Michael Behenna, an Army Ranger serving in Iraq, was convicted of murder for shooting Al-Qaeda leader Ali Mansur.
Michael Savage's radio interview (see link below) is one-sided in terms of journalism, but it certainly raises questions about Behenna's trial. The sole eye witness not permitted to testify. If the Ranger received the orders he says he did, then his superior officers need to be investigated.
Behenna admitted to disobeying a questionable order and says he shot Mansur in self-defense.
Behenna was convicted of murder in a military court and is currently serving a 25 yr sentence in Leavenworth. His family is appealing the ruling.
Not sure how he could have been convicted with no eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof is always supposed to rest with the prosecution. I could understand conviction for disobeying an order (even though it was an order that should be investigated) but murder?
Savage interview (2 parts):
Website for Behenna's legal defense fund: