View Full Version : Fort Hood Shooting
I'm glad I'm not the POTUS - all I have to worry about is my wife getting on me for 'adjusting' myself in public while everybody else seems to be too polite to point out my shortcomings. :p
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
armymom1228
11-10-2009, 09:19
It's the way he is handling himself is what I have a gripe with. His priorities, demeanor and what he says could use a wakeup call.
The exact same thing was said of GWB post Katrina.
Presidential 'visits' are a major PIA, just as the residents of Key Biscayne how they felt once Nixon was gone. :D
Some people have a problem with expressing emotion and some people don't have able mature advisors around them to make sure they say the correct things, at the correct times. Not that it makes it right, but it is an observation.
AM
kimberly
11-10-2009, 11:57
You mean like praising conference attendees, mistaking a Medal of Freedom for a Medal of Honor recipient, and offering shout-outs to his buds for 2:30 before mentioning 43 casualties of a Muslim terrorist?
TR
Exactly what I mean.
The President is the Commander in Chief.
The CinC should be at the memorial service. Lets see the focus of what he says. Does it stay in the "memorial tone", does it become a lecture on how we should behave with Muslims or does it hit a number of "I" spots?
We'll see - I would hope it stays in the "memorial tone".
But thats just me.
I agree. Will it be all about him, or about those who have earned recognition and our high esteem?
Bingo..........
He did not do him self any good by how he started it out.......Conf, Golf, etc....
Exactly. My view as well.
... .
Some people have a problem with expressing emotion and some people don't have able mature advisors around them to make sure they say the correct things, at the correct times. Not that it makes it right, but it is an observation.
AM
I agree, but with every citizen in the United States of America at his disposal, one would think he could surround himself with the maturity in enough people to do the job efficiently, with honor, and without being so narcissistic.
Well, I'm sitting out here at THE most luxurious spa and resort in Texas, USASMA at Fort Bliss. I watched the whole memorial service and thought it was very well done.
kimberly
11-10-2009, 21:41
Not once did the POTUS look into the faces of those at Fort Hood. He moved from side to side (teleprompter to teleprompter) never once looking forward into the crowd. Every so ofter he glanced off to the side of his tele, but not once out into the service men and women standing before him.
Whoever wrote his speech did an OK job though.
My opinion.
Snaquebite
11-11-2009, 09:06
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Did they award the PH to those in the Pentagon on 9/11?
TR
Yes.
Written by Ernest McDermon
Monday, 09 November 2009 11:21
Open Letter to Your Senator: Will the Obama Administration Approve Purple Hearts for Fort Hood Soldiers Who Were Killed and Wounded by Major Hasan?
By Ernest McDermon, Atlanta, Georgia
One of our occasional columnists is sending this letter to his Senator, who happens to sit on both the Senate Armed Forces Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We thought our readers might consider sending a similar letter to their Congressman or Senators
Dear Senator:
I believe that the jihad inspired attack on our soldiers at Ft. Hood, TX this past Thursday is but the latest in a long line of Islamist attacks on the United States and our Armed Forces.
It is reliably reported that Major Hasan yelled out "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great") immediately before launching his attack at Fort Hood. Additionally, both in Great Britain and the United States, reports are surfacing that Major Hasan attended a mosque in Great Falls, VA at the same time that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour (two of the 9/11 terrorists) attended, and at the same time that a radical Islamic cleric was the imam of the mosque.
I do not believe this is merely a "coincidence", and it is highly likely that the beginnings of Major Hasan's nascent Islamist thoughts began in that mosque, and it is possible that he was recruited as an Al Qaeda "sleeper" by the two 9/11 plotters that he would certainly have known.
More.....
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911097220/editorial/will-purple-hearts-be-given-to-the-fort-hood-soldiers.html
Not once did the POTUS look into the faces of those at Fort Hood. He moved from side to side (teleprompter to teleprompter) never once looking forward into the crowd. Every so ofter he glanced off to the side of his tele, but not once out into the service men and women standing before him.
Ever deliver a eulogy? Once you look into their faces, you're done - at least that's how it was for me. :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
11-11-2009, 12:50
Ever deliver a eulogy? Once you look into their faces, you're done - at least that's how it was for me. :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I have to quote TR's response from a different forum,but as meaningful and as important...I'm also disturbed by Gen. Casey's decision on this......It' was a terrorist act pure and simple and they should receive their Purple Hearts.........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
I have to quote TR's response from a different forum,but as meaningful and as important...I'm also disturbed by Gen. Casey's decision on this......It' was a terrorist act pure and simple and they should receive their Purple Hearts.........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
I am one who will not defend the constant errors the Great O does but I am with Richard. I have to agree with his comment's....... I have had to give a few eulogy's and if you look them in the eyes you will not get through it. I was watching his speach carefully and would jump on him if needed but I was pleased with his presentation compared to his past acts.....
I also agree with TR's comments ref Gen casey......
Utah Bob
11-11-2009, 16:23
I am one who will not defend the constant errors the Great O does but I am with Richard. I have to agree with his comment's....... I have had to give a few eulogy's and if you look them in the eyes you will not get through it. I was watching his speach carefully and would jump on him if needed but I was pleased with his presentation compared to his past acts.....
I also agree with TR's comments ref Gen casey......
I agree also.
Chris Cram
11-11-2009, 19:19
I have had to give a few eulogy's and if you look them in the eyes you will not get through it.
Gentlemen, I think you are projecting your Character into this situation.
As unsettling as it would imply, I suspect any unease that our President
experienced, was related to his lack of compassion. His lack of connection
to those whom he was addressing... From his book, he stated that the
knowledge of his brothers death, strangely had no emotional impact.
But then I could be mistaken. :(
I hated the President's red tie. The stripes were fucked up.
BigJimCalhoun
11-11-2009, 22:01
You mean like praising conference attendees, mistaking a Medal of Freedom for a Medal of Honor recipient, and offering shout-outs to his buds for 2:30 before mentioning 43 casualties of a Muslim terrorist?
TR
When I think of the term "shout-out", I think of something a radio DJ says for listeners in various communities in the broadcast area, not something a president says at a news conference the day of an attack. I was beside myself when I heard that sound clip, as I am sure most of you here were.
incarcerated
11-12-2009, 00:39
When I think of the term "shout-out", I think of something a radio DJ says for listeners in various communities in the broadcast area, not something a president says at a news conference the day of an attack. I was beside myself when I heard that sound clip, as I am sure most of you here were.
In case you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM
Warrior-Mentor
11-12-2009, 07:14
Written by Ernest McDermon
Monday, 09 November 2009 11:21
Open Letter to Your Senator: Will the Obama Administration Approve Purple Hearts for Fort Hood Soldiers Who Were Killed and Wounded by Major Hasan?
By Ernest McDermon, Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Senator:
I believe that the jihad inspired attack on our soldiers at Ft. Hood, TX this past Thursday is but the latest in a long line of Islamist attacks on the United States and our Armed Forces.
It is reliably reported that Major Hasan yelled out "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great") immediately before launching his attack at Fort Hood. Additionally, both in Great Britain and the United States, reports are surfacing that Major Hasan attended a mosque in Great Falls, VA at the same time that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour (two of the 9/11 terrorists) attended, and at the same time that a radical Islamic cleric was the imam of the mosque.
I do not believe this is merely a "coincidence", and it is highly likely that the beginnings of Major Hasan's nascent Islamist thoughts began in that mosque, and it is possible that he was recruited as an Al Qaeda "sleeper" by the two 9/11 plotters that he would certainly have known.
More.....
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911097220/editorial/will-purple-hearts-be-given-to-the-fort-hood-soldiers.html
This is an EXCELLENT IDEA...and NOT JUST your Senators...
with couple changes you could easily add your Representatives and State Governors to the list...
His action items are a great guide for the way ahead.
Putting his full letter here for preservation:
Open Letter to Your Senator: Will the Obama Administration Approve Purple Hearts for Fort Hood Soldiers Who Were Killed and Wounded by Major Hasan?
By Ernest McDermon, Atlanta, Georgia
One of our occasional columnists is sending this letter to his Senator, who happens to sit on both the Senate Armed Forces Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We thought our readers might consider sending a similar letter to their Congressman or Senators:
Dear Senator:
I believe that the jihad inspired attack on our soldiers at Ft. Hood, TX this past Thursday is but the latest in a long line of Islamist attacks on the United States and our Armed Forces.
It is reliably reported that Major Hasan yelled out "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great") immediately before launching his attack at Fort Hood. Additionally, both in Great Britain and the United States, reports are surfacing that Major Hasan attended a mosque in Great Falls, VA at the same time that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour (two of the 9/11 terrorists) attended, and at the same time that a radical Islamic cleric was the imam of the mosque.
I do not believe this is merely a "coincidence", and it is highly likely that the beginnings of Major Hasan's nascent Islamist thoughts began in that mosque, and it is possible that he was recruited as an Al Qaeda "sleeper" by the two 9/11 plotters that he would certainly have known.
Subsequent to the 9/11 attacks, I would venture the guess that Major Hasan failed to disclose on any of his Security Clearance questionnaires the connection with the al Hijarh Islamic Center, the radical imam, Anwar Aulaqi, and the fact that two 9/11 hijackers were known to him. I suspect that a review of any security questionnaires that he has completed since 9/11/2001 will disclose that he deliberately lied about his association with known terrorist organizations or members of Al Qaeda.
It is also being reported in the media that Major Hasan planned this attack carefully, obtaining two semi-automatic pistols each capable of carrying multiple rounds, and he apparently carried multiple magazines of ammunition for rapid reloading to inflict maximum casualties in close quarters against unarmed military personnel. The soldiers he killed and wounded were then in preparation for movement to overseas combat theaters within days or a few short weeks.
I believe that he chose his target deliberately to disrupt the flow of replacements to forward areas, and to inflict not just physical harm to our soldiers, but also instill the fear of fighting against the Islamist jihad in our soldiers both in the US and overseas.
As a Physician and a Psychiatrist, having counseled returning combat veterans and soldiers about to deploy, it can be argued that Major Hasan knew his actions would have a Psychological Operations effect on our soldiers' morale and "will to fight" well beyond the boundaries of Fort Hood. He knew that this type of "sudden jihadist" attack on US soil would cause a distrust of fellow Muslim soldiers worldwide, and... for US soldiers of the Muslim faith, instill a feeling of them being under suspicion and a desire to adhere closer to the core tenants of Islam...and jihad.
It appears that both the Obama Administration and Army Chief of Staff General Casey are trying to downplay this watershed event in the war as simply a "criminal act". It is not. Major Hasan's actions are treason, and he should be considered an illegal combatant under the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
Unfortunately Major Hasan's actions cause problems for the Obama Administration politically on a variety of fronts:
Major Hasan's immediate supervisors are indicating that they had already identified him as a problem for having argued with his patients about the United States' "waging war on "Muslims". They did not report this further up the chain of command for fear of retribution for the perception that they might have singled him out for disciplinary action because of his Muslim beliefs. The command environment that exists currently at Ft. Hood appears to have the unhappy consequence of minimizing security threats posed by hidden jihadist sleepers, and not encouraging supervisors to report up the chain of command soldiers who harbor, and in Major Hasan's case, express sympathies with the enemy. This environment of (for want of a better word) deference to the sensibilities of Muslims, has resulted in the loss of 13 killed and 30 wounded soldiers.
General Cone should not be considered for further promotion, and probably relieved of command for failing to properly secure the Fort Hood installation in wartime.
General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army is working to treat this event as a "criminal act" and not a wartime "terrorist attack". This foolish, "politically correct" thinking is what lead to the 9/11 attacks: a failure to properly identify, and react to, a deliberate attack on the United States by an Islamist terrorist with the tacit support of Al Qaeda.
