Monday May 28, 2012

U.S. sergeant jailed for murdering prisoners in Iraq

VILSECK, Germany —

A U.S. sergeant on Monday became on Monday the second non-commissioned officer to be convicted of murder for the summary executions of four bound and blindfolded prisoners in Iraq in 2007.

Sergeant First Class Joseph P Mayo was sentenced by a court martial in southern Germany to life in prison, but because he pleaded guilty, will serve no more than 35 years in prison and will be eligible for parole in 10 years.

Mayo told a court martial that he and two other sergeants shot the prisoners in the back of the head with nine-millimeter pistols and dumped their bodies in a Baghdad canal.

“I thought it was in the best interests of my soldiers,” Mayo, 27, told the court in the town of Vilseck after pleading guilty to murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Mayo was able to escape a life sentence after a pre-trial agreement with the commander of his unit, an army spokesman said.

“I really believed I was protecting my soldiers,” Mayo repeated in a closing statement that brought him and family members including his mother, wife and 10-year-old daughter to tears.

“I take full responsibility for my actions,” he said. “Now I have to pay for my mistake.”

Mayo said the men, “of apparent Middle Eastern descent,” according to the charge sheet, had been arrested after repeated attacks on their unit, including a sniper attack that killed a friend and fellow sergeant.

The defendant himself had been almost killed by an explosive device a few months earlier, and suffered a diagnosed mild traumatic brain injury, his lawyer Michael Waddington said.

While making their arrests, the U.S. troops found two sniper rifles, AK-47 assault rifles and a duffel bag full of ammunition. But there was insufficient evidence to hold the men, Waddington told the court, and Mayo said: “I believed they would be released.”

Mayo is one seven soldiers implicated in the case and one of three non-commissioned officers to be tried for murder.

First Sergeant John E Hatley, the most senior soldier present, is to stand trial charged with murder in Germany on April 13, an army statement said last week. A spokesman said Monday that Mayo would testify in that trial.

In February, co-defendant Sergeant Michael P Leahy, an army medic, was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Two other soldiers have pleaded guilty to lesser charges and been sentenced to prison terms of less than a year, an army spokeswoman said.

Charges were dismissed against two others, including Staff Sergeant Jess Cunningham, who first revealed the incident to a defense lawyer in January 2008.

Waddington told reporters after Mayo’s trial had adjourned: “Our objective is to get him out of prison as quickly as possible.”

All the soldiers were with the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, then part of the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, and now in the 172nd Infantry Brigade based in Germany.

A character witness in the trial, First Lieutenant Benjamin Boyd, said the troops had been at a combat outpost dubbed “Angry Dragon” in southwest Baghdad that was on a “significant fault line” between Sunni and Shia areas of the city.

“I hold fewer people in higher regard,” Boyd said of the defendant. “I couldn’t have asked for a better platoon sergeant.”

Another witness, Capt David Nelson-Fischer said the unit suffered from “frustration and fear” because of a high frequency of attacks on Mayo’s small, highly exposed post in West Rashid, one of the most dangerous Baghdad neighborhoods at that time.

The U.S. troops were “not adequately trained”, and angry that prisoners were often released after two or three days in custody, only to carry out further attacks and armed with fresh intelligence on U.S. operating methods.

But the army’s trial counsel, Captain John Riesenberg, said Mayo had “demonstrated a total lack of moral courage,” in shooting a prisoner “execution style.”

He had urged the court martial judge, Colonel Jeffrey Nance, to deliver a sentence that would “send a message to the army and to the world.”

The U.S. Army, Riesenberg said, “is an army that punishes its own.”

Wire reports

  • 0

    timorborder

    Parole in 10 years. That is 2.5 years for each Iraqi. Ain't life cheap! Good to see the US taking responsibility for its actions in punishing these non-commissioned officers. As everybody knows, the other ranks are very cunning when it comes to acting on their own initiative without orders.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    "While making their arrests, the U.S. troops found two sniper rifles, AK-47 assault rifles and a duffel bag full of ammunition. "

  • 0

    bushlover

    Funny thing is that the sergeant was probably right about the prisoners he killed.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    "Funny thing is that the sergeant was probably right about the prisoners he killed."

