Shocking (if true)

The First Amendment is a foundation stone for American liberty. It permits authors and publishers to espouse and disseminate misinformation. Consider this gem titled "How about self-defense for soldiers?", from the Easton, Md., Star Democrat:

Shocking as it may seem, self-defense is not a bedrock right in some courts — specifically, U.S. military courts, where U.S. soldiers have seen their right to self-defense on the battlefield negated by murder convictions.

There follows a discussion of failed self-defense claims in three court-martial murder cases.

Then consider Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 916(e)(1), found in the Manual for Courts-Martial:

(e) Self-defense.

(1) Homicide or assault cases involving deadly force. It is a defense to a homicide, assault involving deadly force, or battery involving deadly force that the accused:

(A) Apprehended, on reasonable grounds, that death or grievous bodily harm was about to be inflicted wrongfully on the accused; and

(B) Believed that the force the accused used was necessary for protection against death or grievous bodily harm.