Trump has spoken in favor of Michael Behenna and other alleged military criminals, but he is far from the only one to do so. Michael Behenna. (Photo: Free Michael Behenna/Facebook) In March of 2009, Army Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth for marching a prisoner into the Iraqi desert, stripping him naked, and murdering him with his service weapon. The suspected al-Qaeda member, Ali Mansur Mohamed, had been ordered released by the United States military in Iraq due to insufficient evidence of his alleged terror affiliations; at court martial, a jury concluded that the Behenna's 2008 execution of Mansur, reportedly stress-induced retaliation for his alleged connection to an improvised explosive device attack that left two of the fellow soldiers dead, constituted a war crime. Just over a decade later, President Donald Trump delivered Behenna clemency through a presidential pardon. But the circumstances of the pardon aren't just unusual: They at once reflect Americans' attitudes toward war crimes and set a dangerous precedent for how the U.S. military conducts itself in war under this commander-in-chief. In an April 18th letter to Attorney General William Barr, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter renewed his request that Trump consider Behenna for a pardon on mostly technical grounds: Under current Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations, Behenna—who was paroled in 2014 after serving fewer than five years of his sentence—is currently prohibited from formally applying for a pardon until 2024. In his most recent letter to Barr, Hunter argued that the constitutionally unfounded limitation "requir[es] most aspiring applicants to ignore the DOJ and attempt to find a creative way to get to the president directly ... [which] can lead to the undeniable impression that only those with elite political contacts and influence are able to obtain a pardon." Even though Hunter's letter is itself a "creative way" for Behenna to get at the president through an "elite political contact" (in this case, a state attorney general), the core of his argument is a legal one rather than an attempt to absolve Behenna of moral wrongdoing. "Mr. Behenna served his country with distinction, honor, and sacrifice," Hunter wrote in a statement on Behenna's pardoning. "He has admitted to his mistakes, has learned from them and deserves to move on from this incident without living under its cloud for the rest of his life." By contrast, however, the White House statement on the Behenna pardon reads like the type of plastic patriotism favored by the Trump ethico-political regime. "Upon his release, dozens of Patriot Guard motorcycle riders met Mr. Behenna to escort him back to his home in Oklahoma," Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. "Mr. Behenna's case has attracted broad support from the military, Oklahoma elected officials, and the public. ... Further, while serving his sentence, Mr. Behenna was a model prisoner." The White House statement tips Trump's hand in the eyes of critics: The pardon, already a preferred shield for this president, can also be a tool with which the commander-in-chief can grant convicted war criminals with unimpeachable legal and moral absolution. "This pardon is a presidential endorsement of a murder that violated the military's own code of justice," American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi said in a statement. "The military appeals court found Behenna disobeyed orders, became the aggressor against his prisoner, and had no justification for killing a naked, unarmed Iraqi man in the desert, away from an actual battlefield." This is not the first military member accused of grave crimes Trump has supported. As the New York times points out, Trump has spoken out on behalf of Army Major Mathew L. Golsteyn, a Green Beret charged with executing an alleged Taliban bomb-maker in 2010, tweeting that he would be "reviewing the case of a 'U.S. Military hero,'" who "could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas." Trump has also expressed support for Navy SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher, accused of stabbing a wounded ISIS prisoner with a hunting knife and targeting women and children in Iraq during the 2017 Battle of Mosul. Trump is not altogether alone in endorsing the criminal actions of U.S. service members: Americans tend to have a relatively high tolerance for war crimes abroad. A 2016 Red Cross report indicated that Americans "are substantially more comfortable with war crimes than are populations of other western countries like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, and even Russia," as The Week put it at the time. "When asked whether 'a captured enemy combatant [can] be tortured to obtain important military information,' just 30 percent of Americans said 'no,' the lowest of any country surveyed except Israel and Nigeria." The reason for this widespread acceptance? A 2018 Clarion Project poll found that 77 percent of Americans believed U.S. service members shouldn't be prosecuted for overseas war crimes simply because "war is a stressful situation and allowances should be made." The message pardons for war crimes sends is largely a function of the wars in which they occur. In post-conflict countries—think, say, Rwanda and South Africa—amnesty can facilitate national reconciliation in a fragile political environment. But in other cases, the pardon is largely a reflection of the commander-in-chief who bestows it. Consider President Abraham Lincoln's pardoning of 64 Confederate leaders during the American Civil War: Compared to subsequent pardoning of all Confederates by President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's amnesty was animated by compassion. "No man on earth hated blood as Lincoln did, and he seized eagerly upon any excuse to pardon a man when the charge could possibly justify it," journalist and Lincoln buddy David R. Locke, "The Stephen Colbert of the Civil War," wrote at the time. "The generals always wanted an execution carried out before it could possibly be brought before the President. He was tenderhearted as a girl." But if Lincoln was animated by compassion, Trump seems animated by bellicosity. Will Trump's pardon embolden U.S. service members to commit war crimes in the future, knowing potential impunity lies ahead? It seems unlikely that prospects of a pardon will be on soldier's minds: War is raw and visceral and morally chaotic, according to generation after generation of U.S. service members who bear the weight of moral injury when they return home. As Vietnam-era Marine rifleman and Combat Clemency Project founder Herbert Donahue told the New York Times in 2016: "I know what combat is, I've seen the beast a thousand times ... [and] it can be real murky. Sometimes, you don't have the luxury of making a moral decision."