    We'll never know, will we, since the dead can't speak, and regardless you cannot go executing people, despite thinking 'they might try to attack you later'.

    This man did the crime, so he should do the time. I do feel very sorry for his family, and in particular his little girl who has to grow up knowing daddy is a mass murderer who is no better than the terrorists he probably said he was going off to protect her against. He should never have been put into that position, but that's a larger issue.

    This is an all around tragedy, and the man must pay -- I only wish he were not given any eligibility for parole. He should serve the full 35 years.

  • 0

    adaydream

    It's a shame that this soldier decided to take justice into his own hands. SmithinJapan's right that this little girl's will know that her father was a mass murderer.

    What's worst is that he will miss his little girl's growing up and her love. I'm sorry for them both. I understand the sentencing and why, but the loss is so great.

    Hind sight... < :-)

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    adaydream: "Hind sight..."

    No kidding! If there's one time that even the pro-bush/Iraq war crowd can admit the Iraq war was a mistake (though they don't realize they are) is when things like this happen... errr... when things like this happen and the troops actually have to pay for it. They often come on and say, "Well, they were under a lot of pressure, stressed out, afraid, etc.! They shouldn't have been in that situation!"

    They should never have been in that situation indeed!

    And you're right, with respects to the fact that the man won't get to see his little girl grow up, I feel sorry for that, too.

  • 0

    sharky1

    Glad I'm out...wars are WAY too political these days. The guy lost his buddy, and their unit was under constant harassment, not to mention that there was a neurological issue. His lawyer should have argued PTSD in his defense. His conviction and sentence were clearly not given for his actions, but to "send a message to the army and to the world". Looks like he has a lot of grounds for an appeal. Nobody can say much about this guy until they walk a mile in his boots. Just from reading the article, I would say that this guy needs treatment instead of a jail sentence.

  • 0

    timorborder

    The guy lost his buddy, and their unit was under constant harassment, not to mention that there was a neurological issue.

    Not an excuse I'm afraid, been there and done that, and the experience didn't turn me or my mates into another William Calley, Jnr. This guy deserves to swing. A possible minimal sentence of 10 years is a joke. You do the crime, you do the time.

  • 0

    jeancolmar

    This rotten war criminal should have been jailed for life with no chance of parole. Just imagine if an American civilian executed 4 American people. He'd get the death penalty.

    When this scumbag gets out in 10 years I wonder if he will become a darling of the right-wing talk shows.

  • 0

    bushlover

    Sharky1 said it right: [ Nobody can say much about this guy until they walk a mile in his boots. Just from reading the article, I would say that this guy needs treatment instead of a jail sentence.]

    But armchair/keyboard juries everywhere will pass their judgement with their own indignation just like the Japanese justice system: Guilty no matter what.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    I can understand the rationalization he made, but killing prisoners - even enemy combatants - is a universal wrong. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen as it had in this case. The damnable shame is that the frontline soldiers are the ones who pay. The leadership (particularly Cheney & Rumsfeld) showed a moral relativism that gave a tacit OK to such executions as well as torture. The higher ups will not have to pay for their lack of moral "leadership".

  • 0

    Madverts

    It's hard for us to understand from the comforts of our desks the misery these soldiers, along with more for the Iraqi's - have suffered because of this invasion.

    I don't defend his actions, but I think this is simply another case of trying one for the crimes of many....

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    The soldier committed murder, he was convicted and sentenced. If anyone says that it is okay to execute bound prisoners of war knows nothing of the U.S. Military.

    The U.S. military has always held itself to a very strict code of conduct. Any Officer or NCO breaking any of those rules needs to be brought to justice.

