The charges stem from a battle between Moqtada Al Sadr's militia and American forces. On May 21st, 2004, Captain Maynulet and his soldiers were on patrol near Najaf. They spotted a black sedan containing members of the Sadr militia, and a firefight ensued when they attempted to stop the vehicle. Karim Hassan, the driver and a member of the Sadr militia, was severely wounded during the firefight. When an American medic pulled the driver from the vehicle to treat his wounds, it was revealed that part of his skull had been blown away and he was in terminal condition. After being told by the medic that Mr. Hassan was going to die, Captain Maynulet allegedly shot him in the head or neck, killing him instantly.

According to the prosecution, Captain Maynulet murdered Mr. Hassan in cold blood and with premeditation. In contrast, an officer at the scene described the act as a mercy killing. "It was something he didn't want to do, but it was the compassionate response. It was definitely the humane response," testified First Lieutenant Colin Cremin.

Why am I qualified to render my opinion on this subject? First, I am a former Army prosecutor and have personally tried over twenty courts-martial (including murder, attempted murder, rape, and robbery). Second, and more important, I served in Sadr City as a member of a U.S. Army civil affairs team. I know the Sadr Militia, I know Iraq, and I know the rules of engagement. That's my job.

So, is Captain Maynulet a hero or a criminal? Neither. He is an American soldier that was dropped into a difficult situation and forced to make a life-or-death decision. He chose the side of compassion, whether legal or illegal, and he has been brought before a court-martial for his choice. This same story occurs countless times in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other crotches of the globe every day, and we normally trust our soldiers to make the right decision. Not here. Arm-chair commanders, politicians, and those who have never heard a shot fired in anger proceeded to drag Captain Maynulet into a court-martial for murder.

In the majority of situations, moral concerns and statutory laws go hand in hand. That which is illegal is normally immoral, i.e. rape. Sometimes, societal concerns lead us to criminalize actions that are not morally wrong but damage the greater good. Running a stoplight, for example, is not harmful to one's conscience but will result in a stiff fine. The most difficult situation arises when the two are in conflict and an individual must choose between following his heart or following the letter of the law. We have that here. Captain Maynulet could have let the man suffer through his pain while he bled out and convulsed on the ground. It would have been the "legal" thing to do. But that does not make it right.

The Geneva Conventions, which govern modern combat, are based on the entire human history of conflict. They draw upon traditions, customs, and treaties to codify the law of land warfare. Passed after the atrocities of World War II, the conventions are intended to minimize suffering. Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, Captain Maynulet could be tried for war crimes if he let Mr. Hassan suffer and die without intervention. Whatever action he took was going to violate some kind of law.

Take a different situation: many of you have seen the recent press accounts of first class travelers giving up their seats to soldiers returning from Iraq on leave. You may be astounded to discover that the soldiers are actually committing crimes by accepting the new seats. Under federal ethics regulations, government employees are forbidden to take upgrades to first class based on their position, and military members are forbidden from flying in first class in uniform. Are the soldiers being court-martialed? No. Their commanders were wise enough to realize that when the Rule of Law and the Rule of Right diverge, we support the soldier.

In March of 2003, I briefed a group of fellow soldiers on the rules of engagement and the law of war. I told them that they would soon be faced with split-second decisions bearing dire consequences, but that they could be assured that the military would trust and support them. I am ashamed to admit that I have been proven wrong. We are no longer backing our soldiers. Instead, our junior leaders and enlisted soldiers are turned into scapegoats. As a result, senior leaders that never leave their comfortable, armored, and secluded accommodations have discovered that soldiers make good political pawns and can be converted into a barrier from scandal. "Hang the captains and sergeants out to dry; it's tea time in the Green Zone."

So, we have the court-martial of Captain Maynulet. I am just one lone ex-soldier, but I have Been There and Done That, as the cliché goes. I can unequivocally state that this should never have gone to trial. Morally Right and Literally Legal have split, and we must come down on the side of the soldier.