The Obama Administration's heart is not in the fight against the Islamists and their efforts to impose Shari'a Law worldwide by force. The Administration's attempts to classify the War on Terror as "overseas contingency operations", and attacks like this as "man caused disasters" shows a weakness of character at the highest levels of the Obama Administration. The current President is not interested in defending the nation, but is solely interested in transforming our society into a Socialist State. Mr. Obama does not want any distractions like the combat deaths of 13 US Soldiers this past week on US soil to cause distraction from his political agenda.
I ask that as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that you consider the following actions on behalf of Georgia and our Armed Forces:
1. Support Senator Joe Lieberman's efforts to classify this event as a terrorist attack.
2. Ask that the command at Fort Hood approve recommendations for the award of the Purple Heart to the 13 soldiers killed and those who were wounded. I believe that this will be a major political issue nationally by the end of this week after the first funerals are held and the families realize their loved ones haven't received Purple Hearts.
3. Inquire as to whether or not the Army plans to charge Major Hasan with treason, and if not, why not? He is a Field Grade Officer, afforded special considerations, deference and pay. His actions betray not just his fellow soldiers, but all United States Armed Forces Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers.
4. Inquire as to whether or not Major Hasan lied on any Security Questionnaires since 9/11 about his involvement with Islamic extremists.
5. Conduct closed door hearings on the security ramifications of the loyalties of Armed Forces members of the Muslim faith. Are there any others like Major Hasan that our Commanders are aware of, but aren't reporting for fear of retribution as being "culturally insensitive"?
6. Review the security posture of our US based forces. It seems that the Obama Administration has dialed security down to the point that we're losing active duty service members on US soil. Regardless of what the Obama Administration would like to believe, our Nation is at war...our US based military installations should be secured as if they are at war also. The recent intrusion at the South Carolina nuclear weapons storage facility without reaction from the base underscores the urgency of this review.
Ernest McDermon, Atlanta, GA
I have been debating with myself on whether I was going to make my thoughts about some of the recent posts about the POTUS known. I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this board, that no matter what the POTUS says or does, you will find fault with. YOu are certianly entitlted to your opinion, but one person cannot be wrong 100% of the time, just as no person can be right 100% of the time.
The President did a fine job at Ft Hood for the memorial service, IMHO. Everyone does things differently, and I agree with Richard that maybe the reason he didn't make eye contact is because he would have lost it, not because he was unfeeling, or uncapable of doing so.
I lost my uncle not too long ago, and I made it through the entire ceremony by not looking at my aunt (who I love more than life itself), but finally lost it when I glanced at her during the playing of taps and the 21 gun salute. My mother and husband had to hold me up to keep me from collapsing under my grief.
I have had occasion to do the same at the funerals of the local fallen, who I have never met. How dare anyone crticize how another handles their grief. None of us are in the POTUS head or heart. No one knows if perhaps he broke down while speaking with the family members. It might behoove us to keep our opinions to ourselves until we become omnipotenet.
There is plenty to critisize this POTUS about, but when we sink down to complaining about EVERY word, and EVERY action, we become what many of us hated during the last administration. How often did we jump on people in the MSM because they believe GWB could do nothing right? And critisized him at every turn for being a country bumpkin who did not grasp the English language? Yet we have no problem with doing it with Obama.
I am just a air transporter at heart, and we have a saying. "If all cargo is 999 then none of it is 999!!!!!" 999 refers to the MOST IMPORTANT STUFF to be moved. I think we would be better served if we saved the pettiness, and spoke out stongly about the issues that truly deserve our outrage.
Just my meager .02 cents worth
1. Support Senator Joe Lieberman's efforts to classify this event as a terrorist attack.
3. Inquire as to whether or not the Army plans to charge Major Hasan with treason, and if not, why not? He is a Field Grade Officer, afforded special considerations, deference and pay. His actions betray not just his fellow soldiers, but all United States Armed Forces Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers.
IMO, the KISS Principle is important here and MAJ Hasan:
Committed - by definition and for whatever political or ideological reason(s)- an act of terrorism.
Committed murder of soldiers on a military installation and should be tried under the long established articles of the UCMJ for such actions.
Would only benefit from being charged with treason as it would assuredly trigger an emotionally charged obfuscatory response from many sectors and add nothing to the murder charges.
And FWIW - I concur with afchic's Force Activity Designator example in regards to the usefulness of an on-going petty vs important issues criticism of the POTUS.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02
kimberly
11-12-2009, 09:09
I have been debating with myself on whether I was going to make my thoughts about some of the recent posts about the POTUS known. I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this board, that no matter what the POTUS says or does, you will find fault with. YOu are certianly entitlted to your opinion, but one person cannot be wrong 100% of the time, just as no person can be right 100% of the time.
The President did a fine job at Ft Hood for the memorial service, IMHO. Everyone does things differently, and I agree with Richard that maybe the reason he didn't make eye contact is because he would have lost it, not because he was unfeeling, or uncapable of doing so.
I lost my uncle not too long ago, and I made it through the entire ceremony by not looking at my aunt (who I love more than life itself), but finally lost it when I glanced at her during the playing of taps and the 21 gun salute. My mother and husband had to hold me up to keep me from collapsing under my grief.
I have had occasion to do the same at the funerals of the local fallen, who I have never met. How dare anyone crticize how another handles their grief. None of us are in the POTUS head or heart. No one knows if perhaps he broke down while speaking with the family members. It might behoove us to keep our opinions to ourselves until we become omnipotenet.
There is plenty to critisize this POTUS about, but when we sink down to complaining about EVERY word, and EVERY action, we become what many of us hated during the last administration. How often did we jump on people in the MSM because they believe GWB could do nothing right? And critisized him at every turn for being a country bumpkin who did not grasp the English language? Yet we have no problem with doing it with Obama.
I am just a air transporter at heart, and we have a saying. "If all cargo is 999 then none of it is 999!!!!!" 999 refers to the MOST IMPORTANT STUFF to be moved. I think we would be better served if we saved the pettiness, and spoke out stongly about the issues that truly deserve our outrage.
Just my meager .02 cents worth
Message received. You make a good point.
Dozer523
11-13-2009, 15:17
DefenseNews.com
November 12, 2009
Gates To National Security Leakers: 'Just Shut Up'
By John T. Bennett
ABOARD DEFENSE SECRETARY'S PLANE -- In very blunt language, a visibly irritated U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is "appalled by the amount of" information government officials have leaked to the press during the president's Afghanistan strategy review.
Talking with reporters Nov. 12 aboard his jet en route to a military vehicle factory in Wisconsin, the secretary said such disclosures of sensitive information on any "options under consideration" does not serve the nation well. Nor are they in the U.S. military's strategic interests, he added.
If Gates learns of any Defense Department employees who have leaked information about the war strategy review, he warned, "That would probably be a career ender."
He showed the same irritation over leaks about the Fort Hood, Texas, shootings. All individuals involved in or privy to the ongoing investigation into the killing spree "should just shut up," Gates told reporters.
Leakers need to realize they only have "one piece" of the picture about why 13 soldiers were killed and dozens more were wounded last week.
He said it is best to let investigators handling the mass murder probe and collect all possible data before reaching conclusions about the alleged shooter's intentions, motivations or associations.
Warrior-Mentor
11-13-2009, 15:49
YOu are certianly entitlted to your opinion, but one person cannot be wrong 100% of the time, just as no person can be right 100% of the time.
Just my meager .02 cents worth
Although I will agree that no one can be right 100% of the time,
you have incorrectly transposed this to mean that no one can be wrong 100% of the time.
Being wrong is much easier than being right. And some can "succeed" in being wrong 100% of the time.
Chris Cram
11-13-2009, 16:11
Although I will agree that no one can be right 100% of the time,
you have incorrectly transposed this to mean that no one can be wrong 100% of the time.
Being wrong is much easier than being right. And some can "succeed" in being wrong 100% of the time.
Ditto..
:munchin
Although I will agree that no one can be right 100% of the time,
you have incorrectly transposed this to mean that no one can be wrong 100% of the time.
Being wrong is much easier than being right. And some can "succeed" in being wrong 100% of the time.
Ditto..
:munchinThe president was wrong to keep Gates on as the secretary of defense? Several months ago, there was a thread that indicated support for Gates's changes to the defense budget <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22678)>>.
The president was wrong to name GEN Shinseki as the secretary of veterans affairs?
One of the many mistakes the incumbent made during his run for the presidency was to argue time and again that America could not afford a McCain presidency as 90% of the time he sided with Bush who was always wrong. While this rhetorical approach played well in some circles and helped him win, he now loses intellectual credibility when he pursues options at all similar to the ones employed by his predecessor.
kimberly
11-13-2009, 16:54
Hasan's lawyer says Hasan is paralyzed from the waist down.
That's a real shame, but honestly and seriously, since he was not cut down to martyr himself in the name of Allah, isn't he bound by Islam to finish the job by commiting suicide out of shame from personal failure?
Warrior-Mentor
11-13-2009, 17:05
Since when are audience members listed in the final report?
I have sat in the audience for a lot of different things throughout my career and have never had my name published in the final report.
Not to say that it couldn't happen, but something sounds off about the response.
http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.PDF
That's what they did in this case. Read through ALL the participants - you'll find that they took attendance at all their events and rolled them into the report.
Pay attention on Pages 30 and 31...or you might miss some of the shady characters... ;)
Although I will agree that no one can be right 100% of the time,
you have incorrectly transposed this to mean that no one can be wrong 100% of the time.
Being wrong is much easier than being right. And some can "succeed" in being wrong 100% of the time.
Wow, just wow, is all I can say.
Warrior-Mentor
11-13-2009, 19:45
Wow, just wow, is all I can say.
You should see my football picks. ;)
Warrior-Mentor
11-13-2009, 19:46
Hasan's lawyer says Hasan is paralyzed from the waist down.
That's a real shame, but honestly and seriously, since he was not cut down to martyr himself in the name of Allah, isn't he bound by Islam to finish the job by commiting suicide out of shame from personal failure?
STORY HERE:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111309dntexhooddaily.2b10a33bd.html
I lost my uncle not too long ago, and I made it through the entire ceremony by not looking at my aunt (who I love more than life itself), but finally lost it when I glanced at her during the playing of taps and the 21 gun salute. My mother and husband had to hold me up to keep me from collapsing under my grief.
afchic,
Lost my Uncle recently as well. He was not SF, just a "Regular Army type guy", But I am still not making it through His ceremony...as he meant the world to me, and then some.
He did not have a gun salute, or fanfair at his service...but instead I know he would be hoping that Right is Right, and Our Government will do what is right in this case...
IMO, Fry the motherfucker.
Holly
Snaquebite
11-18-2009, 10:20
By Allen West
Good article here....
Excerpt
On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.
There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.
We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; “pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” is unconscionable.
This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.
http://www.redcounty.com/%E2%80%9Ctragedy-ft-hood%E2%80%9D?taxonomy=1745
I'm rather convinced that Hassan was motivated to commit murder by Islamic extremist logic. However, given my abhorrence of the concept of "hate crime" legislation, I think the motivation for his actions should not form the basis for his arrest and trial. Rather, his status as a US citizen and DOD member (in name only, it seems) dictates that he should be tried for, among other charges, murder.
Whether he killed for Allah or Oscar the Grouch, the outcome was the same. The fact that he was a commissioned officer that killed and wounded fellow soldiers makes the act especially heinous to me, and I only wish the Army still used the gallows to carry out a death sentence.
Snaquebite
11-18-2009, 17:14
Didn't see this here or in another thread...
