Chief issued an unlawful order?

 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: maluckey
1prophet,

What's your point??

In the Army, you go to jail for following an unlawful order. EVERY SOLDIER knows this. EVERY SOLDIER also is trained on human rights and Geneva Convention as it applies to combatants. If the soldiers followed an order such as this, they were wrong and should go to prison as murderers. The UCMJ will see to it.

What about the officers that issued it in that case? Also, extending that line of thought, what if the Commander in Chief issued an unlawful order?


You mean like giving the order to attack a sovereign country for no reason whatsoever?
 
What about the officers that issued it in that case? Also, extending that line of thought, what if the Commander in Chief issued an unlawful order

What part of EVERY SOLDIER was unclear?
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
What about the officers that issued it in that case? Also, extending that line of thought, what if the Commander in Chief issued an unlawful order

What part of EVERY SOLDIER was unclear?

IIRC, every soldier has a duty to follow orders and also a duty to refuse to follow orders that are illegal. With that thought in mind the soldiers who run the Pentagon should have refused bush's illegal order to attack Iraq unprovoked, then none of this would have taken place to begin with.

Now that it has taken place the charges should begin at the top, not at the bottom with the poor grunts who are under tremendous pressure to obey and survive.

bush did to Iraq what bin Laden did to America on 9/11 and everyone, the Iraqi people, the American people, our troops, our allies, our enemies, everyone is paying for bush's crime -- everyone except bush.

The people who dreamed up and executed these war crimes and crimes against humanity -- bush, cheney, wolfowitz, perle, rumsfeld, the entire bush administration and ESPECIALLY those insane bastards at PNAC, Kristol and that entire bunch -- should be made to answer for their crimes before one single soldier is made to answer for theirs.

 
Originally posted by: maluckey
1prophet,

What's your point??

In the Army, you go to jail for following an unlawful order. EVERY SOLDIER knows this. EVERY SOLDIER also is trained on human rights and Geneva Convention as it applies to combatants. If the soldiers followed an order such as this, they were wrong and should go to prison as murderers. The UCMJ will see to it.

The point is they may have used force properly in this case but because of the current political climate due to previous soldiers mishaps they are being thrown to the wolves, in turn this can hurt morale and hinder the military effectiveness of future missions.

If they had no conscience I am sure woman and children would not have stood in their way.

 
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Read closer. They claim their orders were to kill all military age males at their objective, NOT all military age males in Iraq!

Either the media is up to its usual tricks, or the author made a mistake with the headline.

Yep, the byline is misleading.

The Island was believed to be an AQ training camp. In such case, the orders were more humane than many make them out to be. I.e., "don't kill everybody", just the military age males (no children, no females etc.). More humane than bombing the sh1t out of the little island, killing everyone.

Fern
 
Now that it has taken place the charges should begin at the top, not at the bottom with the poor grunts who are under tremendous pressure to obey and survive.

No, you start with the guy who does the work and work up. It's the same with any criminal case. Those "poor grunts" as you term them (they may not have been grunts) are ultimately responsible for their own decision as to being a criminal or not.

Of course, they could just follow blindly as some on this forum do, and listen to everything that someone else tells them, without ever thinking or doing their homework on the subject. UCMJ is simple compared to civilian law. It's also has more accountability to the individual.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Read closer. They claim their orders were to kill all military age males at their objective, NOT all military age males in Iraq!

Either the media is up to its usual tricks, or the author made a mistake with the headline.

Yep, the byline is misleading.

The Island was believed to be an AQ training camp. In such case, the orders were more humane than many make them out to be. I.e., "don't kill everybody", just the military age males (no children, no females etc.). More humane than bombing the sh1t out of the little island, killing everyone.

Fern

n.m
 
testimony says a little different:

Mason said that before they embarked on the search mission, the rules of engagement were explained and clearly spelled out by brigade commander Col. Michael Steele.

?He (Steele) just said that the rules of engagement were that ?we get to kill all the male insurgents,?? Mason said.

?Kill all of them,? Mason quoted Steele as saying. When asked who those people were, Mason said ?insurgents, terrorists.?

?He (Steele) said that this was declared a hot area and that some special forces had been there before, and they got knocked out, so they sent us in,? Mason said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14150285/

 
Military trials in warzones are usually played fast and loose.

Your only witnesses (if you are a good killer) are your fellow troops. You can say anything to protect yourself and they will back you up.

The fact that they are being brought up on charges when countless Iraqi civilians are killed everyday without a second thought means that these guys did something warranting attention.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
RichardE

So if the people we are fighting are real "bad guys", then just discard all honor and principle and become mass murderers. Why waste bullits? Let's just let Haliburtan build some gas chambers and ovens. Why risk any grunts at all? Just send in the B-52s and turn the island into dust, no matter who is there.

Bombing it to dust would have been best. The humanity we have means we should send people in to risk there lives, which is foolish.

Yep just lower ouselves to their level and become like them. We met the enemy and they are us!

18 and 19 year old recruits are prefered because they are less likely to question orders and think for themselves.

heh I'm only 24, and I once was 18 and I remember recruiter trying brain watching me "hey, do you want a job?" I was like what job? "work in miltary office" oh that, nah find another sucker and plus I don't do well people telling me what to do and I will question orders. so he fcked off.
so not every 18+ are easily brainwashed.
between they still come to me if I wanna join.. yet again tell them the same thing.
 
Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard was certainly not a "poor grunt". It takes several years to be promoted to Staff Sargeant.
 
Back
Top