How does that flagpole by your prostate feel?
How does that flagpole by your prostate feel?
No one in this thread has more respect for our veterans than I do. I have donated both time and money to the Wounded Warrior Project. Just because you want to twist me calling a solider convicted of murder a murderer into me being a peacenik does not make it so. Sorry, sport.
That's simply not true. You can say it 99 times and you will be just as wrong when you say it for the 100th time. We do know, many, facts about this case. He shot and killed an unarmed, naked man that he himself had released from restrains just moments before. To any normal thinking person, what he did was reprehensible.
Unarmed or not, if an enemy combatant lungs for my weapon, he will be a dead enemy combatant.
What you don't get, and quite frankly seem unable to "get", is that our humanity is not defined by the enemy, it's defined by us. You may be willing to give up your humanity for a little bloodlust, most people put a higher price on theirs.
So, if he took him out into the desert to question him (against orders), cut off his restraints, cut off his clothes, and then shot him as he stood there, you would call that murder?
As a combat veteran and as someone who has been hit by an IED, just because your at war and the other guy is a terrorist doesn't not make it mirder. Trust me, I feel like they all deserve to die. My idea of hearts and minds was two to the Chest and one to the head.
From my limited knowledge on this, he doesn't deserve the title hero and committed murder, IMO. But I think he served out his punishment and that's that. Doesnt need an upgraded discharge or anything like that.
From my limited knowledge on this, he doesn't deserve the title hero and committed murder, IMO. But I think he served out his punishment and that's that. Doesnt need an upgraded discharge or anything like that.
I'm good with that.
None of that is in question, except if he was standing their or lunging at the Officers weapon, which only the officer and combatant know the answer, short of real proof I will stand by the US Army Officer and his version of events. He is guilty of many things, conduct unbecoming, disobeying a direct order, falsifying an AAR, among other things, but murder is not one of those things.
I hear you 11b.
The governments reasoning behind the murder charges was this;
"The conviction and sentence nonetheless stood, because a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that, regardless of the sequence of events and whether Mansur was sitting or standing when Behenna shot him, Behenna was the initial aggressor in the conflict and therefore had given up his right to self-defense. That court found that in the moments before the shooting, Behenna’s use of force was “unauthorized and excessive”; Behenna “brought about the situation that resulted in the necessity to kill another.” Thus, even if Mansur did throw a chunk of concrete at Behenna and then try to take his gun, the majority reasoned, because Mansur was merely reacting in a situation in which Behenna had all the power, Behenna was not entitled to a self-defense instruction for what he had done."
This was taken from this report:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/the-story-of-michael-behenna-and-mad-dog-5-self-defense-in-war/
I can see their reasoning. I would encourage everyone in this discussion to read the entire thing. It is an unbiased reporting of the events before and after.
Having said all of that. I still stand by my opinion that the LT did what he had to do.
The governments reasoning behind the murder charges was this;
"The conviction and sentence nonetheless stood, because a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that, regardless of the sequence of events and whether Mansur was sitting or standing when Behenna shot him, Behenna was the initial aggressor in the conflict and therefore had given up his right to self-defense. That court found that in the moments before the shooting, Behenna’s use of force was “unauthorized and excessive”; Behenna “brought about the situation that resulted in the necessity to kill another.” Thus, even if Mansur did throw a chunk of concrete at Behenna and then try to take his gun, the majority reasoned, because Mansur was merely reacting in a situation in which Behenna had all the power, Behenna was not entitled to a self-defense instruction for what he had done."
This was taken from this report:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/the-story-of-michael-behenna-and-mad-dog-5-self-defense-in-war/
I can see their reasoning. I would encourage everyone in this discussion to read the entire thing. It is an unbiased reporting of the events before and after.
Having said all of that. I still stand by my opinion that the LT did what he had to do.
That's a great philosophical dissertation of somebody that hasn't been there and done that, experienced the absolute terror that comes with the territory, experienced days, weeks, months, of knowing the next minute is going to be your last minute on this earth.
You haven't experienced picking up your best friends body parts and putting them in a bag, then being told to take his place in line.
You haven't experienced seeing your buddy's summarily executed while laying wounded after a firefight.
You haven't experienced seeing the mutilation, and desecration of the dead soldiers body's.
You have no clue about battlefield interrogations where information gained can save the lives of no telling how many Americans.
You only sit on the sidelines, and comment on your Ideals of how combat should be conducted in the perfect liberal world you live in.
You have no way to know what goes on in the minds of these soldiers in the conditions they have to live in.
In your perfect world of right and wrong, the scene may have had some indications of murder, but there were only two people there.
I believe the story of the survivor.
Similar threads
