okie52
7/19/2012, 09:34 AM
Michael played football with my kids growing up. His parents had a large presence in the Timothy McVeigh case. It is hard to believe the Army is going to keep him locked up for 15 years.
Free 1st Lt. Michael Behenna Edmond's hometown hero
Ray Hibbard
“All we want is for our sons to come home. They have paid a price. They have suffered enough. It is time to come home.”
Vicki Behenna, mother of
1st Lt. Michael Behenna
Earlier this month, Edmond native, Edmond North Husky, University of Central Oklahoma graduate and Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna’s conviction for the unpremeditated murder of a detainee and al-Qaeda operative in Iraq was upheld with a 3-2 majority by the highest military appeals court. With full understanding that this is devastating for Michael and his family, it is a disgrace for this country and a complete travesty of justice for one of Edmond’s own.
In case you are not familiar with the story, here is a summary as reported at the Defend Michael website,
On March 20, 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 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.
The original 25 year sentence was reduced five years by the commanding General of 101st Airborne and the Army Clemency Board reduced it another five years. Without parole or a new trial Lt. Behenna will get out of prison for the shooting of an al-Qaeda terrorist in self defense when he is 40 years old.
Here is a portion of what the dissenting judges from the military appeals court had to say,
A death occurred in the theater of operations. A soldier has been convicted of murder. Was it murder or self-defense? By law, the responsibility for making that factual determination rested with the court-martial panel, not with this Court. The ambiguous, confusing, and incorrect instructions from the military judge deprived Appellant of the right to have a panel of officers make that decision. The military judge compounded that error by failing to take corrective action with respect to the Government’s failure to provide timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence. This Court should reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and authorize a rehearing.
Here is a portion of what the majority opinion had to say,
Ultimately, even if we assume that Mansur lunged for Appellant’s pistol and Appellant feared that Mansur would use the pistol if he was able to seize it, because Appellant was the initial aggressor, and because there was no evidence to support a finding of escalation or withdrawal, a rational member could have come to no other conclusion than that Appellant lost the right to act in self-defense and did not regain it.
There is not enough newsprint at our printing plant for me to have enough space to describe how wrong this conviction and subsequent denial of the appeal is folks. I will try to summarize.
The reason for the appeal in the first place and asking for a mistrial or retrial is based on important evidence that could have easily made the difference in the trial being withheld by the prosecution. The stink of it is that forensic analyst Herbert MacDonell hired by the prosecution was not allowed to testify at the trial after it was discovered that his analysis of the wounds corroborated Lt. Behenna’s account of the shooting as being self-defense. Dr. MacDonnell had told the prosecution that Behenna’s story was consistent with the forensic evidence and that they needed to alert the defense of that fact. The notification was not made in a timely manner hence paving the way for mistrial, you would think.
There were two others who testified. One was an Iraqi native interpreter nicknamed “Harry.” You can imagine what would have happened to Harry’s family at the hands of al-Qaeda if he had not testified against Lt. Behenna. The other was a staff sergeant who struck a plea bargain with 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. In other words he was given a choice of rolling over on his 1st Lt. or facing the same charge. Both of them were under duress and had their testimony forced from the way I see it.
In addition, the one totally independent expert who could have confirmed Lt. Behenna’s account of the incident was not allowed to testify by the prosecution. Here is a portion of the email that Dr. MacDonell sent to the prosecution the day after he was sent home.
“On Thursday afternoon when I heard Lt. Michael Behenna testify as to the circumstances of how the two shots were fired I could not believe how close it was to the scenario I had described to you on Wednesday. I am sure that had I testified I would have wanted to give my reenactment so the jury could have had the option of considering how well the defendant’s story fit the physical facts.
This of course, would not have been helpful to the prosecution case. However, I feel that it is quite important as possible exculpatory evidence so I hope that, in the interest of justice, you informed Mr. Zimmerman (defense council) of my findings.”
Stacked deck? I think so. Research the facts for yourself and decide. I want to move on to the bigger picture because obviously, at the least, Lt. Behenna is entitled to a new trial where expert forensic evidence and testimony can be put before a jury of his peers. On that subject, the jury consisted of seven officers none of which had any combat experience. Is that a jury of your peers? I don’t think so folks.
Why is our country prosecuting combat soldiers in a combat situation for murder, period? Is that not what we are asking our boots on the ground to do? We order them to identify, isolate, pursue and eliminate the enemy. What part of that did Lt. Behenna not do? That is incredibly cruel but so is war. If we do not intend to wage war, we need to get out. It is wrong, unfair and devastating to our fighting men, women and their families. It is shameful.
I am guessing that under the majority opinion in the appeal, Lt. Behenna should have just waited until the al-Qaeda operative took his gun and shot him. To say he does not have the right to defend himself in a combat zone is just stupid. This is not a trout stream that is catch and release. It is war and any soldier in the field of operations should have the right to defend themselves at any time.
This is not a young man from another part of the state or another part of this country. His parents Scott and Vicki Behenna are our neighbors, not strangers. Even though the entire country should be outraged that this fine young man, hero, is locked up in maximum security solitary confinement at Fort Leavenworth for a 15 year sentence, we in Edmond should be even more outraged.
What really bugs me is that our second oldest son is a junior at UCO, in ROTC, wants to be an Army Ranger and just as strong and dedicated as Lt. Behenna was at his age.
This could happen to our son, your daughter, grandson or granddaughter. I encourage you to do a little research, come to your own conclusions and then call your congressional representative to let them know how you feel and ask them to get involved.
A good place to start and to donate to the legal fund is www.defendmichael.com. The link is also on our web site www.edmondlifeandleisure.com
This column is just a starting point in an attempt to do our part in the effort to bring Michael home. Stay tuned for more in future issues.
