US Army Ranger First Lieutenant Michael Behenna comes from a long line of public servants. Like many young men today, he joined the military and became a US Army Ranger after seeing our country ruthlessly attacked on September 11th, 2001 . Sadly, like far too many soldiers and Marines of this politically-correct era, he was thrown into a deep, dark hole to die - not by the terrorists he was sent to fight in Iraq, but by the US military's dysfunctional justice system.
Behenna answered his country's call and was deployed to Iraq with 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment (1/327) in September, 2007. On April 21, 2008, three weeks before he was to return home for some much needed rest, two soldiers in Behenna's platoon were killed and two others wounded in a brazen attack not unlike that which occurred a few years earlier in the Iraqi town of Haditha.
On May 5, 2008, known al Qaeda operative, Ali Mansur, was detained and interrogated. When the Army determined he no longer possessed any intelligence value, he was ordered released and escorted home by Behenna's platoon. Behenna maintains that while returning Mansur, he made one final attempt to interrogate the prisoner, and when the detainee lunged at him, Behenna killed him in self-defense. As a consequence of his service in Iraq, First Lieutenant Michael Behenna was summarily charged with murder, tried, convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Prosecution and defense experts both agreed on the two bullets' horizontal trajectories, that the victim was standing when shot, with arms outstretched and that the torso shot came first. The government hired internationally-recognized forensics specialist, Dr. Herbert MacDonnell, as an expert witness. But, MacDonnell's findings didn't support the government's theory that Mansur was killed "execution-style"; shot first in the head, then the torso. He was never called to testify, and eventually sent home after hearing Michaels testimony.
Behenna testified that during the final interrogation, Ali Mansur was sitting. When Behenna asked him a question, Behenna turned to the translator for the response. When his attention returned to Mansur, the terrorist was now standing with his arms outstretched. Behenna believed Mansur was reaching for his weapon, so he drew it and shot; first to Mansur's chest, then to his head, as it passed directly in front of the muzzle, a freak coincidence for sure, but not impossible. When MacDonnell heard Behenna's testimony, he knew instantly it was not just the most likely scenario, but the only possible explanation.
As MacDonnell was being dismissed, he admonished the prosecution, reminding them that Behenna's testimony matched what he had told them, but prosecutors showed little concern. Undaunted, MacDonnell contacted Behenna's defense team, who questioned prosecutors whether they possessed any evidence pointing towards Behenna's innocence. Prosecutors said they did not.
In closing, the government argued that Behenna's version of events was so implausible, their case so airtight, they simply didn't need to put their expert on the stand; a laughable assertion if the rest of Behenna's life didn't hang in the balance. The trial concluded and Michael Behenna was convicted of unpremeditated murder and assault. He was mercilessly sentenced to 25 years in prison, in spite of his military record and the judge's own recommendation.
Between the conviction and sentencing, Herbert MacDonnell emailed the prosecution to remind them of their conversations and the prosecutor's evidentiary responsibilities. Unable to ignore McDonnell any longer, the prosecution turned over the information. The judge then ordered both sides to file briefs relating to a possible mistrial. But, in a scandalous opinion issued on March 20, 2009, full rank speculation, the military judge, Col. Theodore Dixon, denied Behenna's request for a mistrial.
Dixon's outrageous ruling assumes that any "error" by prosecutors in applying the law (the suppression of exculpatory evidence) was harmless. He also opined that there was no reasonable probability, that eliminating the suppression of this evidence would have produced a more favorable result for Behenna. The judge also speculated that even if the defense had raised their complaints in a timely fashion, he would have denied their request on the grounds that there were no "new findings", required to have come about as a result of McDonnell's re-examination of the evidence. Finally, the judge ruled that MacDonnell's testimony, which included the disclaimer that this case's evidence "didn't lend itself to very detailed interpretation" (meaning, it was impossible to tell whether Mansur was shot first in the head or torso) never changed. This gavel-tapper is engaging in a dangerous game; reaching his conclusions by guessing what was swimming through the heads of both the government's forensics expert as well as the jury. The entire case hinged on two sets of forensics experts with conflicting theories that neither could prove.
The case against Michael Behenna was so weak and the suppression of evidence and acceptance of pure theory so egregious, that over two dozen prominent legal experts representing the full spectrum of political ideology, including prosecutors, former military lawyers, a former Clinton counsel and civilian public defenders, have all signed a letter of complaint expressing doubt over the fairness of the trial and requesting a new proceeding.
Michael Behenna is not a murderer. Nor is he expendable. He served his country with honor and distinction and his performance evaluations rank him in the top 20% of all US Army officers. He is so admired, that even his guards at Leavenworth, MPs who may soon deploy to Iraq themselves, are asking him for advice. While serving in a war that his country started, Behenna killed a confirmed member of al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States. He deserves a medal. Instead, the US Army gave him fewer rights and protections than the terrorists they ordered him to fight. They threw him under the bus, ran him over and have now put the vehicle in reverse.