    What happened here was a complete lose of discipline, he was lucky he did not get executed for his actions. He was very lucky.......

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    And as predicted the likes of bushlover and sharky are making the murderer out to be the victim. And I bet you anything in their heart of hearts they believe, despite ZERO proof to the contrary, that the people executed were justified in being murdered.

    The funny thing would be to watch how quickly they turned if it were a shell-shocked Iraqi who had captured four American soldiers and executed them. It wouldn't be, "This poor guy suffered the shock of his family dying and watched his buddies die, so he should get therapy not 10 years", etc. In fact, they'd be begging for the guy's head.

    As I said, and as with anyone else who did the same thing, the guy deserves life in prison and THEN some, withOUT parole! I would say the exact same thing for a terrorist who did the exact same thing. Just because he had a US military uniform on does not make him any less culpable of the crimes, in fact, as far as I had heard, it's supposed to make you the 'best of the best', and more responsible for your actions.

    I'm just glad for a change the guy's not getting off scott-free.

    "But armchair/keyboard juries everywhere will pass their judgement with their own indignation just like the Japanese justice system: Guilty no matter what."

    He committed the murders, and has even copped to them, so yes, guilty. Should he be found 'innocent' of crimes he's committed? DUH!

  • 0

    PaulieWalnuts

    But armchair/keyboard juries everywhere will pass their judgement with their own indignation just like the Japanese justice system: Guilty no matter what.

    passing judgement on the Japanese justice system, eh? try having a pop at the US military justice system if you disagree with putting this murderer behind bars

  • 0

    bushlover

    Actually I think this guy is guilty because the article does say he did admit to it. The funny thing that I find here is that the likes of Smitty who does his damnedest to put anything slightly negative on the US and especially it's military, suddenly amplifies the sentences because that he thinks he can demand more than what the judges themselves dished out. 35 years is no piece of change when it comes to a guy who thought he was saving the lives of his men as I believe it is him and not Smitty that is more able to judge that part of the equation. Why shouldn't he be eligible for parole in 10 years? They were wrongful deaths but they were wrongfully carried out by a men under great stress and concern for their lives. Smitty is not too good of factoring in that part of the equation because he is just a pure American/USA hater as his past posts have proven. When you walk a yard in that man's shoes Smitty then I'll take your opinion as more than just indignant hype. Until then...

  • 0

    DXXJP

    So if say the guy came home and saw that his wife had killed their kids, and say he picked up a shovel and smashed her head off her shoulder would that be alright for you dubya lover. Would that make it alright you know the stress and all. Funny anywhere I have gone in this world it is drilled into the men and women that serve in uniform that during their duties they are held to a higher standard than civilians.

    I like how you say "wrongful deaths", but anywhere else in the world executing people is murder.

  • 0

    bushlover

    DXXJP I don't plan to interpret my post for you. If you can't understand what I'm saying I suggest some English lessons. Wrongful deaths is a neutral term to describe it. Murder is an extreme word. Executing murderers is not murder. It's justice for the victims and a sense of security for normal society. Maybe this man is lucky he didn't get that but we can't prove that the victims were innocent civilians either so there is some doubt there that they just went on a rampage of killing. It did happen in a war zone.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    bushlover: "They were wrongful deaths but they were wrongfully carried out by a men under great stress and concern for their lives."

    They were wrongful deaths BUT... can never have enough 'but' in there, eh, bushlover? As I said, if you took into account the stress of daily life that your average Iraqi has to go through, his/her family being killed by US or other forces, and then he/she snaps and executes some American troops, you wouldn't be so quick to defend the man, would you?

    The man murdered four people claiming he 'thought they might be a threat later', and yet they weren't even a threat at all when he MURDERED them!

    I don't hate Americans, my friend, but I DO very much loathe the logic that allows a person like you to defend terrorists like this man, and saying in his case he is a victim but anyone else would be a murderer. He doesn't deserve parole because he executed four people, bottom line. I know you want to add a few 'but but but's and talk about how this poor young guy was duped into a pointless war and what not, but there's still no excuse, and he still has to do the time and should do MORE.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    Wrongful deaths is a neutral term to describe it. Murder is an extreme word. Executing murderers is not murder.