Free 1st Lt. Michael Behenna Edmond's hometown hero
Ray Hibbard
“All we want is for our sons to come home. They have paid a price. They have suffered enough. It is time to come home.”
Vicki Behenna, mother of
1st Lt. Michael Behenna
Earlier this month, Edmond native, Edmond North Husky, University of Central Oklahoma graduate and Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna’s conviction for the unpremeditated murder of a detainee and al-Qaeda operative in Iraq was upheld with a 3-2 majority by the highest military appeals court. With full understanding that this is devastating for Michael and his family, it is a disgrace for this country and a complete travesty of justice for one of Edmond’s own.
In case you are not familiar with the story, here is a summary as reported at the Defend Michael website,
On March 20, 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 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.
The original 25 year sentence was reduced five years by the commanding General of 101st Airborne and the Army Clemency Board reduced it another five years. Without parole or a new trial Lt. Behenna will get out of prison for the shooting of an al-Qaeda terrorist in self defense when he is 40 years old.
Here is a portion of what the dissenting judges from the military appeals court had to say,
A death occurred in the theater of operations. A soldier has been convicted of murder. Was it murder or self-defense? By law, the responsibility for making that factual determination rested with the court-martial panel, not with this Court. The ambiguous, confusing, and incorrect instructions from the military judge deprived Appellant of the right to have a panel of officers make that decision. The military judge compounded that error by failing to take corrective action with respect to the Government’s failure to provide timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence. This Court should reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and authorize a rehearing.
Here is a portion of what the majority opinion had to say,
Ultimately, even if we assume that Mansur lunged for Appellant’s pistol and Appellant feared that Mansur would use the pistol if he was able to seize it, because Appellant was the initial aggressor, and because there was no evidence to support a finding of escalation or withdrawal, a rational member could have come to no other conclusion than that Appellant lost the right to act in self-defense and did not regain it.
There is not enough newsprint at our printing plant for me to have enough space to describe how wrong this conviction and subsequent denial of the appeal is folks. I will try to summarize.
The reason for the appeal in the first place and asking for a mistrial or retrial is based on important evidence that could have easily made the difference in the trial being withheld by the prosecution. The stink of it is that forensic analyst Herbert MacDonell hired by the prosecution was not allowed to testify at the trial after it was discovered that his analysis of the wounds corroborated Lt. Behenna’s account of the shooting as being self-defense. Dr. MacDonnell had told the prosecution that Behenna’s story was consistent with the forensic evidence and that they needed to alert the defense of that fact. The notification was not made in a timely manner hence paving the way for mistrial, you would think.
There were two others who testified. One was an Iraqi native interpreter nicknamed “Harry.” You can imagine what would have happened to Harry’s family at the hands of al-Qaeda if he had not testified against Lt. Behenna. The other was a staff sergeant who struck a plea bargain with 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. In other words he was given a choice of rolling over on his 1st Lt. or facing the same charge. Both of them were under duress and had their testimony forced from the way I see it.
In addition, the one totally independent expert who could have confirmed Lt. Behenna’s account of the incident was not allowed to testify by the prosecution. Here is a portion of the email that Dr. MacDonell sent to the prosecution the day after he was sent home.
“On Thursday afternoon when I heard Lt. Michael Behenna testify as to the circumstances of how the two shots were fired I could not believe how close it was to the scenario I had described to you on Wednesday. I am sure that had I testified I would have wanted to give my reenactment so the jury could have had the option of considering how well the defendant’s story fit the physical facts.
This of course, would not have been helpful to the prosecution case. However, I feel that it is quite important as possible exculpatory evidence so I hope that, in the interest of justice, you informed Mr. Zimmerman (defense council) of my findings.”
Stacked deck? I think so. Research the facts for yourself and decide. I want to move on to the bigger picture because obviously, at the least, Lt. Behenna is entitled to a new trial where expert forensic evidence and testimony can be put before a jury of his peers. On that subject, the jury consisted of seven officers none of which had any combat experience. Is that a jury of your peers? I don’t think so folks.
Why is our country prosecuting combat soldiers in a combat situation for murder, period? Is that not what we are asking our boots on the ground to do? We order them to identify, isolate, pursue and eliminate the enemy. What part of that did Lt. Behenna not do? That is incredibly cruel but so is war. If we do not intend to wage war, we need to get out. It is wrong, unfair and devastating to our fighting men, women and their families. It is shameful.
I am guessing that under the majority opinion in the appeal, Lt. Behenna should have just waited until the al-Qaeda operative took his gun and shot him. To say he does not have the right to defend himself in a combat zone is just stupid. This is not a trout stream that is catch and release. It is war and any soldier in the field of operations should have the right to defend themselves at any time.
This is not a young man from another part of the state or another part of this country. His parents Scott and Vicki Behenna are our neighbors, not strangers. Even though the entire country should be outraged that this fine young man, hero, is locked up in maximum security solitary confinement at Fort Leavenworth for a 15 year sentence, we in Edmond should be even more outraged.
What really bugs me is that our second oldest son is a junior at UCO, in ROTC, wants to be an Army Ranger and just as strong and dedicated as Lt. Behenna was at his age.
This could happen to our son, your daughter, grandson or granddaughter. I encourage you to do a little research, come to your own conclusions and then call your congressional representative to let them know how you feel and ask them to get involved.
A good place to start and to donate to the legal fund is www.defendmichael.com. The link is also on our web site www.edmondlifeandleisure.com
This column is just a starting point in an attempt to do our part in the effort to bring Michael home. Stay tuned for more in future issues.