Posted on 03/22/2009 7:12:00 AM PDT by kellynla
A military judge Friday refused to throw out Army Lt. Michael C. Behenna's murder conviction despite an 11th-hour claim by the prosecution’s own forensic expert that the infantry officer is likely innocent.
A military court on Feb. 27 found Behenna guilty of murdering al-Qaida operative Ali Mansur Mohammed in Iraq on May 16, 2008 during a field interrogation. Behenna, 25, an infantry platoon leader in the 101st Airborne Division, maintains the shooting was in self-defense.
The seven-member panel that convicted the young officer rejected that claim, but new information indicates the court may not have heard the whole story. On the day the verdict came down, the government's own forensics expert, Dr. Herbert L. MacDonell, told Army prosecutor Capt. Meghan M. Poirier that he had changed his mind and now believes Behenna killed Ali Mansur in self-defense.
In a letter dated February 27, 2009, MacDonell told Poirier he was “concerned that I did not testify and have a chance to inform the court of the only logical explanation for this shooting.”
“From the evidence I feel that Ali Mansur had to have been shot in his chest when he was standing. As he dropped straight down he was shot again at the very instant that his head passed in front of the muzzle,” MacDonell wrote. “It fits the facts and I can not think of a more logical explanation.”
The Army lawyers prosecuting Behenna had a legal duty to reveal such “exculpatory evidence” that could clear Behenna to the defense and failed to do so, Behenna’s lawyer Jack Zimmermann tells Newsmax.
Military prosecutors could not be reached for comment.
Behenna has already begun serving a 25-year sentence for unpremeditated murder. He will eventually be transferred from Kentucky to the Ft. Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks in Kansas.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I agree, Lt. Behenna is in good hands with Jack Zimmereman.
I did not sit in judgment of this Officer;shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach AdonaiNeither did you ,
but are willing to side with the terrorists.So sad.
Come L-rd Yah'shua !
Unfortuanatly there already are.
You can tell the people on here who are still innocent when it comes to the military justice system.
You can also tell the people whose swelled self-importance has squeezed their brains to insignificance.
Others say that we must obey the RULE OF LAW. But when the very people who are charged with dispensing that RULE OF LAW abrogate it for whatever reason, then they are the anarchists. They are the traitors. They are the enemy.
Major Thomas: The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations.
Maybe you can start a pre visit coffee club on post with all the wives.
There's more on this thread: NiteCap at Freedom Radio welcomes Captain Roger Hill and Sgt Tommy Scott and Bob Weimann!. And on the Freedom Radio website.
So, if you defend the concept of the Rule of Law and are against the concept of extra-judicial executions, you are an Arab? Whatever floats your boat, Junior.
I said that "self defense" was a legitimate defense.
I said that having evidence faked was a legitimate defense.
YOU jumped into this thread when brushcop pointed out the difference between "killing" in war and "murdering" in war.
What you are defending is the statement that brushcop responded to which said that, if you believe somebody is al Qaeda, you are justified in putting a bullet in his brain on your own whim even though he is under custody.
What you are defending is simply anarchy and has nothing to do with this defendant or "siding with the terrorists".
Somebody that takes the law into his own hands and summarily executes somebody on his own whim IS a terrorist.
Whether this is what happened in this case is up to a duly appointed military court-martial, not you or I, to decide.
Somebody that encourages taking the law into your own hands and summarily executing somebody on your own whim is an ADVOCATE of terrorism.
That is where you fit in.
At the start of the Spanish Civil War there was a rash of people taken out and summarily shot by self-proclaimed patriots on both side because "He is a Red spy" or "He is a Fascist saboteur".
BOTH sides had to crack down and put a stop to that anarchy because it turned out that the real reasons that these people were getting bullets to their heads was because "He stole my girlfriend" or "I owed him 5,000 pesetas".
Once you establish anarchy, sooner or later, anarchy will come after YOU.
I’m not sure I’d go as far as to call them the enemy, but Lt. Behenna has not received the full benefit of the UCMJ justice system, IMO. The prosecutor’s witness did the honorable thing with his actions. The prosecution hid evidence. The judge made a decision for the jury panel after the fact. Lt. Behenna deserves better. I hope his appeal will provide the justice that he deserves.
Thanks, Red. I will try to listen! I am quite interested in listening to what LtCol Bob Weimann has to say.
So do you. So do I. We all do. This isn't an isolated event. This kind of crap has been going on for a long time. Cancer doesn't just bloom overnight to termination. I don't have any problem calling them the enemy. They are.
Thanks for the reminder, Red.
May be even earlier. The correct usage for the education or edification of the ignorant is : or Also note: Shakespeare's probable off-color pun Mazol Tov ! Have a wonderful life on the wide road. I was defending This Republic while you were still wetting your diapers.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
to be hoisted by one's own petard There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.
"hoist with his own petar", i.e., flatulate,
Some people just “Monday morning quarterback” without bothering to actually do something important or helpful.
The operative words here are supposed to be. John al-Murthawi changed all that, IMO.
You’re welcome, Red. Wish I had the capability to listen and watch stuff via the net...but alas, I do not. ;*(
You’re absolutely right, Justa. Fat Jack al-Murthawi has a strange interpretation of “presumption of innocence” and “beyond a reasonable” doubt. It’s beyond sad that a sitting US Congressman would ignore our Constitution in such a manner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.