defendmichael.com

[proudpop]

An Army Ranger, 1st Lt. Michael Behenna has been convicted of murdering a known terrorist named Ali Mansur in Iraq. Lt. Behenna is now serving a 25 year prison term. There is an effort to overturn this conviction through the appeals process. His parents have set up a web site with the information needed to help this young man. In the last few years we have seen Marines arrested for killing terrorists, Navy Seals going to trial for punching a terrorist, and here in Arizona we have Border Patrol agents being tried for shooting drug dealers. In each of these cases, public support has helped right a wrong. Please look at defendmichael.com and spread the word about this young soldier that is serving time, rather than serving his country.

Thanks, GE father of two Army Rangers RLTW

[Boudicca]

I am well aware of this situation as both he and I are "Okies". He's from Edmond, OK.

I signed his petition for a new trial and am keeping an eye on it pretty closely.

Thanks for bringing it up.

[Boudicca]

It has already been reduced from 25 to 20, now 20 to 15.. But 15 years at Leavenworth still blows.

[KK52]

That's what happens when we let Liberal judges get involved in the process. We need a standing provision which essentiall provides that "what happens in the military, stays in the military". Haul the accused into court under the UCMJ, conduct a court-martial if appropriate, sentence accordingly if found guilty of wrongdoing. But somehow, I find it difficult to comprehend how "in Iraq" and "known terrorist" and "murder" actually belong together in the same sentence.

[42L5V]

That's what happens when we let Liberal judges get involved in the process. We need a standing provision which essentiall provides that "what happens in the military, stays in the military". Haul the accused into court under the UCMJ, conduct a court-martial if appropriate, sentence accordingly if found guilty of wrongdoing. But somehow, I find it difficult to comprehend how "in Iraq" and "known terrorist" and "murder" actually belong together in the same sentence.

The "liberal judge" was a Soldier. The prosecutors were Soldiers. The jury were Soldiers. This was a court martial performed under the UCMJ. Courts martials operate under different rules from civilian trials, and in such he would have had a better opportunity for a not guilty verdict or a lesser sentence under a guilty verdict.


What reeks about this case is that none of the jury officers were combat veterans. How hard is it to find seven officers in the 101st who haven't been deployed? The prosecution suppressed evidence that would have significantly aided the defense, and yet both the presiding military judge and TWO general officers have refused to grant a new trial. As I understand it, the prosecurtors have not even been admonished, reprimanded or disbarred. Now that is bullshit.

[fatboy]

The guy that was killed might have been a bad guy, but he wasn't the guy Behenna thought he was. There is a lot more to the story than what is public , but the bottom line is, a jury of his peers judged him, found him guilty, and sentenced him. I could go on for days about this case, but the bottom line is there is a difference between murder and killing during combat operations, and in this case, it was not a combat op, and it wasn't a justified killing, which made it murder.

As far as not being able to find "combat" experienced officers in the 101st to sit on the jury, it was probably because pretty much the entire division was deployed between Iraq and Afghanistan at the time the trial was convened.