Veteran Army Sergeant Acquitted in Shooting Death of Panamanian : Military: The case is first combat court-martial since Vietnam War. It raises anew the question of when a soldier is justified in killing.

In the first combat court-martial since the Vietnam War, a decorated Army veteran was acquitted here Friday of charges that he executed a wounded Panamanian after a grenade attack during last year’s U.S. invasion of Panama.

A jury of eight Army officers deliberated less than two hours before finding Master Sgt. Roberto E. Bryan not guilty of murder.

“I knew I was innocent from the beginning. The charges should never have happened,” said the 43-year-old Bryan, sporting the red beret of the famed 82nd Airborne Division. Bryan said afterward that he bore no grudge against the Army and would like to join his unit in Saudi Arabia. “I would not hesitate” to shoot during combat, the 19-year veteran said. “I would do the same thing again.”

The military trial here, taking place just as thousands of U.S. soldiers were being sent from this base and others for possible combat in the Persian Gulf, focused new attention on an old question: When is a soldier justified in shooting to kill?

Since the 1968 My Lai massacre, Army commanders have been under orders to vigorously pursue allegations that soldiers have violated the rules of war. Investigators compiled a 700-page report in Bryan’s case, and top commanders here chose to go ahead with the full court-martial, even though lower level officers said the evidence was weak and the charges unwarranted.

But servicemen and veterans’ groups around the nation have questioned why the Army wanted to second-guess the split-second combat decision of a highly respected noncommissioned officer.

Bryan’s attorneys said the sergeant was trained to act quickly to protect himself and his men, and that is just what he did.

“We have had four days of testimony here to understand what Sgt. Bryan had to do in two seconds,” said Mark Waple of Fayetteville, N.C.

Army prosecutors, however, said the case did not involve “a judgment call in the heat of battle” but rather a “summary execution” on the battlefield. By their account, Bryan , in a fit of anger, chose to kill a dying, harmless man.

The Army’s case was undercut when several soldiers testified they saw the wounded Panamanian move his hand just before Bryan shot him. They said the man, who proved to be unarmed, could have been reaching for a second hand grenade.

The not-guilty verdict was greeted by shouts of joy and cheers from Bryan’s fellow soldiers, who crowded into the small courtroom.

According to court testimony, on Dec. 23, 1989, just three days after U.S. troops invaded Panama, Bryan’s unit was manning a roadblock near the Madden Dam. The dam provided hydroelectric power for the Panama Canal, and there had been reports that supporters of dictator Manuel A. Noriega might try to bomb the dam so as to disrupt the canal.

About noon, a small car with five men inside approached the roadblock and was stopped. The five Panamanians, in civilian clothes and wearing baseball caps, were ordered to get out and lie on the ground. But, before they could be searched, one tossed a hand grenade, and the explosion injured 10 Americans, one seriously. The U.S. troops, responding with a burst of automatic rifle fire, gunned down the five Panamanians. The scene was described as “utter chaos.”

The wounded Americans and the Panamanians were then dragged to the roadside, where a medic was treating the badly wounded servicemen. He saw one of the Panamanians make a move.

“That one’s alive,” he called out suddenly. Bryan, standing nearby, spotted the man, raised his M-16 rifle and fired, killing the wounded man.

“He injured my people,” Bryan reportedly said just after firing the last shots.

Bryan’s young commanding officer, Lt. Brandon Thomas, filed charges objecting to the sergeant’s use of what he said was unnecessary force against a dying man, prompting the long investigation and the trial. Although a review board here concluded that the case against Bryan was weak, Lt. Gen. Gary E. Luck, the new commander at Ft. Bragg, decided in July that Bryan should be tried.

The testimony over the four days appeared to undercut Thomas, Bryan’s chief accuser, more than Bryan. In cross-examination, Bryan’s attorneys brought out that Thomas had shot an unarmed, fleeing Panamanian two days before the Madden Dam incident. Numerous witnesses also testified that they saw the wounded Panamanian move his arm and said they feared he could be reaching for a second hand grenade.

Specialist Robert Valley, who was watching the scene from a nearby guard post, told the jury he had “a bead on the man’s head” and would have fired if Bryan had not.

Lt. Col. Lynn Moore, who commanded the battalion manning the roadblock, said the American troops were told to shoot whenever they believed they or their fellow soldiers were in danger.

“I wanted my soldiers to understand that, if there was any doubt, they should err on the side that’s going to protect our men’s lives,” Moore said.

Other soldiers testified that there was bad blood between Bryan, a well-respected veteran, and the younger Thomas. Bryan’s attorneys suggested that this animosity initially prompted Thomas to file the charges against Bryan and then follow through with his testimony against him. “He was the pebble that started this avalanche,” Waple told the jurors.

More than 24,000 American soldiers were sent to Panama in December. The Army said it had 60 reports of possible wrongdoing, but Bryan’s case is the only combat-related case that has gone to court-martial.

Army prosecutors insisted that the military should not ignore a “murder” just because Bryan was “loved by his men.” If so, the case will “set a new rule: Take no prisoners. Just kill them all,” said Capt. Charles Luckey, the lead prosecutor. He added, however, in his closing statement, “If you think this was about a judgment call, you should acquit him.”