trickpony1
Well-Known Member
For those who care, there is an update on one of the Leavenworth Ten, 1LT Michael Behenna, at:
www.DefendMichael.com
www.DefendMichael.com
Leavenworth Ten Update
- Thread starter trickpony1
- Start date
What was the update? Hearsay? Not quite evidence, but heck, Behenna has 25 years to find another excuse to justify his murder.
What i am impressed with is the INFLAMMATORY words used in the first two paragraphs intended on creating anger in the reader.
""On March 20[SUP]th[/SUP], 2009, Army Ranger 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 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 Army intelligence believed he 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.""
Its important to note, that this soldier WAS NOT responsible for interrogating prisoners or subjects as that was NOT his DUTY. In RED, it shows that this soldier was ORDERED to return this prisoner to his home after being interrogated by ARMY INTELLIGENCE and this soldier made a DECISION to interrogate him further upto and including his murder.
The case was simple and members of his own platoon testified against him.
Inflammatory rhetoric doesnt prove a miscarriage of justice and "WE" have to hold our soldiers accountable for their actions in combat when they are wrong.
Peace.
What i am impressed with is the INFLAMMATORY words used in the first two paragraphs intended on creating anger in the reader.
""On March 20[SUP]th[/SUP], 2009, Army Ranger 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 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 Army intelligence believed he 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.""
Its important to note, that this soldier WAS NOT responsible for interrogating prisoners or subjects as that was NOT his DUTY. In RED, it shows that this soldier was ORDERED to return this prisoner to his home after being interrogated by ARMY INTELLIGENCE and this soldier made a DECISION to interrogate him further upto and including his murder.
The case was simple and members of his own platoon testified against him.
Inflammatory rhetoric doesnt prove a miscarriage of justice and "WE" have to hold our soldiers accountable for their actions in combat when they are wrong.
Peace.
Behennas court martial RECORD:
After Lieutenant Behenna's Article 32 hearing the Behenna family hired defense attorney Jack Zimmerman, a former United States Marine, military trial judge and Vietnam veteran. The prosecution, led by Captain Erwin Roberts, made its opening statements on February 23, 2009. The prosecution's two principal witnesses were Harry and Staff Sergeant Warner. Warner struck a plea bargain with the prosecution where he agreed to plead guilty to assault, maltreatment of a subordinate and making a false statement in exchange for not being charged with premeditated murder and for his future testimony against Lt Behenna. The defense contended that Behenna was under an acute stress disorder as a result of the attacks on his platoon and that during the shooting he had acted in self defense after Mansur lunged at him. After less than three and a half hours of deliberation the jury came back finding Behenna not guilty of making a false declaration and premeditated murder but guilty of UCMJ Article 118, unpremeditated murder and sentenced to 25 years confinement.
Texan, now you have all you need to understand the case.
Peace
After Lieutenant Behenna's Article 32 hearing the Behenna family hired defense attorney Jack Zimmerman, a former United States Marine, military trial judge and Vietnam veteran. The prosecution, led by Captain Erwin Roberts, made its opening statements on February 23, 2009. The prosecution's two principal witnesses were Harry and Staff Sergeant Warner. Warner struck a plea bargain with the prosecution where he agreed to plead guilty to assault, maltreatment of a subordinate and making a false statement in exchange for not being charged with premeditated murder and for his future testimony against Lt Behenna. The defense contended that Behenna was under an acute stress disorder as a result of the attacks on his platoon and that during the shooting he had acted in self defense after Mansur lunged at him. After less than three and a half hours of deliberation the jury came back finding Behenna not guilty of making a false declaration and premeditated murder but guilty of UCMJ Article 118, unpremeditated murder and sentenced to 25 years confinement.
Texan, now you have all you need to understand the case.
Peace
Last edited by a moderator:
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
After an extended length of silence, TOS returns with a vengence.
I guess I should feel complimented.
I guess I should feel complimented.
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
Texan-
Read these two statements from TOS and then draw your own conclusions. It seems TOS just likes to argue.
Is prefer to say that I am willing to hold our soldiers responsible for their actions no matter who put them there or the circumstances involved. If "WE" are suppose to be a peace loving free nation, our soldiers should not go to other countries and commit war crimes while in the uniform of the United States.
