I agree with her, but for Pete’s sake, it’s “straitjacket.”
Free Michael Behenna and the rest of the “Leavenworth 10”!
Sad but true. Here is a spin off of that treatment:
Army Suicide Pace to Shatter 2011 Record 164 Deaths
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2877092/posts
Let’s see:
1. New commander in chief at the same time military suicides double.
2. New rules of engagement for soldiers not allowing them to protect themselves.
3. Soldiers discharged for a few criticisms of O’Bummer on their Facebook.
4. Gays in the military (Gay community has an even higher suicide rate than general population or military.)
5. Longer tours of duty. (Older soldiers who have careers and families at home)
6. Inadequate care for soldiers with PTSD (Give them pills and push them out of the service.)
7. Cut military budget and don’t give them the tools to do their job.
8. Have a president that sympathizes with the enemy and back stabs your efforts.
9. Soldiers who have legal problems from mental health issues are treated worse than detainees in Guantanamo.
Please continue this list. It’s really sad what is happening. I beg all veterans to take an active part in turning this trend around. It’s time to pull together and support our soldiers and our veterans.
And on top of that, if you are dishonorably discharged you can no longer own a gun in this country.
What a clusterf****
Every one of our admirals and generals from the past 20 years should be put in straightjackets.
If Behanna got information out of Mansur that could have to the capture or killing of insurgent enemies, would that information have been allowed to be used by his commanding officers - or would it have been thrown out because of how it was obtained? If you want to go for absolutes, then you have to go for absolutes both ways.
And besides, there are such things as battlefield interrogations that are perfectly acceptable. AND you don't have somone who believes he lost men to an enemy escort that enemy back to his home - the officers behind that one should be in prison.
These ROEs are the real enemy. They're atrocities.
It’s hussein and holder—I seriously doubt it’s the army.
Everyone should read this story. It’s about our current presidents drive to demoralize our military. He is destroying it. It’s time for vet’s and others to speak out.
Surely this zealot prosecutor has some skeletons in his closet worthy of digging up.
Thank you Diane for writing this article.
I remember when the Army fought.
From history.
Time to Nifong the prosecutor.
Here is the link to the appeal and a summary:
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2011Term/Behenna12-0030AmicusCuriaeNIMJBrief.pdf
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................. iii
ISSUE PRESENTED......................................... 1
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FAVORABLE
INFORMATION TO THE DEFENSE DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
ARGUMENT
I. Trial Counsel Violated Their Constitutional and Regulatory Duty to Timely Disclose Favorable Information............. 3
II. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals Erred in Finding That the Prosecution Timely Disclosed Favorable Information.... 8
a. Dr. MacDonells Comments to Defense Counsel Did Not
Satisfy the Notice Requirements...................... 9
b. There Was a Specific Request for the Information Made
by Defense Counsel.................................. 14
III. Trial Counsel Breached Their Ethical And Statutory Duty to Disclose Under ABA And Military Rules Mandating Disclosure
of Favorable Information in a Timely Manner.............. 17ii
IV. The Prudent Prosecutor Shall Err on the Side of Seeking and Disclosing Information................................... 21
V. Appellant Was Prejudiced by Trial Counsels Argument, in Addition to the Loss of Dr. MacDonells Trial Testimony.. 24
CONCLUSION.............................................. 25
Dr. MacDonells opinion favored the defense by corroborating the deceaseds position and order of shots. Thus the opinion contradicted the prosecution theory that the deceased was executed while siting on a rock.
Prosecutors make trial decisions based on how they read
appellate cases or how they anticipate an appellate court will view the case.
The prosecutor cannot be permitted to look at the case
pretrial through the end of the telescope an appellate
court would use post-trial. Thus, the government must
always produce any potentially exculpatory or
otherwise favorable evidence without regard to how the
withholding of such evidence might be viewed — with
the benefit of hindsight — as affecting the outcome
of the trial.
United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005).
By finding reversible prejudicial error, this court will
remind prosecutors of their constitutional duty to ensure a fair trial. Appellant was not accorded a fair trial by these trial counsel.
I don’t feel I know enough information to make more than general observations; I will do so by hypothesizing a situation that might not reflect reality.
My assumption is that the military authority had determined that the prisoner was released, free to go, and was therefore not considered an enemy combatant.
If that was the case, and this soldier was instructed to simply drive the guy home, then you are talking about a soldier interacting with what might be considered a civilian.
If a random soldier, without provocation, and without orders, took a random civilian hostage, stripped them naked, and started interogating them at gunpoint, and that civilian, fearing for his life, attempted to grab the gun, and the soldier killed him, it seems at least reasonable to consider that the death was caused by an illegal action of the soldier, and therefore the soldier is guilty.
To put it in another hypothetical — if you are robbing a bank, and someone tries to disarm you, and you fear for your life, so you kill them, you are guilty of murder. You lose the right to “self-defense” if your illegal action put you in harm’s way.
From the story as told in this article, i can’t tell for sure, but it could be read that the soldier was illegally holding the person at gunpoint, and therefore the “risk” to the soldier was totally because of his own actions.
If the situation were different — if the “prisoner” had tried to grab the soldier’s weapon while the soldier was driving him back to his house — I think we would all agree the soldier would have a right to kill him.
It’s Nam all over again. Dems are determined to make the same mess, time after time. If they can kill Americans, they can’t resist.
Patriotic Americans should not enlist. They are now making American soldiers into blood sacrifices to the enemy. The brass is not protective of American life. Maybe they can get a gay army together that is into S&M. Plenty of pervert agents at the airports to recruit from.