Two U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murdering Iraqis

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:07:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The death toll keeps rising in Iraq. Among the details in today's article about Saturday's raid on Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City slum, is this news:

....two American soldiers are accused of killing three Iraqis in separate incidents, then planting weapons on the victims' remains, the military said in a statement. Fellow soldiers reported the alleged crimes, which took place between April and this month near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, it said.

The U.S. military on Saturday identified the soldiers as Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley from Candler, N.C., and Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval from Laredo, Texas.

More....

As to the charges:

Hensley is charged with three counts each of premeditated murder, obstructing justice and "wrongfully placing weapons with the remains of deceased Iraqis," the military said. He was placed in military confinement in Kuwait on Thursday.

Sandoval faces one count each of premeditated murder and placing a weapon with the remains of a dead Iraqi, a statement said. He was taken into custody Tuesday while at home in Texas, and was transferred to military confinement in Kuwait three days later, it said.

< New Mexico Law Requires State to Produce Marijuana | The EPC and the Forgotten Footnote >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Two U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murdering Iraqis | 51 comments (51 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Evidence (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by wlgriffi on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:10:12 AM EST

It will be interesting to see if there is fact evidence besides the customary hearsay evidence in this case. The tragedy in this "OCCUPATION" is that our troops are caught in a no-win situation. They follow orders to break in to houses and then have to defend against hearsay evidence given by Iraqis who may or may not be enemies.

: In this case... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by desertswine on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:09:11 PM EST

it might by important to notice that the criminal activity was reported by fellow soldiers and not the local population. Or at least the article doesn't mention the locals in this instance.

In the murder case, the two American soldiers are accused of killing three Iraqis in separate incidents, then planting weapons on the victims' remains, the military said in a statement. Fellow soldiers reported the alleged crimes, which took place between April and this month near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, it said.

I expect we'll see more of this (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:24:52 AM EST

as the occupation goes on and the military gets stretched even more thin than it is.

Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military

recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
...
"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying

New Report Suggests Increase In Military Gang Activity

A 2007 FBI report was part of an internal memo, according to the FBI and was not supposed to be released to the public.
...
"You have racist graffiti, gang graffiti in Baghdad on on military install, guys wearing gang clothes to clubs, but you don't have a problem with gang members in the military? Quite interesting," said T.J. Leyden, Marine/Former Skinhead.
Leyden, was a recruiter for a white supremacist, anti -government group who joined the Marines and believes it trained him to be more lethal.
"Give me 50 caliber rifle, I can take down a 747 tomorrow -- over any major city in the us," Leydon said.

I don't know if Hensley and Sandoval belong to any gangs, but apart from the no-win situation the soldiers are in that wlgriffi mentions, the Army's desperation recruiting can't be helping the situation.

edger (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:37:10 PM EST

I don't know if Hensley and Sandoval belong to any gangs

Then why bring the subject up? I mean besides just wanting to smear the troops??


No (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:14:49 PM EST

It was to shine a light on the desperation of Bush and his supporters, ppj.

But you knew that.

Some of his supporters, being as brainless and in denial as they are, will even go as far as trying the despicable tactic of accusing me of "smearing the troops", for shining that light.

The real "smearing" of the troops is being done by those who are killing them by supplying people with the weapons to kill them, after murdering nearly a million of those peoples children and women. Smearing them all over Iraqi streets in your name, ppj. Proud? Happy? Gasoline still cheap enough for you?

Pray, ppj. The Iraqi want to have a word with you. Go back under your bridge and hide.


Maybe if your local gas station (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:23:39 PM EST

was forced to dye the gas deep red to look like blood and put pictures of dead and mangled US Troops and dead Iraqi children on the front of the pumps you'd finally understand, ppj.

But even then I wouldn't have much faith in you.


Then (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:36:02 PM EST

it would be the same color as diesel used on farms, dyed that way to keep people from using it in their non-farm vehicles.

You slay me, Edger. This is why I read this blog for the comedy.


I'm glad you find this thread funny, wile. (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:59:01 PM EST

Even ppj hasn't got the giggles from this one.


Just (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:01:28 PM EST

your posts on this thread.


edger (none / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:27:04 PM EST

Actually I find your comments routinely funny.


Great. (none / 0) (#44)
by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:46:31 PM EST

Try this one. Let me know if the question is over your head. I'll understand if you feel you shouldn't answer it. Failure to answer it will be a clear answer in itself.


OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#45)
by Sailor on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:13:17 PM EST

as usual ppj can't say anything on topic.

FELLOW SOLDIERS TURNED MURDERERS IN FOR MURDERING.

Not Iraqis, not Edger.

Got anything to say on topic!

Like condemning soldiers of ANY country for murder?

Pfft.


sailor (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:29:16 AM EST

You sure don't pay attention.

Edger brought up gang activity, which has nothing to do with the subject. Totally off topic.