This soldier had a trial, presented evidence and witnesses and was convicted of a lesser crime than he originally was charged with. He was found guilty and sentenced. I accept his sentence as fair for his role in the homocide.
I dont let emotions get the best of me. I dont read INFLAMMATORY words and assume facts NOT in evidence.
IN this case, the ARMY INTELLIGENCE after intense interrogation found this person to be INNOCENT of any crimes and released him into the custody of this LT and ORDERED him to return him to his home. ON the way, this LT made a calculated decision that was NOT his to make and decided to interrogate the man HIMSELF using force. The man, scared for his life probably and most likely tried to defend himself and the LT killed him in front of his own men, and two of those men testified against him.
Pretty easy to understand. No heroic actions involved, NO defending the constitution, NO defending his men under his command. This was payback for some killings and this LT wasnt going to let this man go despite the ARMY's finding that there was NO EVIDENCE to hold the man.
How the trial transpires is of no concern to me. How it starts and eventually ends is called justice. This LT admitted killing the man and the defense tried to use some lame ash excuse about stress and combat fatigue.
It didnt work. CONVICTION. Case closed.
Thats how I see it, plain and simple.
Peace.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
What are you basing this statement on? Can you post your copy of this units SOP so we can see for ourselves that a platoon leader had no responsibility here?
Im not doing your research, do it yourself. Look for excuses all you want.
This LT brought this man to army intelligence, the party responsible for interrogations and was released back to the LT whos area of operation was where the man lived. He was ORDERED to return him home, NOT stop and take the law into his own hands.
This man deserved to be returned home safely under the protection of the LT and his unit. He was guilty of NOTHING. Speculation isnt proof. Being Iraqi isnt proof.
This LT had an obligation while under a DIRECT ORDER to take the prisoner home. NOWHERE in his instruction was he ordered to interrogate anyone.
His court martial was legitimate and he was convicted. If you can prove otherwise, then head to leavenworth and offer your services.
Otherwise, you have nothing to prove here but "EXCUSES".
Peace.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Nope. You made the statement. Show the unit SOP to back up your statement. Given your track record of posting outright lies on here it is a fair request that you should back up your wild claims. I know your statement was wrong and just a guess, or a lie, and I think you know it as well.
As a matter of fact I think the opposite of what you said is actually true and a platoon leader is responsible for gathering intelligence and questioning suspects in his area of operations.
Say what you want, accuse me of whatever you want, the matter is over and done with, CONVICTION.
I need to prove nothing.
You think you came up with the missing link for the case all by yourself?? Do dont think the investigators considered that already?
You're a grunt, not a rocket scientist or a lawyer. The goverment invested thousands of dollars on this case and investigation. You would have us believe you have something to share that the goverment didnt consider? Maybe you should hop a plane and head to leavenworth and ask the military court to release the LT because YOU believe he has the power to interrogate and kill an innocent man.
PLUUEESE!
Peace.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
No, you made the baseless claim that you cannot back up. I didn't say anything. I only requested you offer some type of proof to back up your wild, baseless, inaccurate claim. Most would call your inaccurate, false claim a lie. I didn't. If you only knew how stupid your statement was that a platoon leader does not have the authority to gather and act on intelligence in a combat environment you would be laughing at yourself also. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and just asked for some type of proof. It's amazing how often you are wrong. I would think that even if you just flipped a coin you would get one of these things correct eventually but to actually guess and be wrong as often as you are has to be some type of record.
I need to prove nothing. The miltary court martial already has. This LT isnt being tried by YOU and ME. His case is over. He is convicted and sentenced.
The record speaks for itself. If he was innocent, why did his own men testify against him?
Peace.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Unless you can come up with something to support your false claim that a platoon leader cannot gather intelligence or question suspected terrorists in his area of operations I am going with you just got caught in another fib.
You can try all you want.. The facts speak for themselves. This LT killed a man and was convicted for it. The military has done all the proving necessary.
Peace.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
If that is true why did you need to add something that was wildly false and completely untrue?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking "the other side" means false.
You cant dispute a single fact in this case.. All you can do is name call. But then, thats all the C9 can do. The facts of this case are abundantly clear and a military jury agrees with me.
Peace.
Similar threads