Fort Hood Casualties to Receive Combatant Status Under New House Legislation
11/17/09
(WASHINGTON, DC) – Army and civilian personnel who were wounded or killed in the shooting attack on Fort Hood would be granted the same legal status as combatant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, if bipartisan legislation introduced today by U.S. Representative John Carter (R-TX31) passes into law. Carter was joined by U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX10) for a news conference unveiling the bill in the House Radio-TV Gallery in the U.S. Capitol this afternoon.
“Our Fort Hood casualties should receive the same benefits and recognition as other combat casualties,” says Carter, who represents the Fort Hood area in the House, “as this was a planned terror attack on U.S. military personnel. It should make no difference in our care for the wounded and the families of the slain whether it occurred on an Army base in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Texas.”
While many military and survivor benefits are the same regardless of the status of the casualty, combatant status allows military personnel to receive the Purple Heart, and civilians to receive the equivalent award, the Secretary of Defense Medal of Freedom. Combatant status would also guarantee that the beneficiaries of all military personnel who lost their lives in the attack would receive the maximum life insurance available, extended family housing privileges, and other benefits.
“This bill is not about investigations or assigning blame,” says Carter. “It is about taking care of our troops and their families first. That’s why we have such strong support from both sides of the aisle, and why we hope and expect this to move quickly.”
Over 30 House Members nearly evenly split between parties joined Carter as original co-sponsors on the legislation. Carter is Co-chairman of the House Army Caucus for the 111th Congress, and is Secretary of the House Republican Conference.
Summary: Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act
Combat Status Codified – Military casualties classified as combat zone; Civilian casualties classified as terror attack or contingency operation
Recognition – Military casualties eligible for the Purple Heart, civilians for the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom
Life Insurance – Guarantees all military beneficiaries receive maximum benefits
Civilian Expenses – Allows the Secretary to pay certain death expenses
Military Bonuses – eliminates repayment of unused bonuses due to service members inability to fulfill duties as a result of injuries from the attack
Expanded Recuperation Benefits
Expanded Survivor Housing Benefits
Taxes – Extends combat casualty state and federal tax benefits
From what I can determine they are supposed to vote on this as early as Tuesday....Hit up your representatives....
http://carter.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=40§iontree=6,40&itemid=1082
Found the bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4088:
armymom1228
11-19-2009, 21:55
While this is thrilling, it also gives me sadness that it literaly takes an act of Congress to do the right thing by our military. Shouldn't that be as second nature as breathing? To take care of those who take care of us and keep us safe and free?
This sort of legislation should have been in place a LONG time ago. To wait till tradegy strikes to do the right thing is just a knee jerk reaction. I hope this bill will not just be for the victims and families of this Fort Hood massacre but for all those who serve and thier families for the rest of the future.
AM
Didn't see this here or in another thread...
Fort Hood Casualties to Receive Combatant Status Under New House Legislation
11/17/09
(WASHINGTON, DC) – Army and civilian personnel who were wounded or killed in the shooting attack on Fort Hood would be granted the same legal status as combatant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, if bipartisan legislation introduced today by U.S. Representative John Carter (R-TX31) passes into law. Carter was joined by U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX10) for a news conference unveiling the bill in the House Radio-TV Gallery in the U.S. Capitol this afternoon.
“Our Fort Hood casualties should receive the same benefits and recognition as other combat casualties,” says Carter, who represents the Fort Hood area in the House, “as this was a planned terror attack on U.S. military personnel. It should make no difference in our care for the wounded and the families of the slain whether it occurred on an Army base in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Texas.”
While many military and survivor benefits are the same regardless of the status of the casualty, combatant status allows military personnel to receive the Purple Heart, and civilians to receive the equivalent award, the Secretary of Defense Medal of Freedom. Combatant status would also guarantee that the beneficiaries of all military personnel who lost their lives in the attack would receive the maximum life insurance available, extended family housing privileges, and other benefits.
“This bill is not about investigations or assigning blame,” says Carter. “It is about taking care of our troops and their families first. That’s why we have such strong support from both sides of the aisle, and why we hope and expect this to move quickly.”
Over 30 House Members nearly evenly split between parties joined Carter as original co-sponsors on the legislation. Carter is Co-chairman of the House Army Caucus for the 111th Congress, and is Secretary of the House Republican Conference.
Summary: Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act
Combat Status Codified – Military casualties classified as combat zone; Civilian casualties classified as terror attack or contingency operation
Recognition – Military casualties eligible for the Purple Heart, civilians for the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom
Life Insurance – Guarantees all military beneficiaries receive maximum benefits
Civilian Expenses – Allows the Secretary to pay certain death expenses
Military Bonuses – eliminates repayment of unused bonuses due to service members inability to fulfill duties as a result of injuries from the attack
Expanded Recuperation Benefits
Expanded Survivor Housing Benefits
Taxes – Extends combat casualty state and federal tax benefits
From what I can determine they are supposed to vote on this as early as Tuesday....Hit up your representatives....
http://carter.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=40§iontree=6,40&itemid=1082
Found the bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4088:
incarcerated
11-22-2009, 01:17
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/9170
87.html
Fort Hood-type threat probed at Fort Benning
Ben Wright - benw@ledger-enquirer.com
Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009
A suspicious package was found outside a motor pool Thursday morning at Fort Benning with an anonymous note threatening an attack similar to the one at Fort Hood, Texas, the Army Times is reporting.
Elsie Jackson, a public affairs spokeswoman, confirmed that military police found the package on Kelly Hill after officers received a call to its 911 center. Jackson refused to comment on specific details of the package but said it was seized and the area secured.
Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan is accused in the Nov. 5 shooting spree at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead and 29 wounded.
The Army Times said the package with 20 hollow-point bullets and a threatening note were found in the motor pool area under the 197th Training Brigade.
Discovery of the package came on the same day Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, was in Columbus for Fort Benning’s Officer Candidate School graduation of 152 new second lieutenants at the Columbus Convention Center.
Jackson said the discovery of the package was an ongoing investigation but soldiers and families on post are safe. “All appropriate security measures were in place for the safety of soldiers and the community,” she said.
incarcerated
11-22-2009, 14:21
This could backfire on them.
With video:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/defense-attorney-john-galligan-hasan-plead-guilty-insanity/story?id=9148871
Defense Attorney: Hasan Won't Plead Guilty, May Use Insanity Defense
Retired Col. John Galligan Says Accused Fort Hood Shooter Is Paralyzed From Chest Down and in Severe Pain
By MARK SCHONE
Nov. 22, 2009
The defense attorney for accused his client will probably plead not guilty and that an insanity defense is possible.
"I anticipate that the plea will be not guilty," said defense attorney John Galligan.
Asked if he was considering an insanity plea for his client, who faces 13 counts of premeditated murder, Galligan said, "I'm fairly confident that that's going to have to at least be examined. And that's problematic. But we haven't reached that stage yet."
Galligan said he has also learned that his client, who will be tried in a military court, may face additional charges for the Nov. 5 shooting spree in Fort Hood, Texas. He said he was alerted to the new charges during a pre-trial confinement hearing before a military magistrate held in Hasan's San Antonio hospital room Saturday.
PedOncoDoc
11-22-2009, 16:26
I believe there are a few legal studs aronud here to bring up the legal stuff...
IIRC from my experiences in psych and the coronor's office, insanity pleas require the accused to 1)demonstrate delusional thinking that 2)prevents them from realizing that their actions are wrong. Depression, anxiety, etc. have nothing to do with it.
If he is found insane, can anyone who claims to be a practicing Muslim be institutionalized due to insanity?
This will get ugly...
Warrior-Mentor
11-23-2009, 12:33
I'm glad to see that SEN Levin is willing to admit that this was an act of terrorism...
Washington Times
November 23, 2009
Pg. 6
Inquiry Knew Of Hasan E-Mails
Levin to look into handling
By Pamela Hess and Anne Gearan, Associated Press
The government intercepted at least 18 e-mails between the Fort Hood shooting suspect and a radical Muslim cleric, and a key senator says there could be more communications that might have tipped off law enforcement or military officials.
Federal investigators say they intercepted the messages between the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric. They were passed along to two Joint Terrorism Task Force cells led by the FBI, but a senior defense official said no one at the Defense Department knew about the messages until after the shootings. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence procedures.
Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, said last week after a briefing from Pentagon and Army officials that the Senate Armed Services Committee, which he chairs, will investigate how those and other e-mails involving Maj. Hasan were handled and why the U.S. military was not made aware of them before the Nov. 5 shooting.
Mr. Levin said his committee is focused on determining whether the Defense Department's representative on the terrorism task force acted appropriately and effectively.
Mr. Levin also said he considers Maj. Hasan's shooting spree, which killed 13 and wounded many more, an act of terrorism.
"There are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism, but there is significant evidence that it is. I'm not at all uneasy saying it sure looks like that," he said.
He said his committee will also look into whether military members have the ability to report suspicious behavior evinced by colleagues.
FBI and military officials have provided differing versions of why Maj. Hasan's critical e-mails to Mr. al-Awlaki and others did not reach Army investigators before the shooting.
FBI officials have said a military investigator on the task force saw the e-mails and looked up Maj. Hasan's record, but finding nothing particularly worrisome, the investigator neither sought nor got permission to pass the e-mails on to other military officials.
But the senior defense official has countered that the rules of the task force prevented that military representative from passing the records on without approval from other members of the task force.
The Pentagon may reconsider rules governing participation in extremist organizations that some lawmakers say appear outdated and too narrow in light of the shooting rampage at the Army base in Texas.
The Pentagon wrote regulations on "dissident and protest activities" in response to soldier participation in skinhead and other racially motivated hate groups. The current rules were written in 1996 and last updated in 2003.
The rules prohibit membership or participation in "organizations that espouse supremacist causes," seek to discriminate based on race, religion or other factors or advocate force or violence. Commanders can investigate and can discipline or fire people who "actively participate in such groups."
SOURCE:
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20091123718375.html
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CReZVNkPObk
The Lieberman/Collins Senate report is out today................Hasan's "radicalization to violent Islamist extremism"...the new term for "terrorism"?
“TICKING TIME BOMB” FORT HOOD MASSACRE COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED
Committee Report Finds Internal Disputes, Poor Coordination at FBI and Failure to Acknowledge Violent Islamist Extremism at DOD
WASHINGTON – The Fort Hood massacre, which left 13 dead and 32 wounded, could have been prevented, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., said Thursday, as they unveiled their report on the November 5, 2009, terrorist attack.
Evidence of accused killer Nidal Hasan’s growing drift toward violent Islamist extremism was on full display during his military medical training, although his superiors took no punitive action, according to the report. Two of his associates said he was a “ticking time bomb.” He had defended Osama Bin Laden and suggested Muslim Americans in the U.S. military might be prone to commit fratricide.
But, a slipshod FBI investigation into Hasan, coupled with internal disagreements and structural flaws in the agency’s intelligence operations also contributed to the government’s failure to prevent the attack.
DOD and FBI “collectively had sufficient information necessary to have detected Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it,” the report states. “Our investigation found specific and systemic failures in the government’s handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.”
DOD Failures
The report tracks Hasan’s growing radicalization in the years before the attack and the numerous failures of the military to intervene or take action against him. For example, two officers described Hasan, during his medical residency and fellowship at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as “a ticking time bomb.” At various times while he was at Walter Reed, Hasan suggested revenge might be a defense for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and expressed sympathy with violent Islamist extremists and bin Laden. He also justified suicide bombers; said U.S. military operations represented a war against Islam; and stated that one of the risks of having Muslims in the U.S. military was the possibility of fratricide of fellow service members.
