As we reflect back on 2009, I want us to take a look at what liberty means to us and what are we willing to do to preserve it. Too often we forget the real cost of our liberty in America.  By that I mean the cost in blood.

Since the first spill of blood at Lexington with the shot heard round the world our liberty has been bought and paid for with the blood of brave young men and women.  The are Americans who understand that liberty is not free. They come from the farms of Kansas, the Mountains of Tennessee, the inner city in Chicago, and from all over this great land.

Why do they come whenever we need them? They come because, they like me, believe in something bigger than themselves.  They come because their grandfather served in World War II, their dad served in Korea and their Uncle served in Viet Nam.  They come knowing full well they may have to pay the ultimate price to secure our liberty.

These are men and women who are willing to be separated from loved ones and friends in order to go to foreign lands if that is what it takes to protect their home town from attack.  They proudly put their life on the line so that future generations can enjoy liberty.

I know how they feel, as many of my readers do, because we have served in their boots.  My time in the United States Marines merely strengthened the strong feelings 0f patriotism and the desire to live in liberty that my Mother and others instilled in me.  These feelings and sense of patriotism have endured throughout my adult life.  I am no less committed to liberty today than I was then.

So when we look back on 2009, do we really stop to think about what the cost of our liberty was in blood?  We should. This cost must never be taken for granted.

According to sources on the internet 150 US service men and women lost their lives in Iraq during 2009. The total lost in Afghanistan for the year was 319.  In 2009, we lost 469 brave men and women who were willing to stand for liberty no matter what the cost.

We must not forget the wounded warriors who came home with scars for life.  These are the ones who paid the price with the loss of a limb or other life changing wounds.  They will live with their sacrifice for the rest of their lives. We owe them such a debt of gratitude that it can not be put it in to words.

So how should we show our gratitude for their service and their loss? I could fill pages with suggestions. Here are a few:

Volunteer at your local Veterans Hospital or center.

The next time you are out to eat and you see someone in uniform, call the waitress over and  ask them to give you their ticket.

Thank every person you see in uniform for preserving our liberty.

Help a service members family while they are deployed.

Support to the USO.

Register to vote and do so at every opportunity.

Say a prayer for our men and women in uniform every day.

Take a stand for liberty here at home.

These are just a few simple ways you can show your gratitude.  As we move into 2010, and face the challenges it will bring, I think it only fitting to remember those who have paid the price of liberty with their blood.

As a Christian, I know my salvation is bought and paid for with the blood of my Lord and Savior.  As an American, I know that my liberty has been bought and paid for with the blood of the men and women of our Armed Forces both past and present. We must never forget these two truths or take them for granted.

One such hero heard the call of his country and answered it. Michael Behenna was a student at the University of Central Oklahoma when he joined the Army’s ROTC program after the September 11 attacks. According to his mother, Vicki, “[Michael] felt it was his obligation as a citizen to fight for his country. He wanted to drop out of college on a couple of occasions to enlist. We encouraged him to finish his degree and then join as an officer, which he did.” He was an Army Ranger in Iraq by 2007.

Michael, a natural leader, soon caught the eye of his superiors and was quickly promoted to the rank of first lieutenant. His mother pointed out that it was this inherent capability to lead that drew to him not only the men under his command, but his Iraqi interpreters and their families as well. He was invited on more than one occasion to have dinner with these families.

In April 2008, Lt. Behenna’s platoon lost two men, Sgt. Adam Kohlhaas and Spec. Steven Christofferson, in an IED attack. The following is an excerpt from Michael’s testimony in court.

“As I was running back to the truck, the dust and the smoke was dropping and I saw [pause] just [pause] just bodies. I saw several bodies laying there. I recognized and noticed my soldiers were laying there, my interpreter. Well, [pause] you know as the leader on the ground, I had to make the decision, you know, evaluate the situation that just happened.

“There’s bodies laying on the ground and I’ve got to send up a medevac report. I had to go around and see all of the casualties and I had to relay that message to my gunner, which my gunner was Private Bradford and he’s the one that actually sent in the medevac.

