Michael Behenna, Ranger - convicted?

[nmap]

I did a search on the name "Behenna" and got no hits - the story seems interesting. The source may not be unbiased; however, the allegation that Army prosecutors withheld evidence is surprising.

Thoughts or comments?

LINK to complete story (http://defendmichael.wordpress.com/)

Please note that there are links to mainstream press stories in the LA times at the above link. Those links have not been reproduced here.

In brief: (Excerpt)

On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and was suspected to have organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.

During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.

The problem - an expert witness testified that the Lt. was telling the truth. However, according to the source:

Jack Zimmermann, defense counsel, asks prosecutors if they have any exculpatory evidence that should be provided to the defense (referring to Dr. MacDonnell’s demonstration). Prosecutors deny having any such evidence despite having been told by their own expert witness that Lt Behenna’s explanation was the only logical explanation.

Prosecutors withholding of this evidence allowed them to argue that Lt. Behenna executed Ali Mansur while seated when the forensic experts, including Dr. MacDonnell, agree that Ali was standing with his arms outstretched when shot

[T-Rock]

Thoughts or comments?

One of several idiotic twists taken of late which will discourage a handful of young patriotic Americans from entry into military service of our country. Something is seriously wrong with the execution of this nation’s code of military justice when it’s being used against the very folks it’s meant to protect.

Abu Yahya al-Libi would be proud…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYZ9bEpMIaE&feature=player_embedded#
(2:25-40)

[ChickenMcFuggit]

This case was botched from the beginning. It just seems that the word 'evidence' has different meanings here and over there. Stuff that wouldn't get any where near a case here is taken as gospel over there. al Quaida is using our own system against us, effectively.

[sleepyhead4]

Give me a break. This isn't about how jacked up our UCMJ system is or not. It's about someone, an officer in the US Army, killing an unarmed prisoner. Because I am not intimately familiar with the case, I won't make judgment. However, I was at the base/city that this occurred at. This is still a hot topic that the locals talk about. And I'm sure it'll be brought up again for the benefit of the bad guys.

We are all responsible for our actions, whether the intentions were good or bad. So the LT is responsible for taking a prisoner away from the convoy to a culvert for an unauthorized interrogation, which eventually led to the killing. And his chain of command should be held liable for allowing this situation to happen by having this LT take custody of someone who was responsible for the deaths of his men. It's a lose lose situation.

[ChickenMcFuggit]

Give me a break. This isn't about how jacked up our UCMJ system is or not. It's about someone, an officer in the US Army, killing an unarmed prisoner. Because I am not intimately familiar with the case, I won't make judgment. However, I was at the base/city that this occurred at. This is still a hot topic that the locals talk about. And I'm sure it'll be brought up again for the benefit of the bad guys.

We are all responsible for our actions, whether the intentions were good or bad. So the LT is responsible for taking a prisoner away from the convoy to a culvert for an unauthorized interrogation, which eventually led to the killing. And his chain of command should be held liable for allowing this situation to happen by having this LT take custody of someone who was responsible for the deaths of his men. It's a lose lose situation.

Too true and I agree. Maybe you can shed some light where the media has me in the dark. It was implied in one article that the dead POS's family had control of the crime scene and the body for 10 hours before Iraqi police took evidence. Do the Iraqi police normally contribute to military investigations ? I'm trying to gauge what weight such evidence would hold. Maybe I'm just biased against the Iraqi PD.

[NousDefionsDoc]

He is not a Ranger. He is a graduate of Ranger School. He was assigned to the 101st when he did this apparently. As has been stated, he apparently stepped on his peepee with golf cleats and will now suffer the consequences of his actions.

[sleepyhead4]

Too true and I agree. Maybe you can shed some light where the media has me in the dark. It was implied in one article that the dead POS's family had control of the crime scene and the body for 10 hours before Iraqi police took evidence. Do the Iraqi police normally contribute to military investigations ? I'm trying to gauge what weight such evidence would hold. Maybe I'm just biased against the Iraqi PD.

Whether the family had control of the crime scene and the body for 10 hours, that's moot. All parties involved confessed to their part in the crime (and yes, it is a crime).

I feel for the LT's family and I've caught myself wanting to do what he did after seeing good men/women lost...but that was a choice that I wasn't going to make. He made his, and now he's facing the consequence.

[JimP]

Sleepy makes an astute point - letting the LT take control of this cat after members of his platoon had been killed by the same cat is immensely stupid on the part of the Command. Not a smart move in anyone's book.

[Utah Bob]

Life is full of choices.