“The officers who kept Hasan in the military and moved him steadily along knew full well of his problematic behavior,” the report found. “As the officer who assigned Hassan to Fort Hood (and later decided to deploy Hasan to Afghanistan) admitted to an officer at Fort Hood, ‘you’re getting our worst.’”
Astonishingly, one of the reasons Hasan’s commanders claimed for not taking action against Hasan was a belief that the evidence of his growing radicalization actually provided an understanding of violent Islamist extremism and the culture of Islam. His Officer Evaluation Report for July 2007 to June 2008, for example, said Hasan’s work on the role of culture and Islamic faith in the context of terrorism “has extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy.”
FBI Failures
The report also examines the all-too-cursory FBI investigation into Hasan’s activities when he came to the agency’s attention in early 2009; and the critical dispute, unresolved by FBI headquarters, between two Joint Terrorist Task Forces (JTTF) – the anti-terrorist intelligence units created in the aftermath of 9/11, comprised of federal, state, and local officials, and meant to facilitate intelligence information sharing and operational coordination.
On January 7, 2009, the San Diego JTTF sent a memo to the Washington JTTF about Hasan’s communications with a known terrorist already under investigation. Despite the red flags this should have raised, the Washington JTTF waited more than six weeks before assigning the investigation to an analyst from the Defense Department who was attached to the Washington JTTF. The analyst then waited until the last day of the customary 90-day deadline for completing inquiries and wrote his report in four hours, without considering the investigation from a counterintelligence perspective. Instead, he relied on Hasan’s sanitized Officer Evaluation Reports. The San Diego JTTF thought the inquiry was superficial but dropped the matter. FBI headquarters was never informed of, and played no role, in the Hasan investigation.
The FBI’s view of intelligence analysts from other agencies assigned to JTTFs compounded the problem. JTTF analysts from non-FBI agencies were not allowed full access to a key FBI database, which likely would have sparked a more in-depth inquiry.
Recommendations
The report found “compelling evidence that Hasan embraced views so extreme that he did not belong in the military.” It also found that FBI organizational problems have impeded the agency’s full use of intelligence analysts, concluding that the FBI’s “transformation into an intelligence driven, domestic counterterrorism organization needs to be accelerated.”
Among the report’s recommendations to strengthen our defenses against homegrown terrorism:
DOD policies against extremism among service members must explicitly cover violent Islamist extremism. This is too important to be subsumed within policies aimed at “violent extremism” in general or “workplace violence.”
Military equal employment rules and religious accommodations must clearly differentiate between violent Islamist extremism and protected religious observance. That way, the thousands of Muslim-Americans who serve our country honorably will be protected from suspicion for practicing their religion.
Military employment evaluations and personnel records must accurately and candidly describe performance and behavior that could pose threats.
The FBI needs to integrate its 56 field offices more effectively under headquarters leadership.
The FBI needs to ensure that its JTTFs more convincingly share information and coordinate operations with other federal, state, and local agencies.
The FBI must systematically update how it conducts its investigative activities. In the Hasan case, the FBI failed to identify all of Hasan’s communications with the suspected terrorist and the extent of the threat contained within them.
The FBI needs to use intelligence analysts more skillfully. In the Hasan case, analysts were not consulted by the Washington Joint Terrorism Task Force to analyze his communications and help determine the objectives for the FBI’s inquiry.
The U.S. must develop a national strategy to counter domestic terrorist radicalization. The reality is that even had the military dismissed Hasan before the attacks, our government would not have been well-positioned to counter his growing radicalization.
This report and its recommendations are particularly important given the dramatic increase in homegrown terrorist plots over the past two years. Thirteen people died needlessly at Fort Hood. Their memory will be served if the recommendations of this report are adopted quickly so the next “ticking time bomb” can be spotted early and defused before another deadly detonation.
Press Release from Senate Committee (http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press.MajorityNews&ContentRecord_id=ecb97fed-5056-8059-767c-6e90f14b8736)
Full Report (pdf, 91 pages) (http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf)
The Reaper
02-03-2011, 17:17
I guess that is the indirect way of saying that political correctness killed your husband/father/son/wife/mother/daughter.
Call an Muslim extremist what he is and get called a racist and sued by CAIR, or hope he doesn't snap till he has passed on to the next unit and start wearing your body armor to work.
Hmm.
TR
PC still running amok.
Major Hasan, 'Star Officer'
Every branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood massacre. Not a single one mentioned radical Islam.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
WSJ
FEBRUARY 16, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146001069880040.html?K EYWORDS=DOROTHY+RABINOWITZ
Excerpt:
"Some of those enthusiastic testaments strongly suggested that the writers were themselves at least partly persuaded of their reasoning. In magical thinking, safety and good come to those who obey taboos, and in the multiculturalist world, there is no taboo more powerful than the one that forbids acknowledgment of realities not in keeping with the progressive vision. In the world of the politically correct—which can apparently include places where psychiatrists are taught—magical thinking reigns.
A resident who didn't represent the diversity value that Hasan did as a Muslim would have faced serious consequences had he behaved half as disturbingly. Here was a world in which Hasan was untouchable, in which all that was grim and disturbing in him was transformed. He was a consistently mediocre performer, ranking in the lowest 25% of his class, but to his evaluators, he was an officer of unique talents.
He was a star not simply because he was a Muslim, but because he was a special kind—the sort who posed, in his flaunting of jihadist sympathies, the most extreme test of liberal toleration. Exactly the kind the progressive heart finds irresistible."
Report: Gunman Yelled “God Is Great” in Arabic Before Shooting in Germany
Not confirmed yet but
http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/03/02/report-gunman-yelled-god-is-great-in-arabic-before-shooting-in-germany/
Hmmm, I wonder what the Germany shooter and Hasan have in common? I know there's a link somewhere - I just can't put my finger on it
Hmmm, I wonder what the Germany shooter and Hasan have in common? I know there's a link somewhere - I just can't put my finger on it
When you figure it out would you let me know?
RIP.
incarcerated
03-02-2011, 23:10
Report: Gunman Yelled “God Is Great” in Arabic Before Shooting in Germany
CNN showed the anti-Gadaffi rebel forces shouting the same thing today.
Army to Punish Nine Officers in Connection With Fort Hood Shootings
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/10/army-punish-officers-connection-fort-hood-shootings/#ixzz1GF8QhoWc
"........"The severity of each action varies depending on case-specific facts and circumstances. In certain cases, it may take several weeks to ensure that each officer is accorded appropriate due process and to take final action. In order to protect the due process rights of the officers involved, the Army will not identify them or provide details of the administrative actions at this time. Upon the completion of all cases, the Army will review whether the release of additional information would be appropriate."............."
The Reaper
03-10-2011, 17:47
Army to Punish Nine Officers in Connection With Fort Hood Shootings
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/10/army-punish-officers-connection-fort-hood-shootings/#ixzz1GF8QhoWc
"........"The severity of each action varies depending on case-specific facts and circumstances. In certain cases, it may take several weeks to ensure that each officer is accorded appropriate due process and to take final action. In order to protect the due process rights of the officers involved, the Army will not identify them or provide details of the administrative actions at this time. Upon the completion of all cases, the Army will review whether the release of additional information would be appropriate."............."
What about Hassan? Where is his punishment?
Will he be tried as a murdering terrorist scum and be sentenced to death or incarceration for the rest of his miserable life?
TR
What about Hassan? Where is his punishment?
Will he be tried as a murdering terrorist scum and be sentenced to death or incarceration for the rest of his miserable life?
TR
Very well said TR Sir!:mad:
Can only hope the media doesn't forget about this, pretend it didn't happen, sweep it under the...wait a second.....
Holly:munchin
What about Hassan? Where is his punishment?
Will he be tried as a murdering terrorist scum and be sentenced to death or incarceration for the rest of his miserable life?
TR
23 hour lockdown for life is my best guess.
Peregrino
03-10-2011, 20:45
Army to Punish Nine Officers in Connection With Fort Hood Shootings........."
Wonder if those are the same nine that would have been punished as racists/islamophobes if they had done their duty in the first place. :mad:
Fate Of Accused Fort Hood Gunman Rests With New Post Commander
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Fate_Of_Accused_Fort_Hood_Gunman_Rests_With_New_Co mmander.html
FORT HOOD (April 22, 2011)—Fort Hood has a new commanding general and he’ll have a major decision facing him from the start.
"Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell took command of the Texas Army post at
a ceremony Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the departing commanding general, will
become a four-star general and take command of the Army's Training
and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.
With Cone's departure, now Campbell will decide whether Maj.
Nidal Hasan will be court-martialed and face the death penalty in
the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood.
Two Army colonels have already made that recommendation.
The final decision must be made by a commanding general.
Last month Cone granted a request by Hasan's attorney to delay
proceedings until Campbell's arrival.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder."
Stick him, jab Him, hang him, shoot him, gas him, eviscerate him, put him in the middle of an impact range, tie him up behind a target at the sniper range, use him in MedLab or its present equivalent, just make sure he dies and quickly. That is , quickly in the sense that let us not give him 20 years on death row. If they want to use the "Death by 1,000 cuts" method, that would be O.K. with me.
After he gets a fair trial of course.
Just how does the Army mete out capital punishment these days?
:munchin
MTN Medic
04-24-2011, 22:04
Stick him, jab Him, hang him, shoot him, gas him, eviscerate him, put him in the middle of an impact range, tie him up behind a target at the sniper range, use him in MedLab or its present equivalent, just make sure he dies and quickly. That is , quickly in the sense that let us not give him 20 years on death row. If they want to use the "Death by 1,000 cuts" method, that would be O.K. with me.
After he gets a fair trial of course.
Just how does the Army mete out capital punishment these days?
:munchin
hopefully by spoon brother.
PedOncoDoc
04-25-2011, 04:45
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder."
How do these charges equate with anything less than the pursuit of the death penalty? :confused:
Would this be a discussion if a hate-motivated crime was performed by someone from any other group? :mad:
craigepo
04-25-2011, 08:09
How do these charges equate with anything less than the pursuit of the death penalty? :confused:
Would this be a discussion if a hate-motivated crime was performed by someone from any other group? :mad:
Here's what I could find from the UCMJ specifically regarding punishment in murder cases. Looks to be a pretty simple legal standard.
Art. 118. Murder
Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- (1) has a premeditated design to kill; (2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm; (3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or (4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct
The Reaper
04-25-2011, 08:20
Stick him, jab Him, hang him, shoot him, gas him, eviscerate him, put him in the middle of an impact range, tie him up behind a target at the sniper range, use him in MedLab or its present equivalent, just make sure he dies and quickly. That is , quickly in the sense that let us not give him 20 years on death row. If they want to use the "Death by 1,000 cuts" method, that would be O.K. with me.
After he gets a fair trial of course.
Just how does the Army mete out capital punishment these days?
:munchin
IIRC, it is lethal injection, but we have not executed a soldier since the early '60s, and that was by hanging.
I did see the death chamber in 1989 when it was still equipped with the electric chair. Sturdy, but not particularly comfortable.
Were it my decision, I would select the longest, most painful means of execution possible for Hassan. Flogging to death, perhaps. Or a bad hanging job or a dry skull sponge electrocution. Remains to be fed to the hogs.
TR
Red Flag 1
04-25-2011, 08:21
Stick him, jab Him, hang him, shoot him, gas him, eviscerate him, put him in the middle of an impact range, tie him up behind a target at the sniper range, use him in MedLab or its present equivalent, just make sure he dies and quickly. That is , quickly in the sense that let us not give him 20 years on death row. If they want to use the "Death by 1,000 cuts" method, that would be O.K. with me.
After he gets a fair trial of course.