“I spent most of my time [pause]—I spent most of my time trying to give aid to my soldier. (Specialist Kohlhaas) [But also] the CLC (Concerned Local Citizens) members, one of them, his gut was cut open and he had some kind of metal stuck in there, stuck in his stomach. I mean, it was just, people were screaming. [Christofferson] was the furthest one to the west.

“I saw Christofferson, and he was [pause]—I knew he was dead by the time I saw him. He was cut in half. He was cut completely in half. We put the guys on the stretchers and put them on the two birds that showed up. After that, the QRF (Quick Reaction Force) responded down to that area, and they were picking up all of the stuff left behind, you know, the clothing, equipment.”

The attack left Lt. Behenna scarred and refusing to sleep. He told his mother that the screams of his men and the smell of burning diesel fuel awaited him in his dreams. He became withdrawn and began suffering flashbacks. It also fell to Michael to inform the families of their loved ones’ fate, complete the necessary paperwork required after an attack and to continue his duties as platoon leader. He was running on empty.

According to the Army’s own intelligence reports, one of the suspected perpetrators was a man named Ali Mansur, a member of the al Qaeda cell responsible for the attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon. This name had also been reported to Lt. Behenna through the connections he had made with the anti-insurgent Iraqis throughout the community. It is reported that Mansur had personally threatened Lt. Behenna and his platoon via cell phone prior to the attack. Although Michael reported the threats to his command, a formal report was never issued.

Michael knew that Mansur needed to be detained for questioning and, through his prominent contacts in the Iraqi community, was soon told where to find the suspected insurgent. Mansur was captured in his home by members of the 5^th Platoon. Upon a search of the residence a mountain of evidence, including illegal weapons and a passport registering two trips to Syria, was found. Upon initial interrogation by Lt. Behenna, Mansur lied repeatedly – an indication that he had knowledge of terrorist operations against U.S. troops.

Mansur was then taken by the 5^th Platoon to COB Speicher and questioned. However, during the interrogation Mansur was asked only about the illegal weapons found in his home and where he was currently employed. Despite the efforts of Lt. Behenna, he was never asked about the threatening phone call to Lt. Behenna, the IED attack on the 5^th Platoon nor why there were two trips to Syria on his passport. He was interrogated on four different occasions, each time by a different intel officer and each time Army leadership failed to ask the pertinent questions. He was released to FOB Summerall after ten days.

The Army had an extensive file on Mansur, part of which was declassified for the trial. The intel report that I read clearly identifies Mansur as an al Qaeda operative responsible for the transportation and planting of IEDs. Michael was aware of this report but the interrogators at COB Speicher never received them.

While Mansur was being held at FOB Summerall pending release, Michael made his COC aware of the reports. Mansur was then interrogated again and finally gave information regarding insurgent activity in the region. To Lt. Behenna’s shock, Mansur was still going to be released, and Lt. Behenna was to be the one responsible for returning Mansur to his home.

Lt. Behenna, in one last ditch effort to protect his men, decided to interrogate Mansur en route to the detainee’s destination. He wanted to frighten Mansur into giving him the information that he withheld from his interrogators at COB Speicher and he decided to do so by pointing his weapon at the detainee. Lt. Behenna now says that was a “bad decision” even though his back was against the wall in regards to the safety of his men.

Mansur was led out near a culvert and stripped of his clothes by Lt. Behenna and SSG Mitch Warner, who later admitted to lying to investigators on at least two occasions. “Harry”, the Iraqi interpreter was also present. Mansur was then made to sit on a rock and face Lt. Behenna. Lt. Behenna then pulled out his sidearm, pointed it at Mansur and, through “Harry”, began the questioning. According to the translator, Mansur agreed to talk. While “Harry” was conveying this to Lt. Behenna, whose attention was momentarily diverted from Mansur, he was struck with a piece of concrete on his shoulder. Mansur had seen his opportunity, stood up and threw the projectile at Lt. Behenna who, relying on his training, fired his pistol in a “double tap”, hitting Mansur in the right arm pit and right temple.

