Michael Behena is a former army ranger who was convicted by a court martial of killing a suspected leader of al Qaeda forces in Iraq during the Iraq war. The Iraqi had been taken prisoner just after a roadside bomb had killed two members of the rangers platoon. The Iraqi was suspected of planting that bomb. Instead of turning the prisoner over to others, the ranger began to question him. At that point, the story diverges. The ranger says that the Iraqi picked up a chunk of concrete to throw at him, so the ranger shot and killed the Iraqi. The army discounted the story of self-defense and prosecuted the ranger for killing an unarmed prisoner. The court martial convicted the ranger and he went to prison with a 15 year term. He was paroled a few years ago when he became eligible.
Since the conviction, two things have happened. First, the expert retained by the prosecution to testify at trial came to the ranger's parents and told them that his conclusion had supported the ranger's story so he was not put on the witness stand. The prosecutors had never told this to the defense, despite this being a requirement of the law. Second, the government of the state of Oklahoma, many congressmen, and a bunch of admirals, generals and other military officers asked the president to pardon the ranger.
President Obama ignored the requests for pardon. Today, President Trump granted clemency.
This seems like the correct decision. It's hard to prosecute an army ranger for killing a member of al Qaeda in a war zone, but that doesn't matter. It only makes the defendant more sympathetic than normal. Nevertheless, the failure of the prosecution to turn over the exculpatory evidence of the expert's conclusion should lead to this pardon. There is no easy way to overturn a military conviction unlike a conviction in a criminal court. The President's decision is essentially the only way to right a failure of the system to function as it was supposed to. No doubt, Trump will be criticized for pardoning a "killer". He shouldn't be. This was the correct outcome.
Since the conviction, two things have happened. First, the expert retained by the prosecution to testify at trial came to the ranger's parents and told them that his conclusion had supported the ranger's story so he was not put on the witness stand. The prosecutors had never told this to the defense, despite this being a requirement of the law. Second, the government of the state of Oklahoma, many congressmen, and a bunch of admirals, generals and other military officers asked the president to pardon the ranger.
President Obama ignored the requests for pardon. Today, President Trump granted clemency.
This seems like the correct decision. It's hard to prosecute an army ranger for killing a member of al Qaeda in a war zone, but that doesn't matter. It only makes the defendant more sympathetic than normal. Nevertheless, the failure of the prosecution to turn over the exculpatory evidence of the expert's conclusion should lead to this pardon. There is no easy way to overturn a military conviction unlike a conviction in a criminal court. The President's decision is essentially the only way to right a failure of the system to function as it was supposed to. No doubt, Trump will be criticized for pardoning a "killer". He shouldn't be. This was the correct outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment