Articles Tagged with maynulet

Here is a link to the military judge’s sentencing statement in the case of Canadian Captain Semrau.  Obviously it is notable because the practice is for the judge to provide a reasons for sentencing, but secondly is the reliance on United States v. Maynulet and United States v. Horne (LEXIS doesn’t show a “Horne” case, and I could not find a case listed on the ACCA site) for comparison.

I was also informed of two American court martial cases involving the killing of a wounded and unarmed enemy. Both incidents occurred in 2004 in Iraq. In the first court martial, Captain Maynulet was involved in an operation to capture or kill a high-value target. Immediately after the initial engagement with the enemy, Captain Maynulet shot a mortally wounded insurgent because he thought it was the humane thing to do and that it would ease his suffering. Captain Maynulet was charged with assault with intent to commit murder. He pled not guilty and was found guilty of assault with intent of commit voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to dismissal from the service. Evidence at sentencing was extremely favourable for the offender.

The second court martial involved Staff Sergeant Horne. Members of his platoon fired upon trucks carrying insurgents. The second truck was set on fire. Staff Sergeant Horne attempted to save the victim who was sitting in the burning truck loaded with explosives. The victim fell to the ground and was severely injured. Staff Sergeant Horne spoke with his officer and with another staff sergeant about putting the Iraqi out of his misery. The officer told him to do it and the other staff sergeant shot the Iraqi three to five times. When Staff Sergeant Horne realized the Iraqi was still alive, he fired one shot into the victim’s head. He did so to put him out of his misery. Staff Sergeant Horne pled guilty to premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder but to took exception to the word "premeditation" and he pled not guilty to solicitation to commit premeditated murder. He was sentenced to confinement for three years, reduction to the rank of private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonourable discharge. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to confinement for one year, reduction to the rank of private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a bad conduct discharge.

Lots of political rhetoric, name calling, and pithy evaluations continue about this court-martial case.  But putting the chaff aside there have been and can be a number of teachable moments.

It is unclear what role if any APF will continue to have in this case.  The website and a recent email indicate a role limited to publicity for LTC Lakin, his case, and the birther issue.  See APF still ‘in the fight’ and apparently LTC Lakin intending to stay the course, and compare with the current site.  The United States Patriots Union is now apparently in the game with their four ‘White Papers’.  I am labelling them the nativists.  While APF has a focus on the birth certificate, the USPU argues the APF position is too narrow and has a focus on the natural born aspect of presidential eligibility as well.  Neither theory is helpful to LTC Lakin.  Neither theory was helpful before he disobeyed orders and neither is relevant now.  Neither theory will ever be relevant to a defense against the current charges.  LTC Lakin is in a bind.

I would suspect that the new defense team will bilge the birther/nativist theory.  So the question becomes what might be their strategy or approach.  I would imagine efforts to avoid or remove this case from trial might be one.  Thinking outside the box (or outside the schoolroom solution) is vital.  But despite the thinking, can it be done, can a viable defense be fashioned for LTC Lakin.

Contact Information