Trump pardons former Army Ranger convicted of killing Iraqi prisoner

is there more to this story? link?
he doesn't seem like the typical pardon candidate.

 

Then he should have been tried for all those other things, but not for murder. Self defense is a very broad effective defense against any murder charge.

 

When you threaten to illegally murder someone, you can't claim self-defense when that person fights back against you.

 

No, he disobeyed the orders that explicitly told him to not escort the Iraqi back to town.

 

The self-defense claim did not and does not make any sense and that is why he was convicted despite using that defense.

 

The HS girls story reveals the real world as it is. The laws of war seem to be idealistic unrealistic rules that only encourage more savage criminal behavior in war. History proves it.

 

Revisionists to history refuse to admit that Bush under the command of General Tommy Franks totally defeated Saddam Hussein including his entire military forces.

For some odd reason, they believe that an insurgency amounts to Bush losing a war.

They ignore that for a year past the defeat of Saddam, the problems in Iraq were looting by their own citizens. Such as doing damage to oil pipelines or removing copper from the electric grid.

Bush did not start the insurgency between the Sunni and the other Muslims. They have long had a natural inclination to harm each other's side.

As to Afghanistan, this has to be counted as a brilliant win for General Franks. He used the existing Afthani forces and helped them win the war vs the Taliban. Bear in mind once you kick them out, the leadership in Afghanistan had a role to keep them out.

A problem in Afghanistan is too many cooks are frying the chickens there.

 

Whenever your life is threatened self defense is justified. In this case the defendant did not receive a fair trial.
None of the military courts findings are credible.

 

What utterly amazes me is that if you fire a 120 mm round that blows the legs off the enemy, that is fine. But if you capture an enemy, you can't cool their face with water as you question them. And the Democrats think water is torture.

 

Yes, you can. Purity is not a prerequisite.

 

Then get the laws of war repealed. Until you do, Behenna remains an illegal actor who tortured and threatened to murder an unarmed prisoner, then claimed self defense when the person he was illegally assaulting fought back to save his own life.

 

Is your life threatened when you are pointing the only gun at a naked man?

 

No you cannot. You cannot claim self-defense when you threaten to murder someone and then follow through with that threat. The person who can claim self-defense is the party being threatened with illegal murder.

 

Note: while acting against legal orders and without any legal authority, making the entirety of your actions illegal.

 

As soon as you believe someone is about to kill you self defense applies.

If the prisoner had succeeded in killing Behenna to save his life self defense would apply.

 

Not when you are threatening to murder them. A murderer does not have the legal right to kill their victim just because the victim fought back.

 

That would have to be determined during the course of a fair trial. Did the prisoner break free of his restraints? Was there a struggle for the gun? etc.

 

My opinion is that the murder was justified because he was a terrorist.

"Ali Mansur said I will talk to you but Lieutenant Behenna pulled trigger and killed him," the interpreter said, in English.

Our rules prevented us from holding him, but everyone knew he was a terrorist.

This guy did us a favor. Probably saved more US troops.

**** that dude.

 

Behenna cut his restraints, after stripping him naked, and then threatened to murder him. A person threatened with murder has a right to defend themselves against that threat. A murderer does not have a legal right to murder their victim just because their victim fought back.

 

I seem to recall Bill Clinton pardoning Puerto Rican terrorists along with other criminals.

 

So you support the government being able to murder anyone it wants just by arbitrarily labelling them a terrorist?

 

If true? This is the description of events given by the defense and prosecutions claim of events. And the description is under the definition of torture - the threat of imminent death

 

You have zero evidence or reasoning for believing that he did not receive a fair trial.

 

Good. This hero should never have been convicted.

 

In a world where torture that maims and ruins bodies is routine the guy who invented waterboarding should have won a humanitarian award for making real torture obsolete.
The international legal system clearly prefers to encourage Black and Decker torture.