MyView
It's quite easy for those of you who don't sift trough hours of testimony and the tears of high ranking officers to sit back in your desk chairs and criticize the AP as viewing this as "just another grunt in trouble."
If the AP weren't there, I'd like you to know, you would have no basic information to make such snide comments about.
Did Jason spend more than 12 hours/day for five straight days sitting in the courtroom, getting the names right and at least the bare facts and then writing it up so the bloggers around the world would have something to comment on. I, for one, didn't see him.
Capt. Roger Maynulet is one of the most truly amazing soldiers I've had the chance to cover in more than five years of covering the military. His case was one of incredible difficulty to try because it pitted a talented young officer's beliefs against a rigid system bent on punishing its own because that's what the law says.
Yes, the man who he shot was beyond repair, but that doesn't change the Army's Uniform Code of Military Justice rules on engagement, does it?
Before Jason goes around making snide remarks about reporters' alleged views of the people they cover, he should thank us for being there to cover these stories at all.
The AP happened to be the only newswire in that courtroom. Without us, where would his information come from?
Capt. Maynulet happened to shake this AP reporter's hand and thank her for what he called the fair, balanced coverage of his story. Has Jason been thanked for his commentary?
AP grunt - thanks for responding. The major item I kept looking for in any write up on this story was the type and depth of injuries to the Iraqi terrorist. Unless, that detail is provided the story is more difficult to understand. The Iraqi from my understanding had little left of his head. The other aspect was the involvement of the Iraqi with Al Sadr, to me anyway this is an important distinction.
I do hope though that you sent an email to Jason since I know he doesn't have comments.
Toni,
I have to agree with you that the relationship between the wounded man and al-Sadr and the extent of his injuries are a major part of the full story. This information may be elsewhere, but if this is the case, why must we (the public) go digging for it. I believe it is the AP grunt's job and whether he/she or the editors neglected or deleted the information makes a difference.
The story as written does not make a hero of CPT Maynulet but treats him as a totally neutral individual (as it probably should) in an unfortunate situation. It has a slight positive focus from my perspective, but certainly does not jump on the hero bandwagon. It is apparent by the tone of the article that the Army is doing what it must, possibly to prevent an uproar elsewhere in the press over the killing of a supposedly innocent terrorist by a "ruthless American officer". They would probably prosecute anyway, but there would be no fanfare.
I would be interested in seeing the AP Grunt's personal perspective on the case and the totality of facts in a commentary or opinion piece elsewhere (or in these comments), if she has the ability or can impose her will on her editor.
Overall I think it was a good story, but I had to read between the lines to determine that CPT Maynulet did what he could and didn't deserve this prosecution, and the Army reluctantly prosecuted him because they were put in this position by the charges of an enlisted man with possibly questionable motives and pressure to do something public because of the Abu Ghraib story. Why did I have to read between the lines?
They had to do this. Otherwise the troops will believe they have no say in matters, and officers will get off no matter what. This was a bad thing all around, brought on by a feeding frenzy in the press to prosecute even the slightest transgressions against Iraqis (emphasized by the Abu Ghraib story) regardless of the realities of war because members of the press generally do not agree with the basis for this or any war.
I think the end result of this will be a reluctance to treat wounded enemies who will probably die anyway. If you seriously hurt the man who just shot at you, and you have wounded men of your own, why bother to do anything for the enemy if you will be prosecuted for ending their suffering once the competent medical authority (the medic) says there is no hope. Don't stick your neck out.
This places us closer to the Soviets and Chinese than to the values of America, and is definitely not a good thing. It will be an unintended consequence of this court martial and the sad story of a good officer who can no longer contribute to the cause.
Subsunk
Hey Subsunk
I do believe this politicization of war is a dangerous precedent for our military. I'm not condoning bad actions but I don't believe any group of soldiers has ever been under the microscope like they are today. Of course this is in part due to actions of their own doing (digital cameras with video, email et al) but I'm so tired of reporters willing to believe the worst and not being capable of doing their job of investigating and verifying what they are writing. I don't purport to be a reporter but I try to be as accurate as possible and if I'm not sure I would note that in my post. I don't see that occurring with reporters. I see alot of misinformation and then denial when called on it. Today, my initial instinct is believe the military vs the media which is a turnaround from Viet Nam war era (not that I was that informed then cause I was a bit young for that). Due to the reporting with VN I believe the media has been outed in their attempts to control what happened and we know how well that turned out. I don't buy the AP Reporters response and nor does Jason. She never did email Jason as I had suggested to her. I had sent Jason an email letting him know about her comments and he then followed up on it from there. If she was truly interested in saving her credibility she would have followed up with Jason, not me.
Commenting by HaloScan