Why didnt you complain to him??

I called him on it, he responded with some off the wall comment and Wile and I are laughing at him.

Now. The other day you made some self promoting comment about what you know, peer reviews, etc. If true that indicates you have a fair amount of intellifence.

So why cast doubt by doing such things as your attack???


: two wrongs don't make a right ... (none / 0) (#50)
by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:06:10 AM EST

... and you are still off topic with a personal attack.
Anything to say about fellow soldiers turning in these alleged murderers?

It does (none / 0) (#20)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:03:10 PM EST

remind me though of the pix the pro-life nutburgers put on the over-passes. Get your idea from them?


From (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:26:12 PM EST

this. Don't laugh yourself silly over it though, wile.


: Never (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:54:18 PM EST

heard of the site.

edger (1.00 / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:45:19 PM EST

The subject of "gangs" etc., was not a part of the post. None. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

And I am pleased to see that you admit:

So you took a subject that smears ALL the troops and use it to attack Bush.

You are using our troops. People who are being wounded and dying to make a political point.

Disgusting doesn't even get near that.


I take you that since you've said nothing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:24:39 PM EST

to indicate you think it's a bad idea, that you agree with and support recruiting White Supremacists, Aryan Nations Members, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and street gang members into the army then.

Well... that would be in character for you, ppj.

Since their CinC is a psycho I guess you figure it's ok to arm psychos and send them to Iraq.

You're right, ppj. Disgusting doesn't even get near that.

The report, Gang Activity in the U.S. Armed Forces Increasing (.pdf), dated January 12, states that members of nearly every major street gang have been identified on both domestic and international military installations. These street gangs include the Bloods, Crips, Black Disciples, Gangster Disciples, Hells Angels, Latin Kings, The 18th Street Gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Mexican Mafia, Nortenos, Surenos, Vice Lords, and various white supremacist groups.


edger (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:46:51 AM EST

I take you that since you've said nothing to indicate you think it's a bad idea, that you agree with and support recruiting White Supremacists, Aryan Nations Members, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and street gang members into the army the
Well... that would be in character for you, ppj.

It is dishonest to claim something because a person hasn't answered/commented.

You are getting as good as squeaky at smearing.


: It's not that hard a question, ppj. (none / 0) (#49)
by Edger on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:18:20 AM EST

You either think it's a good idea, or you think it's a bad idea, to recruit White Supremacists, Aryan Nations Members, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and street gang members into the army.
Which is it, ppj?
Dodging the question only makes it appear that you think it's a good idea.

As opposed to smearing "the troops" (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by jondee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:17:26 PM EST

with blood. Is the investigation an effort to smear the troops too; and, do truth and justice just embolden the terrorists?


Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:50:38 PM EST

How do you smear the troops with "blood?"

The investigation is the investigation.

Unlike you I'll assume they are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


Answer: (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by jondee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:39:03 PM EST

You send them out to do the chickenhawks bidding.

And, where did I claim they were guilty, trollboy?


: You don't have to, jondoo. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:21:31 PM EST

I know you.

Smear the troops with "blood?" (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:20:57 AM EST

If you're Bush or Cheney or any of his idiot supporters you smear the troops with "blood" by arming the people who are trying to kill the troops.

That is how Bush and Cheney "support" the troops.

In the bizarro logic used to continue the debacle in Iraq arming the people whose children you've been killing for years makes perfect sense.

It gives them the weaponry needed to kill American soldiers in Iraq, thus proving beyond all doubt that the place is riddled with terrorists and justifying sending more American troops in...

In other countries it's called treason, and war crimes.


Because we are having a problem (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:25:51 PM EST

with White Supremacists and the actions of the soldiers could fit in with those beliefs I suppose.


Tracy (1.00 / 2) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:48:56 PM EST

If you want to condemn gangs in the military, why don't you do it in an open thread, and not try to connect that problem with the three soldiers here.

They are not the same.

And see my comment to Edger and out a "To Tracy" on it.

The more I read your comments the more I believe you do not have a husband in the military.


Funny (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:20:44 PM EST

Seems right on topic to me. How is this OT?

Because you do not like the implications?


I think Jim does though. (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:40:28 PM EST

I was only bringing up the possibility (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:40:44 PM EST

because we are having a problem with White Supremacists in the Army right now. I suppose we'll find out more soon enough of what was motivating these soldiers.


And because my word means nothing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:48:40 PM EST

here is a link to an article explaining it, it is sadly from that liberal rag the New York Times and the raw data comes from that fruitcake institution The Southern Poverty Law Center. It's the best I got though, sorry in advance Jim.


Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:28:42 PM EST

I will try to explain this again:

Edger brought in the gang issue. It had nothing to do with the investigation. When I noted that, what did he say?

So he is using an investigation of three murders that have no information about gangs to imply that the army has a gang problem, and since it is now rolled into one, he is smearing. That includes your husband.

