Thanks for the link, FSE. I’ll check it out.
What is surprising to me is a major outlet like Fox running with this if that info is out there and easily accessed. Something’s not coming together. It would only make them look ignorant. It’s always possible that they are, but something’s not adding up in my mind.
Lorance’s defense is that the killed Afghans were members of the enemy. The prosecution failed to turn over to the court evidence that proved that was in fact, true. Therefore, having a better sense than his soldiers, Lorance ordered an attack on actual enemies who later were shown to be actual enemies.
The main complaint that may have traction is the length of the sentence, but, again, not being privy to the real meat of the case info, I can’t say for sure.
Twenty years is pretty stiff, but, despite what many FReepers think, we in the modern military don’t generally tend to completely railroad our own. A military judge/jury is only going to do this if this guy was guilty as hell.