Court-martial decision delayed
A ruling on whether a soldier accused of killing an Afghan doctor should stand trial is set for July 31.
After a hearing in which military lawyers debated to what extent soldiers can be held accountable for splitsecond decisions in the heat of combat, a ruling on whether to court-martial a soldier who killed an unarmed physician in southern Afghanistan has been postponed until July 31.
The case of Army Sgt. 1st Class Walter Taylor, heard before a military court in Germany last month, now rests with Lt. Col. Alva Hart, investigating officer with the 16th Sustainment Brigade. Hart will determine whether there are reasonable grounds to hold the 31-yearold veteran of four combat deployments for trial on charges of negligent homicide in the shooting of the civilian doctor.
The shooting occurred at the end of a tense gunfight; the doctor’s vehicle had raced into the middle of the battle, adding to the confusion.
Hart on Tuesday signaled his intention to delay his recommendation until the end of the month, allowing time to prepare detailed transcripts of testimony from some of the 26 witnesses who appeared during the three-day hearing in Germany.
Aqilah Hikmat, 49, head of obstetrics at Afghanistan’s Ghazni provincial hospital, was driving toward the capital, Kabul, with her family in July 2011 when their car sped up and passed one of two cars full of insurgents. The gunmen were firing at Taylor and his soldiers from the 38th Route Clearance Platoon, 541st Sapper Company, in the wake of a roadside bomb explosion that had seriously injured five U.S. soldiers and killed an Afghan civilian.
Taylor fired on Hikmat as she exited the vehicle and made her way toward the back of the car.
Military prosecutors, who have charged Taylor with dereliction of duty and negligent homicide, said he failed to comply with the Army’s rigorous rules of engagement.
Those rules require soldiers to positively identify targets as noncivilians and to ascertain that they are demonstrating hostile intent toward U.S. forces before engaging them.
Taylor, who was gravely injured in a grenade attack 10 days after the shooting, told the hearing officer he had only seconds to make a decision and that he fired because he believed the figure exiting the car was an insurgent preparing to detonate a second bomb.
“Nothing about the car, nothing about the person who exited the car, led me to believe that he or she was a noncombatant.… I never had before witnessed a civilian vehicle drive into a gunfight,” Taylor said at the hearing, according to a package of recorded testimony made available to The Times.
“I deeply regret the death of Dr. Hikmat, and I regret that the members of her family were killed and wounded.… [But] I continue to believe I made the best decision that I could have under the circumstances,” he said.
Taylor’s civilian lawyer, James Culp, said the Army was crossing into uncharted territory if it attempted to hold soldiers criminally responsible for acts of mere negligence committed during intense combat, when clarity and certainty were often elusive.
A parade of soldiers from Taylor’s unit testified to the high standards of professionalism the 13-year Army veteran normally demanded of himself and his soldiers. They too thought the car in which Hikmat was riding had appeared to be part of the attack, they testified.
But the Army prosecutor who presented the case, Capt. Courtney M. Cohen, argued that Taylor fired the fatal shot at least 10 minutes after a cease-fire had been called, during which Hikmat’s vehicle had stood stationary with no signs of a threat.
Inside the car, Hikmat’s son and niece were dead, and her husband was wounded.
“This event unfolded over the course of 20 to 30 minutes, and according to the rules of engagement ... one of the requirements is to continually reassess the threat, respond accordingly, and use only the minimum and appropriate level of [force],” Cohen said.