Just how does the Army mete out capital punishment these days?
:munchin
Eviceration is both under rated, and under used. The same can be said for the drawn and quartered thingie. We could just experiment with the methods of bygone days and evaluate which one is the most cost effective and satisfying.
RF 1
Here's what I could find from the UCMJ specifically regarding punishment in murder cases. Looks to be a pretty simple legal standard.
Art. 118. Murder
Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- (1) has a premeditated design to kill; (2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm; (3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or (4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct
Black and White....we'll see how they "interpret" this one..
To whom it suites...I suppose.
ddoering
04-25-2011, 08:47
Just how does the Army mete out capital punishment these days?
:munchin
Via powerpoint.
Via powerpoint.
Spew. :D
If that prick doesn't convert to Christianity, he's going to hell. Forever.
Somebody analoged "forever" thusly:
He could pick up one grain of sand at Topsail, crawl on his hands and knees to Barstow, drop off that grain and pick up another, and crawl back to Topsail until he had the entire beaches swapped out 117 trillion times; the first minute of "forever" hasn't even started, yet.
The military hasn't executed anyone since '61. It is a Loooooong and painful process to "death-certify" a panel for a capital punishment case. It is much cheaper to keep someone in jail for life than to execute them. We grant them all sorts of appeals; free appellate attorneys; multiple habeus petitions; etc.
There is literally a "band of anti-death penalty gypsies" who go around the country training military defense attorneys in how to litigate these cases. They openly advocate disobeying the judges instructions and doing whatever one can to screw-up the process. The military has become so PC that they bow to these extremists each and every time.
Hassan needs to get convicted and put into Gen-pop. He'll be treated "well" by the cats in lock-up. They like Muj assassins about as much as they like child-molesters.
If that prick doesn't convert to Christianity, he's going to hell. Forever.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly
And so it goes...
Richard
Originally posted by TR:
Were it my decision, I would select the longest, most painful means of execution possible for Hassan. Flogging to death, perhaps. Or a bad hanging job or a dry skull sponge electrocution. Remains to be fed to the hogs.
Originally posted by Red Flag 1:
Eviceration is both under rated, and under used.
So lets use the creative side of our brains for a moment. Maybe we should meld together the two methods. Inject the POS, Allah seeking, butt wipe with some drug that renders him immobile, yet able to feel pain. We stake him to the ground in a hog sty with maybe 6 or 7 somewhat, but not too hungry hogs (we do not want this show to be over in 3 minutes). The big nasty kind of hogs with lots of sharp teeth and really shitty dispositions. We then slather him with a little blood and hog slop and let the hogs eviscerate him while he and we watch.
Hell, we can build bleachers around the sty and sell tickets. Open a concession stand, sell some food and beer, get a betting pool going on how long he lasts, which hog is the most aggressive, how many times he calls out the Allah, etc. I would pay for that! :munchin
Of course all of the proceeds from the gate receipts, concession stand and half of the betting receipts would go to the families of those that he killed and wounded.
Originally Asked by Tress
Just how does the Army mete out capital punishment these days?
Answered by ddoering:
Via powerpoint.
Commented on by Dusty:
Spew.
I spewed also, but I have this new cover for my keyboard so I do not have to run to Office Depot any more. Though I do often wonder about the long-term effects of tobacco juice on this cover. Just have to figure out how to protect the monitor better.
On a more serious note, I was a little surprised, after having read many a thread in this site, about how extensive the use of Power Point has become within SF.
Thomas
Fort Hood shooting suspect will face death penalty
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7641520.html#ixzz1RLK7pslx
"FORT HOOD, Texas — The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly Fort Hood rampage will be tried in a military court and face the death penalty, the commanding general for the Texas military post announced Wednesday........"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/exclusive-us-military-serviceman-arrested-in-second-alleged-attack-on-ft-hood/
At least one U.S. military serviceman has been arrested after raising concerns over another possible attack on Fort Hood, Fox News has learned exclusively.
According to an Army source, one AWOL soldier is in the custody of the Killeen Police Department near Fort Hood. He was not captured on base. According to another source, two other U.S. soldiers were also arrested earlier today after authorities recovered weapons and explosives.
Fox News has obtained the names of the three suspects, but is currently withholding that information.
Sources say the AWOL soldier in custody is from Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
It's unclear if any possible attack was merely aspirational in nature.
On Nov. 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American Army officer, carried out a shooting attack on the Fort Hood base in Texas that killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.
Hasan, a military psychiatrist, was arraigned on July 20 and is currently standing trial. His civilian lawyer withdrew from the case as it began.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/exclusive-us-military-serviceman-arrested-in-second-alleged-attack-on-ft-hood/#ixzz1TPN1J3U0
It's unclear if any possible attack was merely aspirational in nature.
No Shiite Sherlock... :mad:
"...................Abdo went AWOL on July 4. On the eve of his first deployment to Afghanistan -- after only one year in the Army -- Abdo applied for conscientious objector status. It was denied by his superiors at Ft. Campbell but later overturned by the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Army review board................"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/exclusive-us-military-serviceman-arrested-in-second-alleged-attack-on-ft-hood/#ixzz1TPqo0eGi
Read the whole article but the above takes the cake. This ain't an Army of draftees. But the ADSofA said "sure no problem".
Wonder if he was Amish?
MiTTMedic
07-28-2011, 11:25
From last September:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/02/muslim-soldier-refuses-deploy-afghanistan/
Read what the turd said about Islam being a peaceful religon....
dadof18x'er
07-28-2011, 16:59
From last September:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/02/muslim-soldier-refuses-deploy-afghanistan/
Read what the turd said about Islam being a peaceful religon....
my son did BT with this guy and he told me 2 years ago that he was raising suspicions even then. Thank God he's busted and didn't hurt anybody.
FedFarmer
07-29-2011, 00:50
Abdo made this statement at a news conference last year:
“To a soldier, the association of terror and Islam serves the purpose of falsely justifying ones actions in combat by stripping Muslims of their humanity. … Only when the military and America can disassociate Muslims with terror can we move onto a brighter future of the religious collaboration and dialogue that defines America and makes me proud to be an American.”
( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60145.html#ixzz1TTRYJhlg)
And what does Abdo do? He plots a terrorist attack of his own (and strangely enough, purchases smokeless gunpowder at the exact same gun store that Nidal Hasan frequented).
Mr. Abdo, is this the kind of dialogue you were referring to? Perhaps Americans will cease associating Muslims with terror when individuals like yourself, stop clamoring for understanding while secretly making bombs on the side.
Also, I find it strange his personal beliefs could compel him to plot the murder of other military personnel, yet such conviction didn't preclude him from possessing child pornography.
Also, I find it strange his personal beliefs could compel him to plot the murder of other military personnel, yet such conviction didn't preclude him from possessing child pornography.
A true practioner of his faith - Muhammad made him do it.
Islam is OK with children as sex objects.
Islam is OK with the rape of female prisoners as long as the guard does not enjoy it.
Theo-illogically motivated nuts. Tanto rerum motu, magis permanent idem.
Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/#ixzz1ftM5a7Ub
"Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home................."
Hm, not much to say about this one except somebody's head is somewhere where they can't see.
Fort Hood shooting suspect Hasan barred from court because of beard
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2012/06/20/1185573?sac=fo.military
"HOUSTON - On Tuesday, a Texas military judge barred former Fort Hood Army psychiatrist - and alleged shooter - Maj. Nidal Hasan from court because he appeared with a beard.
Hasan is preparing to stand trial in connection with the deadly 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, about 70 miles northwest of Austin.................."
Lets not forget the little turd.
Badger52
06-20-2012, 05:24
Does stretching of the neck inhibit facial hair growth?
PedOncoDoc
06-20-2012, 08:23
Does stretching of the neck inhibit facial hair growth?
Depends on the extent of the stretch.
Just like all bleeding is self limited. ;)
Fort Hood report shows FBI ignored warning signs on Hasan, lawmaker says
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/19/fort-hood-report-shows-fbi-ignored-warning-signs-on-hasan-lawmaker-says/?test=latestnews#ixzz21A8qILWR
"The FBI was too concerned about political correctness and did not launch an investigation into a man who was later charged with killing 13 people in a 2009 attack at the Fort Hood military installation in Texas, despite significant warning signs that he was an Islamic extremist bent on killing civilians, according to a lawmaker briefed on a new report about the terrorist attack....................."
Well, the libs should be happy to know nothings changed with government policy.
Oldrotorhead
07-20-2012, 09:22
Does stretching of the neck inhibit facial hair growth?
Last I heard he was still drawing a pay check so he must report to someone. Who the hell gave a prisoner the latitude to grow a beard? Do you get extra privileges in jail or is some PC officer afraid to enforce any standards?:confused:
greenberetTFS
07-20-2012, 11:45
Last I heard he was still drawing a pay check so he must report to someone.Who the hell gave a prisoner the latitude to grow a beard? Do you get extra privileges in jail or is some PC officer afraid to enforce any standards?:confused:
What's your source on this statement?..........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
He's growing a beard to be in accordance with his muslim "faith"...you know, the one that led him to reap such carnage.
Usually in these cases, although he is due a pay check, it is held in abeyance at DFAS until such time as his guilt or innocence is established.
He can play games with the beard stuff all day long, it won't help him any. The judge is fairly squared away. BTW, he has a fairly established former Judge as his defense counsel.
Fort Hood report shows FBI ignored warning signs on Hasan, lawmaker says
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/19/fort-hood-report-shows-fbi-ignored-warning-signs-on-hasan-lawmaker-says/?test=latestnews#ixzz21A8qILWR
"The FBI was too concerned about political correctness and did not launch an investigation into a man who was later charged with killing 13 people in a 2009 attack at the Fort Hood military installation in Texas, despite significant warning signs that he was an Islamic extremist bent on killing civilians, according to a lawmaker briefed on a new report about the terrorist attack....................."
Well, the libs, should be happy to know nothings changed with government policy.
Its like not seeing forest because of all the trees. Who has fostered this climate that now exists. The folks that could have prevented this were all too afraid to point the finger at this POS, we knew that the military was aware of him now we find out that the FBI was also in the know. So who is watching out for us?
Who has fostered this climate that now exists.
CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, and other advocacy organizations identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups…. :munchin
> http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf
> http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/127.pdf
…The U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims and worry more about providing its intelligence community—not to mention its own citizenry—with accurate knowledge concerning the nature of the threat….
..In short, it means America's leadership needs to take that ancient dictum—"Know thy enemy"—seriously.
> http://www.meforum.org/3116/obama-administration-bans-islam-knowledge
> http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/fbi-open-to-us-muslim-brotherhood-linked-groups-establishing-a-committee-to-review-materials-used-in.html
> http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/no_strategy_on_jihad.php
Would we have invited Joseph Goebbels to oversee National Defense training and strategy during WWII? :confused:
:munchin
Oldrotorhead
07-21-2012, 10:14
What's your source on this statement?..........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
Sorry, this should answer your question.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/08/12126553-nidal-hasan-sports-beard-causing-judge-in-fort-hood-shooting-to-delay-hearing?lite
Army regulation 670-1 dictates the appearance of Army uniforms, while court-martial rule 804(4)(1) states the accused shall be attired in dress or uniform as prescribed by a military judge.
"He's an active-duty soldier and should be in full uniform and clean shaven. That's what all active-duty soldiers are supposed to do," Haug said.
Judge: Fort Hood Suspect Could Be Forcibly Shaved
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-fort-hood-suspect-forcibly-shaved-16854028
"......................The judge, Col. Gregory Gross, held Hasan in contempt of court for keeping the beard and fined him $1,000. Fort Hood spokesman Chris Haug said Gross gave Hasan the choice to shave on his own or be forcibly shaved sometime before his court-martial begins Aug. 20.........................."
longrange1947
07-25-2012, 14:04
Now to see if they hold to the regs and do not buckle under pressure from CAIR and their minions.
