Today you were supposed to get a couple of nice helpful posts, one answering a question I get asked by Google search a lot, the other about a really cool wild fruit I found in Kansas for the first time in my life. Unfortunately I spent too long working on a thoughtful and researched response to Albert over at The Rasch Chronicles on Michael Behenna and his conviction in military court.
The Old Man is a big fan of Bill O’reilly. Frankly, he makes my skin crawl. I hate the bluster, I hate the insulting, the yelling, I hate that he cannot have intelligent discourse with someone who disagrees with him, but mostly I hate the way he passes himself off as the Grand Judicial Overlord. He loves to take a smattering of well skewed facts and then pronounce a judgment for a case he hasn’t heard, saw, nor even fully researched. He’ll then declare those who disagree with him, including judges and juries (who saw the whole case, know all of the facts, and sometimes have, you know, law degrees) “pinheads”. It’s so fantastically arrogant I can’t even fathom how anyone would listen to him and it drives me into a rage generally reserved for Phil Kline.
Anyway, today Albert posted a referring link to a site promoting freedom for Mr. Behenna (who was convicted of murder while serving in Iraq) that had a spin Mr. O’reilly would have been proud of. My point is not that he should or should not have been convicted, it’s that he was convicted by those who know a whole lot more about the case than we do. 7 military officers were convicted. You can read my whole comment after the jump or you can move to the discussion over at Albert’s. I’m sure it’s only a matter of minutes before one of his regular commenters (who have a long history of hostility towards yours truly) class up the debate by calling me an animal rights activist or an, “asshat”. It might be fun to follow along.
Maybe a bit more research is in order?
I have a nearly Pavlovian reaction when someone who saw or heard not a single witness or piece of evidence suddenly questions those who did. What makes you an expert?
Sometimes judicial results don’t fit what I believe is right. Occasionally it’s even happened when I’ve sat and watched or participated in the whole trial. But it’s far more often that a biased special interest weighs in on something they have only a very slanted view on. Then they declare a travesty and throw half truths into the media wind hoping something will take flight.
He was convicted by the military. By a panel (military jury) the attorney for the co-defendant described as “This panel looked like the best bet for a jury nullification. Young officers, with relatively junior rank for a military panel, who were probably fairly independent, and yet in the end, they sentenced Behenna to 25 years. A more senior officer panel may have given him more time.” This is not some liberal San Francisco jury pool, it’s frankly, the people who could best judge this situation. They would know better than nearly every person posting on this subject (including me). They live a military life and presumably have seen the way modern warfare is conducted. They’ve seen and heard all the evidence, how many of the internet/armchair lawyers can say that? None.
He was convicted because he and the co-defendants took an Iraqi suspect into custody, drove him into the desert, stripped him naked, and shot him in the forehead. There apparently was conflicting testimony that he was pleading for his life and/or may have stood up. The body may have been blow up and was burned. Fragments of grenades were found at the scene. As best I can gather from the reports of the defense attorneys, two eye witnesses (including one GI) testified that he WAS NOT STANDING. The most pro-defense jury I could imagine was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now I’m not actually saying this result is a good one. If exculpatory evidence was withheld I believe he should receive a new trial. I have faith he will be given every opportunity as he works through the appeals process. It appears the testimony in question was similar to that of the defense expert and was not exculpatory in nature. Further, it was provided to the defense prior to trial. The central issue seems to be that the experts agreed with each other, sorta, but disagreed with the eye witnesses. I’m only going into this because it’s so wildly different that the picture painted by the website linked to above. I’m not vouching for any fact in question personally but I’d trust the freaking defense lawyer before some shmuck on the internet.
Now as to the fairness of the law itself? I’ll quote the attorney again:
In this case, the Iraqi was under the care and control of the US forces. As CPT Poirier, the lead prosecutor in our case, said in her closing argument in US v. Warner, this is the type of crime that requires that “we” send a message to soldiers not to commit these types of battlefield attorcities. Now, in our case, I believed that she was wrongfully characterizing our client’s conduct, but the point was made nonetheless. Soldiers must follow the rules regardless of their personal vendettas.
In LT Behenna’s case, the panel seemed to send a message that officers cannot decide for themselves how they are going to distribute justice. If we as a nation are going to occupy and administer justice in Iraq, then we will require our officers to follow the law. No matter whether you agree with the panel’s decision to heavily sentence LT Behenna or not, there is certainly a requirement that we not lead Iraqi citizens into the desert, strip them naked and then shoot them point blank in the forehead. The panel has sent that message loud and clear with a twenty five year sentence.
A link:
http://jaglaw.wordpress.com/category/michael-behenna/
No related posts.
