- Contact - Monica Benderman
- The Kevin Benderman Defense Committee
- P.O. Box 2322, Hinesville, GA 31310
- www.BendermanDefense.org
- 912-369-4595
-
- First a note from Monica -
-
- We are compelled to begin by thanking the countless
people, military and civilian, here and abroad, for the overwhelming support
we have received during the first few weeks of the difficult times we are
now facing. We appreciate the warm thoughts and prayers from all who have
cared enough to take the time to share their feelings with us. Thank
you.
-
- Chronology of Events Beginning February 07, 2005
-
- As you know, combat veteran Army Sergeant Kevin Benderman
was charged by his command at Fort Stewart on January 19th with: 1) Desertion
with the intent to avoid hazardous duty and 2) Missing Movement by design.
He faces 5 years in prison if found guilty on the first charge; and up
to 2 years on the second charge.
-
- Faced with the prospect of having to submit to the Army's
equivalent of a pre-trial hearing (called an Article 32 investigation)
less than 48 hours after the charges were read, SGT Benderman, through
the military defense counsel provided to him, submitted a request for a
reasonable delay of the hearing. A delay in the case was granted until
February 7th by Lt Col. Linda Taylor, the investigating officer.
-
- Meanwhile, the military attorney representing Kevin
challenged the appointment of the Article 32 investigating officer, Lt.Col.
Linda Taylor. They based their objection on the fact that Ms. Taylor served
as the chief military prosecutor at Ft. Stewart, where Kevin is being tried.
Reportedly, Lt.Col. Taylor served in that capacity for over six months
in 2003 and actually provided legal advice on criminal matters to the current
Convening Authority, Lt.Col. Kidd. The request for recusal was denied
by the appointing authority prior to the Article 32, and again by Lt.Col.
Taylor at the beginning of the hearing.
-
- The Article 32 spanned about six hours. Telling testimony
from various witnesses revealed the negative reception SGT Benderman endured
by his command from the time he submitted his Conscientious Objector claim
in December 2004. Without even reviewing the governing regulation, his
company commander at the time informed SGT Benderman that he intended to
recommend disapproval of the application based on his belief that it could
only be a reuse to avoid deployment. The first military chaplain SGT Benderman
sought to meet with shunned him despite the fact that a chaplain's interview
is a required step in the application process. This chaplain later emailed
SGT Benderman from Kuwait and told him he was ashamed of him. SGT Benderman's
unit first sergeant called him a coward. Fortunately, SGT Benderman was
able to meet with another Fort Stewart chaplain who understood the process,
conducted a thorough interview with SGT Benderman, and concluded that SGT
Benderman's beliefs are "sincere" and that "his lifestyle
is congruent with his claim of conscientious objection."
-
- Article 32 testimony also confirmed that on January 6th,
within days of SGT Benderman submitting his application, the company commander
called SGT Benderman in for a separate counseling session based on allegations
of Disrespect to a Commissioned Officer and Disloyal Statements to the
United States. This counseling proved atypical. SGT Benderman was brought
into a conference room where 15-20 others from the unit were present.
The commander chastised SGT Benderman in front of the group citing various
articles he had read from the internet and which he assumed were directly
attributable to SGT Benderman. The commander informed SGT Benderman that
he fully intended to prosecute him, that he considered him a security risk,
that he intended to have SGT Benderman's security credentials pulled for
the remainder of his career, and that SGT Benderman was to be excluded
from all access to company and battalion operations centers. The counseling
was reduced to writing.
-
- The Findings and Recommendations of the Article 32 Investigation
are pending at this time. Less than 18 hours following completion of the
Article 32, SGT Benderman had to report for his Conscientious Objector
hearing. SGT Benderman had timely requested a brief delay the previous
week, but the Investigating Officer denied the request. The hearing officer
was clearly hostile and not the detached, neutral, and impartial officer
required by the regulation. Over objections by representative counsel,
the IO persisted in asking SGT Benderman potentially incriminating questions,
including whether or not SGT Benderman had ever brought an unregistered
weapon on Fort Stewart. Countless other questions pertained to articles
alleged to have been written by SGT Benderman. These questions persisted
despite the IO's assurances at the beginning that he did not intend to
consider any articles. The hearing was not recorded, although we were
informed the previous week that it would be. SGT Benderman's representative
counsel, who is also his detailed defense attorney, immediately objected
to the legitimacy of the entire proceeding and to the continued appointment
of the IO. The numerous objections were reduced to writing and sent to
the appointment authority on Wednesday, February 9th. To date, we have
received no response.
-
- As if the marathon events of the 7th and 8th were not
enough for one week, other developments ensued. Following the CO Hearing
on the 8th, SGT Benderman reported to his rear detachment commander for
further guidance. The commander informed SGT Benderman that he intended
to sit SGT Benderman down within a day or two to issue him a new order
to deploy to Iraq. The commander stated that the decision was based on
the guidance he received from the prosecution and that it would all be
summarized in a counseling statement. SGT Benderman promptly informed
his attorney, who promptly sought confirmation with the prosecutors. Our
understanding is that while the prosecutors admitted to having a discussion
with the command, they indicated that they would not likely follow through
with such a course of action.
-
- Astoundingly, on the morning of February 10th, SGT Benderman
was called and told to report to his commander at 0900 hours for counseling.
SGT Benderman immediately called his defense counsel and asked him to
be present. By the time SGT Benderman's attorney arrived, and despite
the fact he is a represented accused, the commander and one of the military
prosecutors called him in to communicate the order. SGT Benderman repeatedly
requested that they await the arrival of his attorney. Finding errors
in the written counseling form, the commander sent SGT Benderman out to
correct the errors and await the arrival of SGT Benderman's attorney.
Finally, the defense counsel arrived and the session resumed with the commander,
a prosecutor, SGT Benderman's supervising sergeant, SGT Benderman, and
his attorney present.
-
- Defense counsel placed everyone on notice that he intended
to record the discussion. The commander informed SGT Benderman that he
considered SGT Benderman deployable and that he must prepare to deploy
to Operation Iraqi Freedom III pending the outcome of the Article 32 hearing.
The commander went on to state that if the findings revealed that he had
not committed any violations of the UCMJ, SGT Benderman may deploy as early
as 17 February and as late as 17 March 2005. When defense counsel reminded
the commander that the Article 32 did not determine guilt or innocence,
the commander acknowledged that he understood that to be correct. He confirmed
that if the Article 32 hearing officer recommended that the charges not
go forward, he intended to deploy SGT Benderman. Meanwhile, the commander
also confirmed that if the Article 32 recommendation was to go forward
with the court-martial, he would consider SGT Benderman non-deployable.
The conversation was terminated. This latest development is fundamentally
suspect in a number of ways. The legal concepts of entrapment and malicious
prosecution come to mind.
-
- Again, the Article 32 findings have not yet issued.
We remain hopeful that the hearing officer was able to readily see that
SGT Benderman never deserted his unit and that he was otherwise excused
from movement with his unit on January 7th in order to complete the processing
of his Conscientious Objector application.
-
- The Kevin Benderman Defense Committee
- www.BendermanDefense.org
-
- Kevin and Monica Benderman
- mdawnb@coastalnow.net
-
- 912-369-4585
|