SSG Warner says he ran up to the scene and insists that Lt. Behenna pointed his sidearm in his direction and told him to, “Throw it.” He testified that the hammer of Lt. Behenna’s sidearm was in the cocked position and he was afraid. However, the 9mm Glock is a semi-automatic and has an internal hammer, so Warner was either mistaken or lying. As soon as Lt. Behenna realized what had happened, he began walking away from the scene. He testified that he saw a flash and assumed that Warner had thrown an incendiary grenade.

What happened next is murky due to the conflicting testimony of the three men present at the scene. Warner says that Lt. Behenna told him to get rid of Mansur’s street clothes, although “Harry” says that it was Warner who told Lt. Behenna to hand the clothes over and he would take care of the rest.

Michael went on R&R two days later to Oklahoma. While he was on leave, Warner decided to tell his commanders his version of events to clear his conscience. Of course, this attack of conscience came only after the body of Mansur was discovered. In his attempt to soften the role he played, Warner told at least two lies to investigators. He and Lt. Behenna were both under investigation by the time Michael returned to Iraq.

The end result of the investigation was that Michael was charged with the premeditated murder of Ali Mansur. The government, under pressure from the Abu Ghraib scandal, was going to use any means at its disposal to make an example out of Lt. Behenna. The subsequent trial and conviction of this soldier is a clear case of this.

In the military panel selected to hear the case, there was not a single person with combat experience. Their inexperience on a battlefield was evident in the almost naïve questions they asked regarding why Lt. Behenna didn’t just “[do] some surveillance.” The prosecution also never presented physical evidence to back its claims of the way the shooting occurred. They had an expert witness, but his version of events matched Michael’s own and he was never put on the stand. The prosecution claimed that Mansur was shot while seated, but their own expert witness corroborated Michael’s claim that Mansur was standing with his arms outstretched.

The prosecution never told Michael’s defense team of the findings of its own expert witness. It was only after the doctor approached them did they discover that the government prosecutors had withheld the evidence which could have changed the course of the entire trial.

When the prosecution was forced, it finally turned over the evidence to the defense. They immediately filed a brief requesting a mistrial. And in another stunning miscarriage of justice, Judge Colonel Theodore Dixon decided that the affidavit had no merit and sided with the government.

1^st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was convicted of a lesser charge of unpremeditated murder and is currently serving his twenty year term in Fort Leavenworth penitentiary in Kansas. He spends his days working and his nights reading biographies and books on history, his college major. According to his mother, “His frame of mind is good. He is hopeful that the appellate court will reverse the conviction and he will get a new trial where Dr. MacDonell’s opinion will be told to the jury.”

Michael’s attorneys have filed another brief requesting a new trial. With all of the lies told by Warner, and the withholding of evidence by the prosecution, it seems common sense that a new trial would be granted.

As I have discovered in my investigation of the prosecution of soldiers for acts on the battlefield, common sense typically takes a backseat to political correctness and liberal ideals of justice.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

~George Orwell

We must protect these men that have so readily put their lives on the line to keep us safe and secure. If we don’t protect them, who will?

Most of us in the blogosphere are familiar with the story of the three Navy SEALs being court-martialed on the word of terrorist Ahmid Hashim Abed. Although the story has been picked up by a few main stream media outlets, the case has not gotten the attention it merits. After all, during the Abu Ghraib fiasco, the public was subjected to the ravings of Keith Olbermann nightly. One would think that the prosecution of the men responsible for capturing Abed, the man that orchestrated the murder of four civilian contractors whose bodies were subsequently mutilated, dragged through the streets, burned and hung from a bridge in Fallujah, would warrant as much attention as pictures of a terrorist on a dog leash. Not so. Freelance writers and, to a lesser extent Fox News, are responsible for spreading the word to patriotic Americans.

For those unfamiliar with the story, here is a quick recap.