[AngelsSix]

Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna stood over him in the grainy darkness, his Glock pistol racked and pointed down at him.

"If you don't talk, I will kill you," Behenna said.

A couple of observations/questions. (I am not in the Army, but my spouse is.)

When did regular 101st folks decide it is okay to interrogate anyone?

When did the Army start issuing their members Glocks?

Since when is it okay to interrogate anyone by pointing a gun at their head and threatening to kill them?

I am not taking sides, I just want to know what some of you think about these things.

[ChickenMcFuggit]

Sleepy makes an astute point - letting the LT take control of this cat after members of his platoon had been killed by the same cat is immensely stupid on the part of the Command. Not a smart move in anyone's book.

I guess that is one of the reasons giving me pause to wonder if Article 119 (Voluntary Manslaughter) would not have been more fitting in this case. The elements of that article are as such:

1) Voluntary manslaughter.

(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon the person killed.

Like murder, the crime involves intent (SUBSECTION 2 details involuntary), but is a lesser charge and it allows extraneous circumstances such as motive, surroundings, prior history to come into play with greater weight.
It is the prosecution's job to go for the highest possible charge in every case. Its not just how the system works, it is why the system works, IMHO. But prosecutors/judges/etc vary in personal views as do any other profession. I've seen defense lawyers who pled clients to a lesser charge even though they knew they could have gotten them off scott free and I've seen prosecutors who stuck to the greater charge even though they knew the lesser charge was more appropriate to the crime. Each had their reasons and I don't fault the ethics of either. As I said, that is why the system works, in a roundabout way.
While an assault by the victim would have allowed for self defense, lethal force was not necessary if the terrorist/victim was unarmed. I guess my point is that, while the LT unlawfully killed the POS, and may have even intended such from the moment he was given the escort order, the circumstances leading up to the act, even circumstances of his own creation, still would allow for the charge of manslaughter to be levied as opposed to murder. Both charges would end the career of and put the boy in jail for a long time, job done.
And I realize I'm armchair quarterbacking, but that's what forums are for, ain't it ? :)

[Sigaba]

One of several idiotic twists taken of late which will discourage a handful of young patriotic Americans from entry into military service of our country. Something is seriously wrong with the execution of this nation’s code of military justice when it’s being used against the very folks it’s meant to protect.IMO, the case sends a different message. Like the country they protect, members of the armed services are governed by rules of law that are applicable to all. This concept, along with others, sets America apart from its enemies, past and present.Entire post.A6--

Your questions posed here and elsewhere are evocative of the central theme in many of David Mamet's dramatic works. Well done.Entire post.CMF--

Not a lawyer, but the allegation that Mr. Behenna's actions were premeditated may explain why he was charged under article 118 rather than article 119.

Article 119 allows for the accused being "in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation." Article 118 addresses premeditated acts and clause 3 addresses conduct in which the accused "is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life."

If the facts as reported by the Los Angeles Times article, available here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-killing13-2009sep13,0,2040951,full.story), are accurate, Mr. Behenna's conduct in the days up to the encounter, as well as during the encounter itself, raise questions about "sudden passion" and his regard for the safety of others, including the men under his command at the time he interrogated Mr. Mansur.

I would be curious to know if the prosecution offered a plea agreement but, like the SEALs discussed in another thread, the defense thought complete exoneration would result from an actual trial.:confused:

[ChickenMcFuggit]

Not a lawyer, but the allegation that Mr. Behenna's actions were premeditated may explain why he was charged under article 118 rather than article 119.
Article 119 allows for the accused being "in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation." Article 118 addresses premeditated acts and clause 3 addresses conduct in which the accused "is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life."
If the facts as reported by the Los Angeles Times article, available here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-killing13-2009sep13,0,2040951,full.story), are accurate, Mr. Behenna's conduct in the days up to the encounter, as well as during the encounter itself, raise questions about "sudden passion" and his regard for the safety of others, including the men under his command at the time he interrogated Mr. Mansur.

I would be curious to know if the prosecution offered a plea agreement but, like the SEALs discussed in another thread, the defense thought complete exoneration would result from an actual trial.:confused:

I think this case will be defined by case law rather than statutory restrictions. Statutory law is defined by the black and white book while case law is the accepted judgments by the court afterwards that, in some cases, takes the statutory law in several different directions. I fished for some and found this link:
http://www.tpub.com/content/armymilitarypolice/mp1019c/mp1019c0019.htm

Behenna stayed in a perpetual state of anguish well after other members of his unit had reached some semblance of acceptance. Sleep depravation further degraded his mental state. The Military Intelligence (insert standard MI joke here) guys then order him to give the man he believes helped kill his brothers a ride home ? How long can you define sudden ? When it comes to case law, sometimes the sky is green so to speak. Kind of left field (alot of case law is), but I think a judge would have allowed it to be attempted (used as a defense) in a civvie court. I would wonder if the defense tried arguing insanity.