The Reaper
07-25-2012, 16:39
I am waiting for him to ask why he can't have a beard if the Sikhs can. :rolleyes:
TR
or be forcibly shaved sometime before his court-martial begins Aug. 20.........................."
:munchin
ZonieDiver
07-25-2012, 20:18
or be forcibly shaved sometime before his court-martial
The Army could rake in some dough with that event on PPV!:D
I am waiting for him to ask why he can't have a beard if the Sikhs can. :rolleyes:
TR
Yup. Once you open the door just a little...
Streck-Fu
11-06-2012, 08:28
Families of victims sue: LINK (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE8A41KH20121105)
I can't say that I blame them. This has been a long strange process.
craigepo
11-06-2012, 11:39
Why is the administration/powers that be refusing to call this a terrorist act? Is there something I'm missing?
Also, I'm not so sure that that judge should be so adamant that Hasan be clean-shaven for trial. Sure it's an Army reg, but the judge's order is going to hold up the trial for a very long time, as Hasan is now going to run his "beard order appeal" through the appeals court before the case may be tried. I would say let him grow a huge beard, then show up in front of a jury and maintain his innocence.
This aint getting anywhere fast
Judge removed in Fort Hood shooting rampage case (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/03/fort-hood-shooting-rampage/1744325/)
8:58PM EST December 3. 2012 - FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — The U.S. military's highest court ousted the judge in the Fort Hood shooting case Monday and threw out his order to have the suspect's beard forcibly shaved before his court-martial.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that Col. Gregory Gross didn't appear impartial while presiding over the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who faces the death penalty if convicted in the 2009 shootings on the Texas Army post that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others.
But the court said it was not ruling on whether the judge's order violated Hasan's religious rights. Hasan has argued that his beard is a requirement of his Muslim faith, although facial hair violates Army regulations.
"Should the next military judge find it necessary to address (Hasan's) beard, such issues should be addressed and litigated anew," judges wrote in the ruling.
Hasan appealed after Gross ordered that he must be clean-shaven or be forcibly shaved before his court-martial, a military trial.
The court-martial had been set to begin three months ago, but has been on hold pending the appeals.
It wasn't immediately clear if Army prosecutors would appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecutors have said they would not comment about the case until the trial is over, and Fort Hood officials did not immediately return calls Monday or issue a statement.
An Army appeals court had upheld the shaving requirement in October. But on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said the command, not the judge, was responsible for enforcing grooming standards. The ruling said that was one example of how Gross did not appear impartial in the case.
Gross had repeatedly said Hasan's beard was a disruption to the court proceedings, but the military appeals court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that his beard interfered with the hearings.
Gross found Hasan in contempt of court at six previous pretrial hearings because he was not clean-shaven, then sent him to a nearby trailer to watch the proceedings on a closed-circuit television. The appeals court's ruling also vacated the contempt of court convictions.
At a June hearing, lead defense attorney Lt. Col. Kris Poppe said the judge showed a bias against Hasan when he asked defense attorneys to clean up a court restroom after Gross found a medical waste bag, adult diaper and what appeared to be feces on the floor after a previous hearing. Hasan, who is paralyzed from the waist down after being shot by police the day of the shootings, has to wear adult diapers — but the mess in the restroom that day was mud from a guard's boots, Poppe said.
"In light of these rulings, and the military judge's accusations regarding the latrine, it could reasonably appear to an objective observer that the military judge had allowed the proceedings to become a duel of wills between himself and (Hasan) rather than an adjudication of the serious offenses with which (Hasan) is charged," judges wrote in the ruling.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Let him keep his f@%#ng beard and let it cusion the noose as it hangs his ass dead, dead, dead! This thing needs to settled!!!
Badger52
12-04-2012, 08:09
Let him keep his f@%#ng beard and let it cusion the noose as it hangs his ass dead, dead, dead! This thing needs to settled!!!I am betting there is no verdict in 2013. (Waste of rope; just drop him in the impact area. Eventually he and his adult diapers will be upwind of some creatures with no dietary restrictions.)
ddoering
12-04-2012, 12:37
Letting him sport a beard is the foundation for an appeal on the grounds he was found guilty because he looks Islamic and all Americans are predudice against Islam......
I'm sure its just a small step from there to part of Obama's team. Sec of State for Islamic Affairs.
Fort Hood suspect allowed to keep beard at trial
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FORT_HOOD_SHOOTING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-18-14-21-22
"..............The new judge overseeing Maj. Nidal Hasan's case told Hasan during a Tuesday hearing that the beard is a violation of Army regulations. But the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, said she won't hold it against him.................."
What more can I say.
ddoering
12-18-2012, 14:32
God. Let's hurry up now and convict him so he can be executed.
But the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, said she won't hold it against him.:rolleyes:
There are Sikhs in the Army - would they be allowed to keep their beards at trial?
Richard :munchin
There are Sikhs in the Army - would they be allowed to keep their beards at trial?
Richard :munchin
Which will have no effect on the situation or outcome plus; I haven't heard of Sikhs committing "mass" murder on a US military installation while serving in our Armed Forces.:munchin
Stay safe.
Streck-Fu
02-12-2013, 11:35
Ft. Hoods victims feel betrayed and used as pawns....
LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024)
Fort Hood Hero Says Obama 'Betrayed' Her, Other Victims
Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.
"Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."
"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."
There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.
Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.
Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.
WATCH Exclusive Video of Fort Hood's Aftermath
Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.
As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.
Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.
Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.
Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."
Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.
"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."
A spokesperson for the Army said its policy is not to comment on pending litigation, but that it is "not true" any of the military victims have been neglected and that it has no control over the guidelines of the Veterans Administration.
Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.
"If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis," McHugh told ABC News. "It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform."
Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.
"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.
"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.
An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.
Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."
"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.
For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful.
"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.
Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be "in the line of duty" but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.
Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.
"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh. "So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."
Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve.
"It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind," McCaul told ABC News. "I think the victims should be treated as such."
Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.
Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.
"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit," she said.
Badger52
02-12-2013, 11:56
Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.
"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh. "So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."Right... because all the grappling over the presence or absence of facial hair hasn't impacted it at all.
:mad:
Been 3 1/2 years since the shooting.
Just a side note story here - but we all know pay continues until convicted.
"Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial"
http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Accused-Fort-Hood-Shooter-Paid-278000-While-Awaiting-Trial-208230691.html
"The Department of Defense confirms to NBC 5 Investigates that accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan has now been paid more than $278,000 since the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting that left 13 dead 32 injured. The Army said under the Military Code of Justice, Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty.
If Hasan had been a civilian defense department employee, NBC 5 Investigates has learned, the Army could have suspended his pay after just seven days.
Personnel rules for most civilian government workers allow for "indefinite suspensions" in cases "when the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed."
Meanwhile, more than three years later soldiers wounded in the mass shooting are fighting to receive the same pay and medical benefits given to those wounded in combat ......."
Quite sickening to say the least.
Fort Hood suspect wants to represent himself
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FORT_HOOD_SHOOTING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-05-22-19-43-16
"FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood attack wants to represent himself at his upcoming murder trial, which means he could question the nearly three dozen soldiers he's accused of wounding in the shooting rampage.
Maj. Nidal Hasan's request, announced Wednesday by Fort Hood officials, is to be considered at a pretrial hearing next week. The request prompted the military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to delay jury selection to June 5, about a week after it was scheduled to start......................."
Wonder if the press will cover this trial as hard as they did what's-her-name? Of course no live cameras but....................
Which will it be? His "I'm Crazy" or "I'm a good Muslim" plan of defense?
Nobody who is sane could have done that - but is he a good Muslim - does that make good Muslims insane - sounds like we need to watch Catch-22 again.
Streck-Fu
05-23-2013, 05:38
What the hell is taking so long for this to go to trial?
uspsmark
05-23-2013, 07:32
To quote a former Secretary of State..."What difference at this point does it make?
Ft Hood suspect will use "defense of others"
http://news.yahoo.com/ft-hood-suspect-defense-others-192407014.html
"FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) — The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood shooting rampage says he'll use a "defense of others" argument when he represents himself at his upcoming murder trial........................."
Hm, looks like that is going to put Islam front and center for the trial.
ddoering
06-03-2013, 15:11
Ft Hood suspect will use "defense of others"
http://news.yahoo.com/ft-hood-suspect-defense-others-192407014.html
"FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) — The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood shooting rampage says he'll use a "defense of others" argument when he represents himself at his upcoming murder trial........................."
Hm, looks like that is going to put Islam front and center for the trial.
But we are not at war with Islam. That means if they were in danger it must be that they are at war with us.
But we are not at war with Islam. That means if they were in danger it must be that they are at war with us.
They are indeed at war with us; but you wouldn't know it for the taqqiya from the likes of CAIR, ISNA, MSA, et al. - or from their apologists in the media, in academia and in politics.
They are indeed at war with us; but you wouldn't know it for the taqqiya from the likes of CAIR, ISNA, MSA, et al. - or from their apologists in the media, in academia and in politics.Out of curiosity, precisely what resources do you use to track, monitor, or participate in the conversations/debates academics have over issues centering around Islam?
By "resources," I mean books, peer-reviewed periodicals, professional association newsletters, lectures, personal correspondence, conference proceedings, websites, telephone conversations, and other forms of evidence produced by academics that youyourself have personally examined, investigated, or researched.
I'll be damned if I am going to give you an entire list of books, periodicals, websites,etc.; but I'll tell you what I'll do - I'll list the authors of all of the books/periodicals, etc. I've read on the subject, how's that?
Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Andrew McCarthy, Frank Gaffney, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Walid Phares, Steve Emerson, Stephen Coughlin, Ibn Warraq, Walid Shoebat, Bernard Lewis, Raymond Ibrahim, Andrew Bostom, Ali Sina, Daniel Pipes, Lt. Gen. William J. Boykin (among others for "SHARIAH:THE THREAT TO AMERICA AN EXERCISE IN COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS -- REPORT OF TEAM B II), David Pryce-Jones, Serge Trifkovic, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, P. David Gaubatz, Bill Warner, Gregory M. Davis, Clare Lopez, Geert Wilders, Nu Ha Mim Keller, Prof. Paul Eidelberg, Alfred Guillaume.
That should make it short and sweet.
Hasan:" I Was Fighting For the Taliban"
http://radio.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-119078/hasan-i-was-fighting-for-the-11353191/
"Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who is set to stand trial this summer on charges of massacring 13 soldiers and wounding 32 others at Ft. Hood, told a military judge today that he was 'fighting for the Taliban.'
Hasan told a military judge at Ft. Hood today that he was 'fighting for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Mullah Omar is their leader.'........................"
&
".............Addicott said the defense won't work.
"There has to be an imminent and immediate threat," Addicott said. "There is no immediate threat when the people you kill are here in the United States and they are not even trigger pullers, these were all support people. This will never work, and this reflects the view in his soul that he is not repentant about these murders, he doesn't not feel sorry that he committed them."......................"
Badger52
06-04-2013, 11:42
He should be interviewed to establish specifically what he regards personally as his personal, perpetual hell. Then relegate him to it.
He is being allowed to be his own defense counsel.....that is excellent as I suspect he'll shed some light on the 'religion of peace' that should get lots of media coverage.
Whose call was it to refer to the Hood attack as "workplace violence"?
mark46th
06-04-2013, 12:53
If he admits to fighting for the Taliban, then he should be in Gitmo ASAP...