    Wrongful death is legalese for identifying responsibility without the moral taint. Murder is what you call putting a bullet in the back of the heads of prisoners (in any language). It is also called an execution, which can be legal if rigourous protocols are followed - they weren't in this case.

    It does not matter if we can understand the stress the soldier was under. He committed murder when he executed prisoners. You cannot put lipstick on it and call it wrongful death. It was wrong, period.

    If we take your logic, then we would excuse all Iraqi combatants fighting coalition forces as being justified because the horrors of war drove them to do what they normally wouldn't do. While this may be true, it does not justify the wrongs they committed.

    There is morality in war. That's why moral relativists like Cheney and Rumsfeld were (and are) not trusted by most people.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    bushlover: "Executing murderers is not murder. It's justice for the victims and a sense of security for normal society."

    So what you're saying is that if this man were executed instead of simply serving his 35 years (10 with parole) then it would be justice for the victims that he murdered, and a sense of security for normal society. Well, I don't think he deserves to be executed, since I don't believe in the death penalty, but I'm glad that you're clear on the fact that you believe this soldier deserves it. He murdered (executed) four people who did nothing (that could be proven, at any rate). There was INSUBSTANTIAL evidence, or did you miss that part. Even if there were evidence he is not judge, jury, and executioner. As such, he is a MURDERER, and by your own logic it would only be just that he is executed.

    Good job, bushlover. Again, fortunately you have people like me to fight on this guy's defense against the death penalty.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    bushlover: Just one more thing... you can take all the many posts against you and say, "I don't want to teach you English" and give us your version of what murder is, but the bottom line is he was found guilty of murdering four people by the US military. Just because you don't like the verdict doesn't mean you can change the man's guilt with wordplay. He's a murderer. So now, does your execution argument still apply to him?

  • 0

    sailwind

    Smith

    but the bottom line is he was found guilty of murdering four people by the US military. Just because you don't like the verdict doesn't mean you can change the man's guilt with wordplay. He's a murderer.

    He was not found guilty. There was no trial. He PLED guilty and was sentenced by a Military judge. There was no jury, no cross examination just him and the judge. As far as the sentence. I can't make a real judgement if is 'fair' or not. I do not know what plea bargian was made prior, or how cooperative he was in the investigation, it does seem that he was and that was a factor in his sentence.

    I do know this, he wasn't the ring-leader of this crime. That guy has pleaded innocent and will have a full Jury trail. Mayo's testimony will be critical in that trail, and he has offered to testify.

    I'm inclined to think that you and the rest who would never allowed him a plea bargian in the first place, that he might have declined to testify, making even harder to get a conviction on the real culprit in the tragedy. This is the real fish they after.

    First Sergeant John E Hatley, the most senior soldier present, is to stand trial charged with murder in Germany on April 13, an army statement said last week. A spokesman said Monday that Mayo would testify in that trial.

    That's the guy that should get life without parole, he was the one that convinced his squad that killing these guys was the right thing to do. If Mayo testimony, helps make that happen then justice will really be served.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "I'm inclined to think that you and the rest who would never allowed him a plea bargian in the first place, that he might have declined to testify, making even harder to get a conviction on the real culprit in the tragedy. This is the real fish they after."

    Actually, no. I do think the plea-bargain is a good thing in this case, and so thinking about that again I can see eligibility for parole in ten years depending on the guys behaviour, but only if it leads to a conviction.

    "That's the guy that should get life without parole, he was the one that convinced his squad that killing these guys was the right thing to do. If Mayo testimony, helps make that happen then justice will really be served."

    Agreed. They ought to be side by side in their together.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Oops, that's "in there (prison) together", not 'in their'.

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

More in World

View all

View all