Good question as to whether a plea agreement was offered, but a defense attorney would have had to be mentally deficient if he thought he could get this guy off clean.

[Surf n Turf]

Still a Long time for the young Lt.
SnT

The Army Clemency and Parole Board today reduced the sentence of Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna from 20 to 15 years, according to a news release from Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.).
Lieutenant Behenna, who is currently serving his sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., was convicted of unpremeditated murder in the shooting death of Ali Mansur, a known Al-Qaeda operative, while serving in Iraq.
Previous cases of similar or more aggravating circumstances, where the defendants were found guilty of premeditated murder, have resulted in less severe sentences, which prompted the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation to appeal to the board for a careful review of this case and relevant precedent.
http://bobmccarty.com/2010/01/21/army-reduces-soldiers-sentence-to-15-years/

[AngelsSix]

.A6--

Your questions posed here and elsewhere are evocative of the central theme in many of David Mamet's dramatic works. Well done.CMF--


I had to look that up in the middle of the NO/Minn game, dammit!! You should not make me do that!!:p

Our family spent time at the dinner table discussing things when I was growing up, instead of watching t.v., most of the time we ended up arguing like we were working cases in court. That's where I get it from....and I want to be a lawyer but I am not smart enough, LOL!:D

[Thomas Paine]

Behenna killed an al qaeda jihadist in self defense, and Behenna is going to jail. Saving Behenna saves America. This is our battle -- this is America under attack from the enemy within.

If you are in the DC/Virginia area on December 9th at 10 am,
please stand with Michael at the courthouse for Michael Behenna's hearing:

901 North Stuart Street,
Ste 1200, Arlington, VA.

DETAILS:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/defend-michael-behenna-an-american-heros-tragic-miscarriage-of-justice.html

[Stobey]

I received the following in my email, w/regard to Lt. Behenna:

To all the thousands of Michael supporters,

Just a quick update to let you know that the Government filed their Response to Michael's Petition before the Supreme Court. Michael's lawyers now have ten days to file a Reply to the Government's Response. The Supreme Court will then set Michael's case for Conference (hopefully by June) and decide whether to grant Certiorari which means a review by the whole Supreme Court. For the Supreme Court justices to grant Certiorari from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces would be the first time a military petition has reached this stage - so prayers for discernment for these nine Justices are certainly welcomed.

An encouraging tidbit was that Michael's case was selected by the Supreme Court Blog as the petition of the day for May 1st - http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/petition-of-the-day-446/

We ask that you spread this email and please continue to tell Michael's story. Have your friends and neighbors sign Michael's petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/MBehenna/petition.html . If they want to further assist, please have them contact their Congressional Representatives and Senators and let them know that Michael has served enough time in prison and deserves the same freedom you and I all enjoy. To locate your state’s Representative's / Senators click on the following link: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[...]

I am not, nor have I ever been in the military, so you will please pardon my ignorance regarding all the "legality" , uh... stuff. However, I was under the impression that when we are at war it IS generally customary to kill as many of the enemy as possible.

(And make no mistake about it, we ARE at war, even though no one seems to have the cojones to admit it. Islam IS at war with all kufar, even though it is not politically correct to acknowledge that fact. Islam is especially at war with any kufar on "Islamic" land. ALL are targets. Military, non-military support personnel, it doesn't matter.)

This very much reminds me of the case of Harry ("Breaker") Morant in the Boer War.

I know that the U.S. military must follow an increasingly bizarre set of ROE. The problem with these rules being set down by people far from any conflict is, in my opinion, getting good men wounded and killed - or sent to Leavenworth for killing a jihadi scumbag. We try to play by the Queensbury Rules - our enemies are very well aware of that; and make no mistake, they use that to their advantage - and our disadvantage. It's like trying to fight with one hand tied behind your back.

All I am saying is that this sort of behavior from our own military JAG is very apt to have some very unpleasant consequences - on morale, on what soldiers see (or don't see)... I just think it sucks!!! Had the jihadi scumbag been returned to his fellow scumbags he would have been lauded as a big hero for the deaths he caused.

Enough ranting! Point made.

The information on the petition is posted for any and all who would like to sign on a fellow soldier's behalf.