Streck-Fu
06-04-2013, 12:55
Whose call was it to refer to the Hood attack as "workplace violence"?
Best I can tell, the DoD....LINK (http://nation.foxnews.com/ft-hood-shooting/2011/12/07/obama-regime-calls-ft-hood-shooting-workplace-violence)
Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.
During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.
Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.
The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a "direct target of violent Islamist extremism" within the United States.
"The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists' scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting," Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday's hearing.
Best I can tell, the DoD....LINK (http://nation.foxnews.com/ft-hood-shooting/2011/12/07/obama-regime-calls-ft-hood-shooting-workplace-violence)
Who ultimately calls the shots for the DoD? IRS? DOJ?
Who ultimately calls the shots for the DoD? IRS? DOJ?
I think he just said "Ah, nobody has told me about it yet,"
Streck-Fu
06-04-2013, 13:18
Who ultimately calls the shots for the DoD? IRS? DOJ?
I'll take Valerie Jarret for $1000, Alex.....
Badger52
06-04-2013, 13:40
I'll take Valerie Jarret for $1000, Alex.....Stuck in a damn furlough meeting & you beat me to it you rascal.
:D
I'll take Valerie Jarret for $1000, Alex.....
GONG The correct answer is "Sherry Palmer". :D
Out of curiosity, precisely what resources do you use to track, monitor, or participate in the conversations/debates academics have over issues centering around Islam?
I‘m curious as well, Sigaba, what sources do you read to understand Islamic Jurisprudence? Western sources or middle eastern ones?
FWIW, and IMHO, it doesn’t take an academic, nor intelligentsia to interpret or understand the basic precepts of Islam, and thousands of years of jurisprudence, which has already been ruled on by Islamic scholars, and the actions put into practice by hoards of devout followers. That is all one needs to know. In fact, I am suspect of liberal western academic interpretations of Islam. Largely in part, because the western mind of intelligentsia is based on logic, and the law of contradiction - whereas if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic isn’t like that, it is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true. Is it logical? No. I also think Islamic interpretations by western Academics are flawed, just for the dualistic reason. Islam isn’t logical, but the Qur’an resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation,” aka the doctrine of “al nasikh wal mansoukh.”
“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Surah 2: 106) > http://quran.com/2/106
“When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not."
(Surah 16:101) > http://quran.com/16/101
o22.1 ( I )
(9) those (nasikh) which supersede previously revealed Koranic verses;
(10) and those (mansukh) which are superseded by later verses.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 625, 626)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0963834223
Understanding “al nasikh wal mansoukh” goes a long way IMO towards understanding Islam, the actions in Mecca vs. the ones in Medina, and what is ultimately required from followers of Islam today. Islamic Jurisprudence stands on it’s own and doesn’t require liberal western scholarly periodicals for its interpretation. History is replete with what Islam has done for over 1400 years, as proof of its radical ideology. People assume that you must understand Arabic, or have a university degree in Islam to understand Islam's texts, but that isn’t the case. To know Islam you must first know Muhammad, and the only way to know Muhammad, is through the trilogy of the Qur’an, the Sira, and Hadith.
All Muslims are required to emulate their prophet and his latest revelations - the verses of the sword:
Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
~Sura 33:21~ http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_21.htm
Nevertheless, the following is my short list:
The Qur’an
http://quran.com/
Sira
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/0196360331
http://nookbooksmv.eklablog.com/download-pdf-the-life-of-muhammad-a-translation-of-sirat-rasul-allah-e-a89895667
Sahih Bukhari - Hadith
http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/
Reliance of The Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0963834223
Muhammad al-Shaybani
http://www.pdfbooksfree.org/2012/11/the-shorter-book-on-muslim.html
Ibn Taymiyyah - Influential Hanbali jurist
“The Madinan Way”
http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?products_id=45
Sayyid Qutb
“Milestones”
http://www.khilafahbooks.com/milestones-special-edition-by-sayyid-qutb/
General SK Malik
“The Quranic Concept of War”
http://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/general-s-k-malik-the-quranic-concept-of-war.pdf
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/06winter/win-ess.pdf
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jihad_(Primary_Sources)
I’m willing to bet Nidal Hasan was simply following “The Madinan Way,” may he rot in Hell… :mad:
Fort Hood Justice, Delayed and Ignored
http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2013/06/26/fort-hood-justice-delayed-and-ignored-n1627684?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
"A federal judge has finally selected a trial date for accused Fort Hood mass-murderer Nidal Malik Hasan -- July 9. We'll see if it actually happens. If you've forgotten that mass shooting, then the media had scored a point for President Obama. The Pentagon dismissed the terrorist attack as "workplace violence," the Obama media nodded in agreement and the massacre vanished from public memory. .................."
A pretty good wrap up of events since the shooting.
From the New York Times. I actual checked the Onion thinking it must be dark satire. :( I guess our system of government is always tested by the worst extreme.
The victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shooter will be faced with shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan again in court: Hasan is representing himself and will cross-examine them as witnesses on Tuesday. As Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford summed it up: “I will be cross-examined by the man who shot me.” Hasan fatally shot 13 people and wounded more than 30 others when he opened fire at the Fort Hood army base in November 2009. He has been charged 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder and could face the death penalty if convicted. He has acknowledged being the gunman and has said in statements in and out of court that he was trying to protect Taliban leaders from soldiers deploying to Afghanistan.
From the New York Times. I actual checked the Onion thinking it must be dark satire. :( I guess our system of government is always tested by the worst extreme.
This situation occurred in the Long Island RR shooting too. Hopefully things won't turn out any better for this POS than it did the LIRR shooter. It has to be very surreal and bizarre for the victims testifying. I just hope he is managed very carefully so he can't appeal due to ineffective representation.
craigepo
08-05-2013, 17:37
While a person always has the right to represent himself, it is a pain dealing with them. Most jurisdictions make the trial judge go through a colloquy with the defendant, on the record, to ensure the defendant understands what he insetting himself up for.
That said, representing oneself rarely goes well for the defendant. My personal record for quickest jury decision was in a case where a woman represented herself. Jury was out, and back, with a guilty verdict, in nine minutes.
Juries don't like getting jerked around. Also, it is very difficult to put on a good jury trial for a good attorney. A dude in jail generally makes an ass out of himself.
While a person always has the right to represent himself, it is a pain dealing with them. Most jurisdictions make the trial judge go through a colloquy with the defendant, on the record, to ensure the defendant understands what he insetting himself up for.
That said, representing oneself rarely goes well for the defendant. My personal record for quickest jury decision was in a case where a woman represented herself. Jury was out, and back, with a guilty verdict, in nine minutes.
Juries don't like getting jerked around. Also, it is very difficult to put on a good jury trial for a good attorney. A dude in jail generally makes an ass out of himself.DAMN! Did they even sit down and have a discussion?:D
While a person always has the right to represent himself, it is a pain dealing with them. Most jurisdictions make the trial judge go through a colloquy with the defendant, on the record, to ensure the defendant understands what he insetting himself up for.
That said, representing oneself rarely goes well for the defendant. My personal record for quickest jury decision was in a case where a woman represented herself. Jury was out, and back, with a guilty verdict, in nine minutes.
Juries don't like getting jerked around. Also, it is very difficult to put on a good jury trial for a good attorney. A dude in jail generally makes an ass out of himself.
What bothers me is this is a death penalty case. How do you think his defending himself will affect any sentencing outcome?
ddoering
08-05-2013, 18:26
Personally I hope one of the victims he cross examines pulls out a pistol and puts case closed to his ass.
The Reaper
08-05-2013, 19:03
If the responders had shot accurately, we would have saved millions of dollars already.
The only good thing about him surviving is that I hope that his condition is agonizing and he lives for many years, with Bubba, his cellmate.
TR
Correct me if I am wrong...
...but even if the jury finds him guilty in record time and recommends the death penalty, the POTUS will be the one who actually has to sign the execution order.
I dont think Hassan has anything to worry about. He has a public platform for his diatribe and will pretty much get off with little more than a taxpayer funded private suite with plenty of privacy for him to practice his chosen religion.
Is there an office pool on the outcome?
Peregrino
08-05-2013, 20:41
Correct me if I am wrong...
...but even if the jury finds him guilty in record time and recommends the death penalty, the POTUS will be the one who actually has to sign the execution order.
I dont think Hassan has anything to worry about. He has a public platform for his diatribe and will pretty much get off with little more than a taxpayer funded private suite with plenty of privacy for him to practice his chosen religion.
Is there an office pool on the outcome?
You forgot to mention the lifetime medical care that will almost certainly exceed anything available to a similarly wounded veteran trying to survive on the outside following medical discharge and relegation to the VA. :mad:
Is there an office pool on the outcome?
He will be found drowned in his Foley bag with the catheter wrapped around his neck.
He will be found drowned in his Foley bag with the catheter wrapped around his neck.
Fitting end. I like.
Accused Fort Hood shooter heads to trial in Texas court-martial
http://news.yahoo.com/accused-fort-hood-shooter-heads-trial-texas-court-093143295.html
"FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - The court-martial of Nidal Hasan begins on Tuesday, with the U.S. Army major facing charges he killed 13 people in a 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, the worst non-combat attack in history at a U.S. military base...."
I didn't post the story about how he's kept in a civilian jail and choppered to the base every day so he can do his trial prep.
Oh, for the good old days when Posts had their own lockups.
Oldrotorhead
08-06-2013, 07:40
I think he may waive appeals with intention of becoming a marter and "hero" in his own nasty mind.
If he were tried in a civilian court in Texas I think he would already be on death row.
I think he may waive appeals with intention of becoming a marter [sic] and "hero" in his own nasty mind. If he were tried in a civilian court in Texas I think he would already be on death row.
Even in his own mind, martyrdom doesn't appear to be top of the list. An excerpt from the Daily Beast this morning...
As a consolation, the cops might consider that the trial is going ahead only because the judge nixed Hasan’s effort to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty. He has apparently lost some of his fervor for martyrdom even though he has said in the past that martyrs are rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins.
Let us hope that whenever he departs this realm, if he meets anybody, Hasan is instead greeted by 13 soldiers with some serious anger to vent.
I updated this to include a photo of the people in this trial who count.
craigepo
08-06-2013, 13:46
Not a good start to trial for the defendant. Generally, an admission of "yeah I shot them" does not bode well for a defendant at a murder trial.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/fort-hood-trial_n_3712710.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing10%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D354196
As you watch this trial take note of any 'radical' comments by the good Islamic Major.
I, and others here, can refer you to mainstream Islamic creed that will support his actions on a religious basis.
Not a 'radical perversion of the religion' basis but mainstream articulated Islam as supported by Al Azhar University and the SA keepers of the flame.
He wanted to plead guilty, but the court wouldn't let him. Wonder why.
He wanted to plead guilty, but the court wouldn't let him. Wonder why.
I don't know about military law; but I do know that there are many states - New Jersey is but one of them - that will not allow a defendant to plead guilty to murder. Don't know why. Could either be that they want to throw some business to the lawyers, or that the risk of a mistrial - or a successful appeal - is too great if one is allowed to plead guilty to murder. Would have to defer to some legal minds on this issue.
As you watch this trial take note of any 'radical' comments by the good Islamic Major.
I, and others here, can refer you to mainstream Islamic creed that will support his actions on a religious basis.
Not a 'radical perversion of the religion' basis but mainstream articulated Islam as supported by Al Azhar University and the SA keepers of the flame.
Right you are, PRB. In the eyes of islam Hasan is only "guilty" of being a pious muslim.
Thanks for your perception.
He wanted to plead guilty, but the court wouldn't let him. Wonder why.
