Attorneys for Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna argue for Supreme Court review

Making their final appeal before the justices decide whether to accept Behenna’s case for review, the attorneys argued strenuously against the U.S. Justice Department’s view that the Supreme Court should reject the case because it had no broad implications for soldiers in dangerous situations.

The military’s highest appeals court has effectively established a “rule,” Behenna’s attorneys say, that says soldiers forfeit their right to self-defense when they point a weapon without authorization at a suspected enemy.

Service members “caught in ambiguous, dangerous, and rapidly evolving situations in combat zones — and who may have exceeded their authority by inadvertence, necessity, or even a lapse in judgment — should not have to second-guess whether aiming their weapons at potentially deadly enemies would put them in grave legal peril,” the brief filed late Monday says.

“The cloud on service members’ right to self-defense in combat zones should be cleared by this Court now.”

Behenna, 29, is serving a 15-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., for killing an Iraqi who had been identified by Army intelligence as part of a terrorist cell operating in the area where two of Behenna’s platoon members were killed.

Behenna was ordered to take the man, Ali Mansur, back to his village but instead took him to a remote area, forced him to strip naked and then questioned him at gunpoint before shooting him twice.