<doc-sep>Already registered? Click here to log in By registering with theweek.com , you accept and hereby explicitly consent to our processing of your Personal Information in accordance with the terms of our Privacy Policy You've read 4 or more articles this month. To continue reading for free, please join other loyal fans of The Week by registering below. If you are an existing subscriber to The Week magazine please register with the email address you subscribed with. For assistance or further information please contact us. Log in You've read 4 or more articles this month. To continue reading for free, please log in below. Email address Password Login A link has been emailed to you - check your inbox.<doc-sep>WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday blasted President Donald Trump's decision to pardon a former Army first lieutenant convicted of killing an Iraqi prisoner, saying the move amounted to a "presidential endorsement of a murder." Trump granted the pardon late Monday to Michael Behenna, an Oklahoma man who was sentenced to 15 years in 2009 for killing Ali Mansur Mohamed, a suspected al Qaeda operative who was stripped naked for questioning before being shot. "This pardon is a presidential endorsement of a murder that violated the military's own code of justice," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Trump, as commander-in-chief, and top military leaders should prevent war crimes, not endorse or excuse them." Behenna had long argued he acted in self-defense. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter had petitioned the White House for the pardon. “Mr. Behenna’s case has attracted broad support from the military, Oklahoma elected officials, and the public,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement Monday. “While serving his sentence, Mr. Behenna was a model prisoner.” Behenna was paroled in 2014 after serving less than five years of his sentence. Mansur was questioned in connection with a roadside bomb that killed two soldiers. More:Can Trump really do that? The presidential pardon power, explained Trump has frequently used his clemency power to make political statements, pardoning conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby, among others. That's hardly unprecedented, but previous presidents have tended to grant their most controversial pardons in their final months in office. Trump has done so early in his presidency. Contributing: Gregory Korte Like what you're reading? :Download the USA TODAY app for more<doc-sep>
Former 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, seen here in 2008, has received a presidential pardon for his 2009 conviction in the killing of Ali Mansur, an Iraqi civilian. Screenshot : WCBE Michael Behenna, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army, was deployed to Iraq in 2007. A year later, two soldiers, both friends of Behenna, were killed in a roadside explosion. Behenna witnessed the attack. U.S. intelligence officers believed that then-Iraqi operative Ali Mansur may have known something about the explosion. He was brought in for questioning and released because the military didn’t have enough evidence tying him to the attack. According to The Washington Post, a month later, without anyone’s knowledge, Behenna decided that he was going to question Mansur alone about the explosion. The Post notes that Behenna stripped Mansur naked, questioned him without authorization from Army brass and then shot him twice. He left Mansur for dead. He didn’t tell anyone about what took place. After Iraqi police found Mansur’s body, Behenna claimed a popular refrain that resonates across America when white people leave brown bodies to die; Behenna claimed self-defense. “I was scared Ali Mansur was going to take my weapon and use it against me,” he told the military panel of seven officers during his court-martial. “This happened very fast,” Behenna explained describing how a naked unarmed man who he’d gone to question without approval became a threat to him and therefore needed to be put down. Military prosecutors told the jury at his 2009 court-martial that Behenna killed Mansur because he’d lost his friends and wanted to avenge their death. What is white life worth? What’s the mathematical equation for white life? What is the intrinsic value? In America, the threat of brown or black violence against white life, even if the colored body is unarmed, is worth death. It’s all justifiable if the mathematical equation is one unarmed black/brown body + one armed white man + “I feared for my life”; the sum is usually death. Seems the same applies overseas. Except, Behenna was initially found guilty; he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for unpremeditated murder in a combat zone by a military court, but someone didn’t add it all up. Someone didn’t realize that a brown man had lost his life and the outcome isn’t white jail time. So the Army Clemency and Parole Board reduced his sentence to 15 years and paroled him as soon as he was eligible in 2014. Behenna only served five years. On Monday, President Donald Trump acknowledged this mistake against Behenna’s whiteness and granted him a full pardon, CNN reports. “After judgment, however, the U.S. Army’s highest appellate court noted concern about how the trial court had handled Mr. Behenna’s claim of self-defense,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in the statement, according to CNN. In her statement, Sanders called Behenna a “model prisoner” while he was doing his time. She said Behenna’s case “has attracted broad support from the military, Oklahoma elected officials, and the public,” and noted that “thirty-seven generals and admirals, along with a former Inspector General of the Department of Defense, signed a brief in support of Mr. Behenna’s self-defense claim.” “Behenna is entirely deserving of this Grant of Executive Clemency,” Sanders wrote. Sanders forgot to write that Behenna is also very well connected as his mother is a well-known Oklahoma attorney who “helped prosecute Oklahoma City bomber Timothy Mc­Veigh” and his father “worked as an FBI analyst and Oklahoma state investigator,” the Post reports. So whiteness wins again. Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, told CNN that the pardon was “a presidential endorsement of a murder that violated the military’s own code of justice.” “The military appeals court found Behenna disobeyed orders, became the aggressor against his prisoner, and had no justification for killing a naked, unarmed Iraqi man in the desert, away from an actual battlefield,” Shamsi said in a statement. But why would anyone let facts stand in the way of a mathematical equation that always finds justification for the subtraction of black and brown life.