Editorial: When is Murder Legal?

By Michael L. Craner

On May 21, 2004 Army Captain Roger Maynulet was faced with a difficult decision. Miles from any form of medical facility an Iraqi insurgent lay suffering with mortal wounds. Moments ago previously it could have been this man looking down on Cpt Maynulet.

Captain Maynulet had numerous times in the past offered medical aid to the enemy, but he knew this time there was nothing he could. He ordered his former Marine, turned Army Medic to treat the dying man. In his own words, Sgt. Thomas Cassady "spazzed out", and was unable to help the man either.

"I thought I was doing the humane thing," Maynulet said. "I still believe it was morally right but obviously it was legally wrong. I hope to God I never have to be put in that situation ever again."

Captain Maynulet killed the mortally wounded insurgent out of mercy while a UAV flew overhead and videotaped the scene as witness which was used against him in his court martial.

Captain Maynulet was found "Not Guilty" of the charge of assault with intent to murder but found him guilty of a lesser charge. He was ordered out of the military but wouldn't have to serve any prison time.

As an Army veteran, I believe the military justice system failed this soldier of otherwise outstanding record, when he needed their support the most. The message of the military is clear. "It is illegal to kill the enemy out of mercy, but acceptable if the enemy is still shooting back."

Recently civilian courts made an opposing determination. In the case of Terry Schiavo, they determined that it was acceptable to starve to death a helpless woman when her husband had no further use for her. In fact, they didn't just condone it, they ordered it to be done.

The case of Terry Schiavo is a long and complicated one, filled with all sorts of theories including her husbands involvement in the situation that caused her to have a stroke which left her severely brain damaged. I'm not here to get into those details or pursue it. The simple "end game" facts that it comes down to is that the courts ordered the starvation of, with the intent to kill, a woman who was severely brain damaged and hospitalized, yet was on no other life support systems to speak of. She was under no heroic measures to keep her living except a feeding tube which delivered the nutrients we all need to live.

Furthermore she was not considered a "lost cause" case to everyone. Her husband may have abandoned her, but her family wanted to take over her care. The courts ruled them out and in favor of her husband. Even after her execution, they refused to allow her body to be given to her family, instead permitting her husband to have her cremated and taken away from her family. The cremation of her body also forever lost any evidence that she was ever curable or what caused her stroke in the first place.

These are two terrible cases of our justice systems working against the will of the people, common sense, and best interests of those affected. Who is to blame for this?

Not me. I didn't do anything.

Or perhaps that's why I should share the blame?

While these cases are permanantly over for some people, they are far from over for the rest of us. It is our duty to take a side and speak out for it. It is our duty to make sure in the case of life and death that the laws are clear and concise. It is our duty to ensure our courts interpret and follow these laws to the letter.