I discussed the Asymmetric Warfare Group’s decision to kill Iraqis who pick up “bait” laid out to entice them to touch the objects here. It might be helpful to keep in mind the fact that in a war-torn, ravaged country lacking food, potable water, electricity and a viable economy, just about anything laying around might have value, In fact, frighteningly, it might be an object of curiosity to a child – what courts in the US call an ”attractive nuisance.”

An American soldier has been convicted in a military court of a charge stemming from his sniping and killing an Iraqi.

BAGHDAD - A military panel acquitted U.S. Army Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval of two counts of murder Friday, apparently swayed by testimony from fellow Army snipers that two Iraqi men were killed on orders from a higher ranking soldier.

Sandoval was convicted of a less serious charge of planting detonation wire on one of the bodies to make it look like the victim was an insurgent. As a result, he still could face five years in prison. The seven-member jury deliberated less than two hours in clearing him of all but one charge.

Sandoval, 22, of Laredo, Texas, had faced five charges in the deaths of the two unidentified Iraqi men. In dramatic testimony during the two-day court-martial, Sandoval's colleagues testified they were following orders when they shot the men during two separate incidents, on April 27 and May 11. The shootings took place near Iskandariyah, a volatile Sunni-dominated area 30 miles south of Baghdad.

Spc. Alexander Flores, of Hayward, Calif., who was in the same squad as Sandoval on the day of the April killing, testified their platoon leader said the suspect was "our guy" and ordered them to "move in," which they interpreted as "take the target out." [emph added

This is very troubling because 62 years ago the United States established a precedent at a place called Nuremberg that soldiers are individually responsible for acts they commit that violate the rules of war. It should be noted that sane, law-abiding men believe the rules of war carry a higher moral and legal imperative than any rules of engagement.

The suspect, who wore dark clothing and used a sickle to cut grass in a field, matched the general description Iraqi soldiers had given the Americans of one of two insurgents they had faced earlier in the day, according to testimony.

What was that description? Male, Iraqi, bearded?

So they capped the man, and under the German Nuremberg defense (I vass only followink orders) he was given a pass. Excellent.

Let the world note that the US Army has officially decided that a lot of people formerly designated (and executed) as war criminals after WWII were unfairly convicted.

After the killing, Flores said Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley told him (Flores) to place the detonation wire on the body and in the man's pocket, which he said he did.

The soldiers’ acts show they know they violated the rules of war. The act of planting incriminating evidence speaks for itself. In an American court a police officer who did this would be convicted of some form of murder or manslaughter. And he would go to prison, which in many states is a death sentence in itself for a cop.

But (as they say on late night television) there is more.

In the May shooting, Sgt. Evan Vela said Hensley told him to shoot a man who had stumbled upon their snipers' hideout, although he was not armed and had his hands in the air when he approached the soldiers.

"He (Hensley) asked me if I was ready. I had the pistol out. I heard the word shoot. I don't remember pulling the trigger. It took me a second to realize that the shot came from the pistol in my hand," Vela testified, crying.

Vela said as the Iraqi man was convulsing on the ground, "Hensley kind of laughed about it and hit the guy on the throat and said shoot again."

"After he (the Iraqi man) was shot, Hensley pulled an AK-47 out of his rucksack and said, 'this is what we are going to say happened,'" said Vela, who testified on Thursday under a deal that bars his account of events from being used against him when he goes to trial. Sandoval, who was charged with murder because prosecutors said he did nothing to stop the killing, also was acquitted Friday of charges he planted the weapon on the second man's body.

Once again:

Vela's lawyer Gary Myers claimed this week that Army snipers hunting insurgents in Iraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspicious materials, such as detonation cords, then kill those who picked up the items. He said his client was acting on orders.

Asked about the existence of the "baiting program," Drummond, Sandoval's military defense attorney, said it was unclear "what programs were going on out there and when," especially "if there were things that were done that made the rules of engagement not clear."

There is a defense in military law called “The Defense of Superior Orders” which in some cases absolves the actor of responsibility for war crimes if at the time of perpetrating them he did not consider the act(s) a war crime, but instead relied upon the orders of a military superior. I have the feeling SPC Sandoval would have known what SSG Hensley ordered him to do was wrong. After all, the Iraqi could have easily been detained. He raised his hands in surrender. He was cooperative and indicated his submission to the orders of SPC Sandoval.

Surely he knew SSG Hensley’s salting the body with a “throw down” AK was illegal .

An article in the Military Journal of March-April 2001 says,

“The MCM [Manual for Courts-Martial] provides that “a patently illegal order” enjoys no presumption of legality. To illustrate such an order, the MCM offers “one that directs the commission of a crime.”

It states immediately below this excerpt that,

“Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 916(d) fleshes out this concept only slightly. The rule states that superior orders are a defense “unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.” US Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, contains similar language. In other words, unless soldiers know an order is illegal or should know it is illegal, they may safely follow it.”

I don’t know how it is now, but I know that for more than 200 years the Army has taught its soldiers that it is illegal so kill a surrendered captive.