First Lt. Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2009 for the murder, and released on parole in 2014.
The killing came a month after two of Behenna’s fellow soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb. According to The New York Times, Behenna and his unit believed they had captured the architect of that attack.
During a deployment in Iraq in 2008, First Lt. Michael Behenna and his platoon believed the man, Ali Mansur, was a terrorist linked to Al Qaeda. They took him to a remote part of the Iraqi desert to question him about a previous attack that left two American soldiers dead, according to court filings. During the interrogation, Lieutenant Behenna shot Mr. Mansur in the head and chest.
Human rights activist Qasim Rashid noted the details of the crime on Twitter.
Behenna was ordered to release an innocent Iraqi man they had no evidence to hold
•dragged him under a bridge
•stripped him naked
•shot him dead
•set a grenade under his corpse to burn the body
45 just pardoned him😐https://t.co/b3n5a2lGxj
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) May 7, 2019
Critics of the president’s decision stressed its negative implications, including the dangerous message it sends to the world.
“This pardon is a presidential endorsement of a murder that violated the military’s own code of justice,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement provided to Common Dreams. “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.”
In court filings reviewed by the Times, Behenna allegedly said that “he would do it again, and he did not feel bad about it because he just lost two guys.”
Trump’s pardon of Behenna came after politicians in the soldier’s native Oklahoma and retired military figures mounted a sustained campaign for Behenna, a campaign that commentator Nate Bethea, a U.S. military veteran who served in Afghanistan, opined was driven by right-wing callousness.
“All Republicans agree with this because all Republicans think no American soldier should go to jail for murdering someone overseas,” said Bethea. “They don’t think it counts as murder.”
All Republicans agree with this because all Republicans think no American soldier should go to jail for murdering someone overseas. They don’t think it counts as murder. pic.twitter.com/0VXJsUuwWb
— Nate Bethea (@inthesedeserts) May 7, 2019
The pardon also comes in the context of an effort by far-right figures to convince the president to pardon Major Mathew Golsteyn, who murdered an unarmed suspected bomb-maker in Afghanistan in 2010.
Trump pardons former US soldier who killed Iraqi prisoner
Next up, pardon Matt Golsteyn and Eddie Gallagher. https://t.co/SATLkmSMEh
— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) May 7, 2019
“This pardon from Trump is just another part of his white supremacy tour,” said activist Shaun King.
A gross act of Islamophobia from Trump today.
He just pardoned a soldier who was convicted of murder after he disobeyed an order to transport a prisoner in Iraq.
He drove the man deep into the desert. Stripped him naked. Shot & killed him. https://t.co/7ouCJlfkx6
— Shaun King (@shaunking) May 7, 2019
The Atlantic‘s Adam Serwer said that the pardon could have unintended consequences. By eroding the rules of engagement and endorsing the murder of prisoners, Serwer said, Trump could be putting U.S. service members in danger.
But, Serwer added, that’s not the goal of the pardon.
“The point of [this] though, like the Arpaio pardon, is to send the message that certain groups of people simply have no rights that the US government is bound to respect,” said Serwer.
The point of his though, like the Arpaio pardon, is to send the message that certain groups of people simply have no rights that the US government is bound to respect.
— Adam Serwer🍝 (@AdamSerwer) May 7, 2019
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us