In March 2004, Fallujah was rife with insurgent actions against US troops and contracted civilians. Four of these innocent civilian contractors – Michael Teague, Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko and Wesley Batalona – were set up by the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and ambushed in what they thought was a traffic jam. Their Mitsubishi Pajeros was soon surrounded by fanatics that opened fire into the vehicle, killing all four men. What happened next was an animalistic display of savagery alien to the mindset of most Westerners. The bodies of the contractors were desecrated – hacked and beaten, dragged through the dirty streets and then set afire. In a final indignation, two of the men were strung up from a bridge that crossed the Euphrates as bizarre trophies for the jubilant crowd.

The murder of the four of the contractors, all former military men and one, Scott Helvenston, a former US Navy SEAL, triggered an overwhelming response by the US military. On April 1, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt declared, “We will pacify that city.” Four days later, the First Marine Expeditionary Force surrounded the city. The pacification of Fallujah had begun.

The Marines successfully killed hundreds of insurgents, yet the Iraqi civilians wanted the Marines to leave. After insurgents attacked US forces from a mosque, the military responded by blowing up the mosque. This caused a public outcry both in Iraq and abroad and Lieutenant General James Conway decided to turn operations over to the Fallujah Brigade, which promptly gave its US weapons to the insurgents. It soon became clear that the Marines would have to return to Fallujah to subdue the city for good.

The Marines reentered the city the night of November 7, 2004 and created a diversion that distracted the rebels and allowed the Navy Seabees to shut off power to the city. In the early morning hours of November 8 the assault on Fallujah began in earnest. A mere eight days later the Marine command stated its forces were “mopping up pockets of resistance” in the city. By late January 2005, the combat units had left Fallujah.

The fighting in the aftermath of the murders of the four contractors took the lives of 38 US Marines and countless Iraqi civilians. All of these deaths can be traced back to Abed. Now the heroic SEALs that captured this terrorist are being tried on Abed’s word alone.

When news of this atrocity hit the blogosphere, there was an outpouring of public support for the heroes that caught Abed after tracking him for five years. As I write this, there are over 88,000 supporters on the facebook page, Support The Navy SEALs who Captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, alone. At the December 7 arraignment of two of the SEALs, protestors held up signs such as, “S.O.S. Save our SEALS” and “You Fought For Us. Now We Fight For You.”

Some lawmakers have also shown their support. Forty representatives signed a petition asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to intervene on behalf of Petty Officer Matthew McCabe, Petty Officer Julio Huertas and Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe. Interestingly enough, all forty signers are Republicans.

The facts in the case are muddy at best. After capture, Abed was turned over to the Iraqis by mistake and was later returned to US custody. It was then that Abed claimed to have been punched in the stomach by McCabe. The claims by Abed are suspicious due to the fact that the al-Qaeda training manual advises its members to make false accusations of torture against their captors if they are captured.

In a press release dated December 4, Lt. Col. Holly Silkman states that, “Based upon the evidence uncovered in this investigation, three Sailors were accused of making false official statements with the intent to deceive the investigator, and dereliction of duty for failing to safeguard a detainee who was in their custody. One of the three Sailors has been charged with assaulting the detainee after the prisoner had been apprehended and while he was in their custody at the base. Another has been charged with an additional offense of impeding an investigation by unlawfully attempting to influence a witness in the investigation.”

The dereliction of duty charge is the most ludicrous. These three Navy SEALs captured one of the most notorious terrorists on the Ten Most Wanted list and, based upon the word of a man with the blood of no less than 42 Americans on his hands, these Sailors are being court-martialed. A dereliction of duty charge would be more appropriate for Major Nidal Hasan’s superiors. Hasan gained notoriety for being the man behind the murder of 12 soldiers, 1 civilian and 1 pre-born child at Fort Hood, Texas. His superiors ignored warnings regarding Hasan’s jihadist statements about the beheading of infidels and his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on his Muslim brothers. Following the Fort Hood Massacre, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey warned soldiers not to focus on the fact that Hasan was a Muslim. Apparently, Casey fears that there could be a “heighten the backlash” against Muslim soldiers serving in the US military.