Simpler. He is using them and that includes your husband.

Now, do you understand why I say I have problems believeing you??


Looks like you badly need help, ppj. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:11:46 PM EST

When you quote me you need the full quote. You don't want to run the risk of misrepresenting what I say and end up looking like nothing more than a fool and a troll.

It was to shine a light on the desperation of Bush and his supporters, ppj.
But you knew that.
Some of his supporters, being as brainless and in denial as they are, will even go as far as trying the despicable tactic of accusing me of "smearing the troops", for shining that light.
The real "smearing" of the troops is being done by those who are killing them by supplying people with the weapons to kill them, after murdering nearly a million of those peoples children and women. Smearing them all over Iraqi streets in your name, ppj. Proud? Happy? Gasoline still cheap enough for you?
Pray, ppj. The Iraqi want to have a word with you. Go back under your bridge and hide.

This whole topic here is bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:21:02 PM EST

in a way. My husband came over and read the story and the way soldiers are so tight with each other in Iraq right now he proclaimed, "Oh they did it, these guys did it!" Then he read some of the comments and said, "It's nice that some of the lawyers on here really want to know what happened unlike the rest of us who easily wholesale condemn or wholesale pardon in an instance like this".


Well (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:58:49 PM EST

I don't think anyone here would condemn these 2 soldiers without a fair trial, but I do think that the extremeness of the situation created now in Iraq with the soldiers in constant fear and not knowing who is friendly or who only looks friendly but will kill them given the smallest opportunity, combined with recruitment practices that so lower the bar that very marginal people are being inducted and sent to Iraq all will contribute to more and more of these kinds of incidents.

These 3 Iraqis killed allegedly by these two soldiers wasn't the only incident like this reported today:

US Raids Baghdad Slum; 26 Iraqis Die
By Hamid Ahmed, The Associated Press, Saturday 30 June 2007

Baghdad - American soldiers rolled into Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City slum on Saturday in search of Iranian-linked militants and as many as 26 Iraqis were killed in what a U.S. officer described as "an intense firefight."
But residents, police and hospital officials said eight civilians were killed in their homes and angrily accused U.S. forces of firing blindly on the innocent. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki condemned the raids and demanded an explanation for the assault into a district where he has barred U.S. operations in the past.
Separately, two American soldiers were charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqis, the U.S. military said Saturday. And in Muqdadiyah, 60 miles north of the capital, police said a suicide bomber blew himself up near a crowd of police recruits, killing at least 23 people and wounding 17.

I don't think it helps at all to be sending gangs members and white supremicists and other kinds of psychos into the situation that has been created in Iraq.


Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:13:13 PM EST

This was written by Edger.

I don't think it helps at all to be sending gangs members and white supremicists and other kinds of psychos into the situation that has been created in Iraq.

Note that is a direct smear of the troops. Note he offers no proof that the activities he refers to had any of the above types in it.

And you can't condemn that??

Nope you are kidding us. You don't have a husband in the military.


I wish I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:38:15 AM EST

My life would be much easier right now.


Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:52:44 AM EST

You can take control of your life anytime you want.

Again. Please take a long hard look at what edger is doing, who he is using and what his true motives are.


: Do tell how Jim (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:10:13 PM EST

Don't be a fool, jim. (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:25:41 PM EST

It just makes you look like ppj.


Edger (1.00 / 1) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:51:32 AM EST

You have again and again demonstrated that you will use the troops for political purposes.

You can call me names all you want and that bottom line truth will not go away. You are my best resource and your own worst enemy.

Thanks.


Political Purposes?????? (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:13:50 PM EST

They are in Iraq in the first place for political purposes. You are supporting their daily death toll for political purposes. The troops are pawns of political power. Nothing new here.


Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:29:59 PM EST

The troops are their because our government sent them. Smearing them by writing:

serves no other purpose than an attempt to change that government by making these outrageous statements. That's shameful.

Attack the government. Let the troops be.


It Is True (5.00 / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:37:45 PM EST

Not a smear of the soldiers but a serious and valid criticism the current administration who hates our troops.

Check it out. Take your pick.


squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:25:32 PM EST

Read and put it into context.

That's what I am asking.


: Troll (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:15:27 AM EST

I should have realized soonerr that you were doing your usual troll routine.

Only in your upside down (1.00 / 0) (#37)
by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:06:33 AM EST

inside out and backwards delusional world, ppj.


: edger (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:26:24 PM EST

Keep on giving me the quotes.

Folks like ppj are smearing the troops ... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Sailor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:32:00 PM EST

... smearing their blood all over iraq.

No WMDs, no ability to attack the US, no connection to 9/11 and no connection to AQ ... until we invaded.


Yeah (none / 0) (#2)
by Claw on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:15:49 AM EST

Granted. But I think the military is generally pretty loath to prosecute soldiers without good evidence.