Why are they (USA Government) doing this to a fine Marine?

Question

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - A court-martial for the alleged Marine ringleader in the kidnapping and execution of an Iraqi civilian began Tuesday with attorneys in the case screening potential jurors.

Marine Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III, 23, the leader of the eight-man squad involved in the death, is charged with murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, assault and other crimes. Hutchins, of Plymouth, Mass., faces a mandatory life sentence if convicted of murder.

Prosecutors say Hutchins' squad hatched a plot to kidnap and kill a suspected insurgent. But when they were unable to find him, the troops instead kidnapped a neighbor, 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad, marched him 1,000 yards from his house and shot him to death. Sgt Hutchins stated he did it for the USA and to help win the war.

Will the war supporters come to his aid?

Answer 1

I don’t think it is wrong to prosecute a soldier that arrogates to himself the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Granted in the heat of battle, a soldier firing a weapon at an unarmed civilian, who wasn’t involved in the conflict, is a regrettable, though unavoidable aspect of war. However, from your description of the case, this looks like premeditated murder and not a normal combat situation.

War, must have some rules engagement. Now, I am not advocating the ridiculous imperatives that have been imposed upon our men, where they are not allowed to discharge their weapon, unless fired upon. That, to me, is an idiotic injunction, and practically a death sentence. They should be given carte blanche to use all firepower at their disposal in the event that they even the slightest suspicion that someone is intending to fire upon them. However, this scenario, at least from your description of the events, seems to be a cold blooded execution. That is not only immoral, it should be considered un-American.

We have to distinguish ourselves from our enemies, and we cannot do this if we resort to the same barbarism that our adversaries partake in. If we are to bring something to the Iraqi people that they desire and will adhere to, then we cannot mimic the indiscriminate brutality of the former regime which we toppled.

Answer 2

Well in boot camp there is a class we all take. Called, "The Laws of Land Warfare".
In this class you will learn that when an enemy combatant has surrendered to you and dropped his weapon he is no longer considered an enemy combatant.

When you take a prisoner, you are at that point responsible for safegaurding said prisoner and getting him to higher authorities so they can debrief him. You confiscate all his gear and equipment leaving only his equipment needed to safegaurd him until handed off to M.P.s at a designated place for depositing P.O.W.'s

So if they took this man prisoner why did they not take him in for questioning or report it to higher command? If everything was on the up-and-up wouldn't he have notified his superiors?

If he was disarmed and tied how did he pose enough of a threat to the heavily armed infantry squad to require being shot execution style while holding no weapon in his hands?

This directly violates the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention, and the Uniform Code of Military justice. This is why he is getting court martialed. If he was justified it will be determined in court and he will be a free man.

If not then he will be punished and guilty of conspiring to commit murder, and for murder. Remember there is such a thing as an Illegal kill in warfare.

Unfortunately it does not stop there. In the same classes they teach you that it is your responsibility to refuse to follow illegal orders. If you fail to do this then you will be considered guilty of at a minimum derleiction fo duty, and be liable for any illegalities carried out while you were involved.

Theses laws exist to control troops on the battlefield and prevent atrocities and rampany lawlessness in combat areas.

Answer 3

In your last sentence it says "Sgt Hutchins stated he did it for the USA..." Well that must mean he admitted to killing a civillian that was not a target so if that is so he should be tried, convicted and executed for murder (but I guess I'll have to settle for life). Where is it written into the laws that during wartime soldiers of any nation can kill civillians? Nowhere! Seems to me he isn't as "fine" a Marine as you think if he goes around killing civillians when he is not ordered to.

Answer 4

are you kidding?? I will bet at lease half of the idiots on yahoo will yell for his execution as soon as possible some even before he is tried or convicted, you said his team hatched a plot , are you also the prosecutor? don't you think this man knew his neighbor was helping the enemy? if I had been there that is the way I would think especially if they were friends, and remember the enemy here has no regular uniform, so when your life is at stake every one is your enemy, I have been there, I feel it is stupid to charge a man who is in combat risking his life for us to be charged with murdering his enemy, and no doubt this man was a enemy or else he would have turned in his neighbor, problem solved,
did you know that General MacArthur and General Patton both said basically the same thing, after WW11 both said "America will never win another war" why did such men make a statement of this nature? could they see America was going soft even then? no country wins a P.C. war and America has not won another war ,if America wants to gain their honor as a fighting nation we had better pull the plugs and let our men do their job, fight fire with fire,

Answer 5

If there's evidence that he kidnapped and killed a civilian, then he should be charged with kidnapping and some level of homicide. However fine a marine he was or wasn't prior, that act seriously dishonors the uniform and if he did it he shouldn't get to wear the uniform anymore.
Conspiring to kidnap an insurgent shouldn't be a crime (conspiring to take a POW???), but this says that when he couldn't find the bad guy, he decided to do it to some innocent instead.

Answer 6

Because, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, sufficient evidence has been brough forward to charge the jack-@ss with Murder (§ 918), Conspiracy (§ 881), and Assault (§ 928)

"Fine" Marine or not... he broke the LAW. If convicted, he should fry.

Answer 7

He knew better and his squad knew better also. The execution of ANY captured combatant or non-combatant is completely against the rules of combat and war. Only by adhering to those rules are we better and more civilized than the enemy. It is beyond all limits of accepted behavior to murder someone that we are there to protect. The stress of combat can never be an acceptable excuse for such actions. The actions of him and his squad makes them unworthy to any longer be Marines. They have stained a proud tradition of honor and service built by a lot of good Marines who served and died in the wars of our country.

Answer 8

Maybe because he kidnapped and killed an innocent person - just a random person, not even a terrorist (that we know of). He may be innocent, and if he is I hope they find out in his court martial. But if he's not, he deserves punishment. Sorry, I don't see what the problem is.

Answer 9

It is made up... He wouldnt have blood pouring out his chest because it is mandatory that we have our kevlar vest on anytime we leave the green zone (go off post). So most likely if he got shot in the chest he would of just fallen over and then just got back up and started shooting again....

Answer 10

Because they're trying to fight a politically correct war.

War is hell, and if you're going to battle, it's best to let the military do their job, no matter how ugly it may get. Otherwise, the public will and the military morale get shot all to hell.

WWII has been glamorized, but events much worse than this most certainly took place. That said, is anyone upset that we went to war with Germany and Japan?

It's time to quit tying our soldiers hands behind their backs.