The lame stream media parroted Casey’s statements for weeks following the murders. Where is the media when it comes to our heroes? Where are our political leaders? Where are the superior officers that are supposed to be supporting their soldiers, not selling them out? Where is the Commander in Chief? As I am coming to realize, our current president is no friend of the men that keep us safe.

It looks like it is up to We The People to call attention to this story, as well as others that have been uncovered by freelance journalists. Stories abound of soldiers that have been prosecuted and jailed on the basis of nonexistent evidence and questionable witnesses. Or, as in the case of 1^st Lieutenant Michael Behenna, failure of the prosecution to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense – evidence that almost certainly would have resulted in a “not guilty” verdict.

Due to my investigation into the situation of the SEALs I’ve discovered that there are definitely more soldiers in positions that are far worse. There is an apparent home grown jihad on our men in uniform and I will update the readers as more facts come to light.

Thanks to Major Nidal Hasan, the Pentagon is considering widening the scope of the regulations regarding the rights of soldiers to participate in “dissident and protest activities”. This is grim news considering the liberal democrat who is Commander-in-Chief.

The DoD Directive 1325.6, which governs such activities, was revised in 2003 and outlines acceptable conduct for military members in this area.

Section 3 provides the basic guidelines to follow:

3. POLICY
It is DoD policy that:

3.1. The Department of Defense shall safeguard the security of the United States.
3.2. The Service members’ right of expression should be preserved to the
maximum extent possible, consistent with good order and discipline and the national
security.
3.3. No commander should be indifferent to conduct that, if allowed to proceed
unchecked, would destroy the effectiveness of his or her unit.
3.4. The proper balancing of these interests will depend largely upon the calm and
prudent judgment of the responsible commander.

It seems like if the Department of Defense had followed the rules that were already in place, the murder of fourteen people at Fort Hood by Hasan – a terrorist – never would have occurred in the first place. If the the commanders at Fort Hood had applied 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3, Hasan would have been subject to a court martial. However, 3.4 presupposes that the commander would exercise “prudent judgment” as a “responsible commander” and, according to 3.3, not be “indifferent to conduct that…would destroy the effectiveness of his or her unit.”

That being said, the part of section three that should be of concern is Section 3.5, specifically 3.5.8.

3.5. The following guidelines be applied to principal activities that the Armed
Forces have encountered:

3.5.8. Prohibited Activities. Military personnel must reject participation in
organizations that espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination
based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin; advocate the use of force or
violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.
Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting
and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in
activities in relation to such organizations or in furtherance of the objectives of such
organizations that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order,
discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military
Service, and is, therefore, prohibited.

Janet Napolitano, according to her own DHS report, wants to monitor “right wing extremists” who oppose restrictions on firearms, lax immigration enforcement, continuing free trade agreements, same-sex marriage, one-world government, Communist regimes, policies of Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs, etc. The list continues, ad nauseum and includes the bulk of the United States military. Don’t forget that she singled out returning war veterans as being of particular concern.

This brings to mind groups like “Oathkeepers” who, according a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival…a newly formed group of law enforcement officers, military men and veterans…[who] vow to fulfill the oaths to the Constitution that they swore while in the military or law enforcement.”

The news of the Pentagon’s consideration of rewriting the regulations on “dissident and protest activities” is not good, especially in light of the willingness of this administration to favor “political correctness” over the obvious truth. When you take into account Obama’s response to things that concern our men and women in uniform, i.e. Fort Hood, I don’t hold out any hope that the outcome is going to favor our soldiers.

I expect that the rules that should have been applied to Hasan will soon be re-written and applied with force and vigor to our dedicated and decorated soldiers, sailors and airmen. And when these heroes are court-martialed as domestic terrorists, don’t expect the lame stream media or the Obama administration to conjure up any pre-PTSD symptoms out of thin air.