previous post next post  

Army Interrogator Welshofer Convicted of Negligent Homicide...

By The Armorer on January 24, 2006 | | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1)

...gets a reprimand, 60 days restriction, and a $6K fine? I would note that he's also (at this point, depending on Major General Mixon's review) a convicted felon. MG Mixon can reduce the penalty or set-aside the conviction, but not make it worse.

But that's a pretty light sentence for the charged crime.

Having sat on a Courts Martial panel that did something similar (convicted reluctantly, assessed a $1 fine) my gut feel (and that's all it is, I have *no* inside info at all) is the panel strongly feels this never should have made it to a Court, but should have been handled administratively.

In other words, the extenuating and mitigating circumstances presented by the defense were overwhelming (as they were in the case I sat on) but - the panel, in the end, felt compelled to convict, because at some point, Welshofer could have stopped it himself. But the panel didn't want Welshofer to be the complete scapegoat here when there are others up the chain who should also suffer professionally, if not criminally. That's how I read the otherwise rather surprising verdict.

Share This Article:

Categories:

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/5148

Web Reconnaissance for 01/24/2006 from The Thunder Run on January 24, 2006 3:46 PM

A short recon of what’s out there today that might draw your attention. Read More

7 Comments

By ry on January 24, 2006 10:04 PM
BUt this is a serious PR nightmare for us. I haven't looked yet, but I'm fairly certain that in the next couple of days there will be copious op-eds in Arab language and Western press running with the 'it's okay to kill Arabs/Moslems, see, they wouldn't punish an obviously guilty man,' line. NPR was going somewhat in that direction this morning, can the rest of the world be far behind. But PR isn't the only consideration in this. We are talking about a man's life(both the dead man and the living one) afterall.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 25, 2006 5:49 AM
We're talking the difference between a trial and a show trial. Unfortunately, both sides will look at the same trail and come to opposite conclusions. The panel knew what was at stake. You didn't get a bunch of field grade officers in there who weren't fully aware (as if the prosecutor would have allowed them to remain that way) of the implications of the crime. Which is why I'd like to see the transcripts. I'm guessing there was a *lot* of extenuating and mitigating testimony provided - all of which will be glossed over by those with axes to grind.
 
By R Jewell on January 25, 2006 12:52 PM
The most junior of the 4 involved, a Sp/4 was, I believe, given an article 15. I've lost track of the NCO, and what happened to him. Remaining to be tried is WO Jeff Williams, who served with my son when they were both "pups", and has become a family friend. You're right, John........this should have never gotten this far.
 
By ry on January 25, 2006 11:52 PM
"Which is why I'd like to see the transcripts. I'm guessing there was a *lot* of extenuating and mitigating testimony provided - all of which will be glossed over by those with axes to grind." Exactly. And that glossing is why it is a PR nightmare. On one hand I'm relieved that occifers don't make decisions in this realm based off of what's best for the PR campaign. Integrity matters. Seeing a man get a fair trial matters. But, at the same time, Katherine Harris has to be having dreams of drawing and quartering the officers who sat on the board for handing her such a bad situation to deal with when trying to improve the US image in the ME.
 
By Justthisguy on January 26, 2006 12:21 AM
I mind Philip Caputo's story about being a Marine officer charged with murder in VietNam because he was kinda inexact when giving an order. No mistake, somebody died because of what he said, but also (he was acquitted) that somebody "needed killin" at that time and place. I think of Major Unger and some stories he told me about his experiences in VietNam: When he was an advisor over there, 'way before Jack Kennedy got shot, he had a Sgt. Goodrow (Goodroe?) with him as his only American comrade. Well, it seems that Sgt Goodrow was a Texan from a well-off family who didn't *need* to go into the Army, he just wanted to. One of the things the Sergeant did to help him do his mission was to bring his own rifle from home, which he had built, himself. Well, at some time when the Major and the Sergeant were both present, the Sergeant decided to try out his rifle on a Viet-Cong type person. I discussed this later (obviously) with the Major and we both agreed that the shooting was militarily, practically, morally, ethically, and prudentially justifiable, maybe even praiseworthy. Problem was, legally it was murder. Nobody I know knows anything about it, and of course I'm sure my informants lied to me.
 
By Justthisguy on January 26, 2006 12:29 AM
whoops! Mea Culpa! I think I was wrong, above. I think that Lt. Caputo inadvertently ordered his men to kill the wrong guy. Be careful about those inadvertent orders, guys! That Light Brigade thing was right embarassing.
 
By ry on January 26, 2006 1:56 AM
Aparently 'All your bias belong to Us' Jason van Stanwyck has something on this too. Grim of Grims Hall has links.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.