"Presumption of innocence" until "proven" guilty in a court of law - a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.
In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Taylor v. Kentucky). A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.
The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.
Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty
Richard
[QUOTE=Richard;518122]"Presumption of innocence" until "proven" guilty in a court of law - a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
What if a defendant has no wish to prove their "innocence"; but rather wishes to plead guilty as charged?
"Presumption of innocence" until "proven" guilty in a court of law - a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
Richard
I get the presumption of innocence. That wasn't my question. He admits he did it, is glad he did it and wants to plead guilty. Just curious as to why they won't let him.
I get the presumption of innocence. That wasn't my question. He admits he did it, is glad he did it and wants to plead guilty. Just curious as to why they won't let him.
I too hope someone can answer that question. Personally I do not look forward to any of the drama I just want to see him go away.
The Reaper
08-06-2013, 19:27
I get the presumption of innocence. That wasn't my question. He admits he did it, is glad he did it and wants to plead guilty. Just curious as to why they won't let him.
I think he wanted to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea, and it was refused.
TR
I get the presumption of innocence. That wasn't my question. He admits he did it, is glad he did it and wants to plead guilty. Just curious as to why they won't let him.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19253272-judge-enters-not-guilty-plea-for-fort-hood-suspect?lite According to this, death penalty cases REQUIRE "not guilty" pleas.
miclo18d
08-08-2013, 07:24
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19253272-judge-enters-not-guilty-plea-for-fort-hood-suspect?lite According to this, death penalty cases REQUIRE "not guilty" pleas.
From the article it stated that Maj Hasshole did not enter a plea, so the judge entered one for him, the only plea the state can make for a non cooperative defendant is not guilty.
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE 11. PLEAS
(a) Entering a Plea.
(1) In General. A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or (with the court's consent) nolo contendere.
(2) Conditional Plea. With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal may then withdraw the plea.
(3) Nolo Contendere Plea. Before accepting a plea of nolo contendere, the court must consider the parties’ views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice.
(4) Failure to Enter a Plea. If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty.
Also, addressing the presumption of innocence question: the presumption of innocence isn't about being presumed guilty by another party (prosecutor), but rather that the defendant doesn't have to prove their own innocence...the state has to prove their guilt.
Many presumed George Zimmerman to be guilty or he would never have been charged. Zimmerman never had to show evidence of his innocence to include not having to testify on his own behalf. He only had to show that the state didn't have enough evidence to convict him of 3rd degree murder. The state failed to show sufficient evidence that he committed murder/manslaughter.
craigepo
08-09-2013, 14:55
Every jurisdiction has its own quirks, especially in relation to a death penalty case. That said:
The "most rights" you can give someone in the United States, in the context of a criminal proceeding, is to have their guilt/innocence determined by a jury of their peers. This applies to both guilt phase and sentencing phase of the trial.
Every death penalty case gets reviewed by a higher court. The courts of appeal will reverse and remand death penalty cases for very minute/hyper-technical problems. The trial court judge tries the entire case with the knowledge that the case will be gone through with a fine-toothed comb.
Generally, a court of appeals will not reverse the findings of a jury, especially if the trial court properly instructs the jury on the law (most jury instructions are pre-approved and contained in books). So, once the jury has found facts and determined guilt, the hard part of the case, whether affirmed or reversed on appeal, is over.
Oftentimes, a serious criminal case gets appealed as to the finding of guilt and/or sentencing. Tons of issues get appealed; evidence, trial procedure, jury selection, jury instructions, etc. Also, the serious cases also get appealed again in post-conviction cases for ineffective assistance of counsel. These myriad appeals really drag a case out, especially in a murder case.
Having to deal with a person representing himself is tough. Dealing with a person representing himself in a death penalty case is a disaster in the making. It just begins by having such a person discussing on the record why he wants to represent himself, then the judge has to ensure the defendant doesn't screw the trial up so bad the trial has to be redone.
Long story short---the judge is doing her best to ensure that the case is properly "packaged" for when it goes to the court of appeals. She did precisely the right thing by not allowing the defendant to plead guilty with the death penalty still on the table (hell, I wouldn't have let him plead guilty with death off the table in a high-profile case like this). A case will never get reversed for refusing a guilty plea.
An opinion piece below...how soon before this traitor Hasan gets "Dhamered" ?????
Court-Martial Of Hassan [sic] Taking Longer Than World War II
Investors Business Daily
Mark Steyn
August 9, 2013
Posted 05:18 PM ET
On Dec. 7, 1941, the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked. Three years, eight months and eight days later, the Japanese surrendered. These days, America's military moves at a more leisurely pace. On Nov. 5, 2009, another U.S. base, Fort Hood, was attacked — by one man standing on a table, screaming "Allahu akbar!" and opening fire. Three years, nine months and one day later, his court-martial finally got underway.
The intervening third-of-a-decade-and-more has apparently been taken up by such vital legal questions as the fullness of beard Maj. Nidal Hasan is permitted to sport in court. This is not a joke: see "Judge Ousted In Fort Hood Shooting Case Amid Beard Debacle" (CBS News).
Army regulations require soldiers to be clean-shaven. The judge, Col. Gregory Gross, ruled Hasan's beard in contempt, fined him $1,000, and said he would be forcibly shaved if he showed up that hirsute next time. At which point Hasan went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which ruled that Gross' pogonophobia raised questions about his impartiality, and removed him. He's the first judge in the history of American jurisprudence to be kicked off a trial because of a "beard debacle." The new judge, Col. Tara Osborn, agreed that Hasan's beard was a violation of regulations, but "said she won't hold it against him."
The U.S. Army seems disinclined to hold anything against him, especially the 13 corpses plus an unborn baby. Hasan fired his lawyers, presumably because they were trying to get him off — on the grounds that he'd had a Twinkie beforehand, or his beard don't fit so you must acquit, or some such. As a self-respecting jihadist, Hasan quite reasonably resented being portrayed as just another all-American loon gone postal. So he sacked his defense team, only to have the court appoint a standby defense team just in case there were any arcane precedents and obscure case law he needed clarification on.
I know that's the way your big-time F. Lee Bailey types would play it, but it doesn't seem to be Hasan's style. On the very first day of the trial, he stood up and told the jury that "the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter." Later, in one of his few courtroom interventions, he insisted that it be put on the record that "the alleged murder weapon" was, in fact, his. The trial then came to a halt when the standby defense team objected to the judge that Hasan's defense strategy (yes, I did it; gimme a blindfold, cigarette, and tell the virgins here I come) would result in his conviction and execution.
Hasan is a Virginia-born army psychiatrist and a recipient of the Pentagon's Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, which seems fair enough, since he certainly served in it, albeit for the other side. Most Americans think he's nuts. He thinks Americans are nuts. It's a closer call than you'd think. In the immediate aftermath of his attack, the U.S. media, following their iron-clad rule that "Allahu akbar" is Arabic for "Nothing to see here," did their best to pass off Hasan as the first known victim of pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
"It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers," fretted Andrew Bast in a report the now defunct Newsweek headlined, "A Symptom Of A Military On The Brink."
Hasan has never been in combat. He is not, in fact, a soldier. He is a shrink. The soldiers in this story are the victims, some 45 of them. And the only reason a doctor can gun down nearly four dozen trained warriors (he was eventually interrupted by a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, with a 9mm Beretta) is that soldiers on base are forbidden from carrying weapons. That's to say, under a 1993 directive a U.S. military base is effectively a gun-free zone, just like a Connecticut grade school. That's a useful tip: if you're mentally ill and looking to shoot up a movie theatre at the next Batman premiere, try the local barracks — there's less chance of anyone firing back.
Maybe this Clinton-era directive merits reconsideration in the wake of Fort Hood? Don't be ridiculous. Instead, nine months after Hasan's killing spree, the Department of Defense put into place "a series of procedural and policy changes that focus on identifying, responding to, and preventing potential workplace violence."
Hasan says he's a soldier for the Taliban. Maybe if the Pentagon were to reclassify the entire Afghan theatre as an unusually prolonged outburst of "workplace violence," we wouldn't have to worry about obsolescent concepts such as "victory" and "defeat." The important thing is that the U.S. Army's "workplace violence" is diverse. After Hasan's pre-post-traumatic workplace wobbly, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army's chief of staff, was at pains to assure us that it could have been a whole lot worse:
"What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."
And you can't get much more diverse than letting your military personnel pick which side of the war they want to be on.
Like I said, we think he's nuts; he thinks we're nuts. Right now, there's a petition on the internet seeking to persuade the U.S. government to reclassify Hasan's "workplace violence" as an act of terror. There are practical consequences to this: The victims, shot by an avowed enemy combatant in an act of war, are currently ineligible for Purple Hearts. The Pentagon insists the dead and wounded must be dishonored in death because to give them any awards for their sacrifice would prejudice Hasan's trial and make it less likely that he could be convicted.
Hence, the internet petition. Linking to it from their homepage, my colleagues at National Review Online promoted it with the tag:
"Thirteen people lost their lives with dozens of others wounded. And now the man responsible wants to claim it was workplace violence."
That's not true — and actually it's grossly unfair to Hasan. He's admirably upfront about who and what he is — a "Soldier of Allah," as he put on his business card. On Tuesday, he admitted he was a traitor who had crossed over from "the bad side" (America's) to "the good side" (Islam's). He has renounced his U.S. citizenship and its effete protections such as workplace-violence disability leave. He professes loyalty to America's enemies. He says, "I am the shooter." He helpfully informs us that that's his gun. In this week's one-minute statement, he spoke more honestly and made more sense than President Obama, Robert Gates, Casey, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals, two judges, the prosecution and defense lawyers, and mountains of bureaucratic reports and media coverage put together.
But poor old Hasan can say "Yup, I did it" all he wants; what does he know?
Unlike the Zimmerman trial, Hasan's has not excited the attention of the media. Yet it is far more symbolic of the state of America than the Trayvon Martin case, in which superannuated race hucksters attempted to impose a half-century-old moth-eaten Klan hood on a guy who's a virtual one-man melting pot. The response to Hasan helps explain why, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this war is being lost — because it cannot be won because, increasingly, it cannot even be acknowledged.
Which helps explain why it now takes the U.S. military longer to prosecute a case of "workplace violence" than it did to win World War II.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080913-667042-hassan-court-martial-for-workplace-violence.htm?p=full
© Mark Steyn, 2013
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19253272-judge-enters-not-guilty-plea-for-fort-hood-suspect?lite According to this, death penalty cases REQUIRE "not guilty" pleas.
Seeking the death penalty is a prosecutorial decision. Making a plea is s defense decision. That contradicts logic.
From the article it stated that Maj Hasshole did not enter a plea, so the judge entered one for him, the only plea the state can make for a non cooperative defendant is not guilty.
That makes sense.
Also, addressing the presumption of innocence question: the presumption of innocence isn't about being presumed guilty by another party (prosecutor), but rather that the defendant doesn't have to prove their own innocence...the state has to prove their guilt.
That does not. They ask the defendant how he pleas. He cannot be obliged to say not guilty if he's not and wants to admit it.
miclo18d
08-11-2013, 11:33
That makes sense.
That does not. They ask the defendant how he pleas. He cannot be obliged to say not guilty if he's not and wants to admit it.
I wasn't referring to a defendant that wants to plead guilty Chief. If someone wants to plead guilty that's on them. There are many cases where people want to plead guilty and have changed their minds, which makes for a mess in our coddling legal system. However if you plead innocent, you are presumed innocent. You don't have to prove your innocence.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of criminal law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.
In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Taylor v. Kentucky). A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.
The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.
Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
Pleading is conducted at the arraignment which does not require presumption of innocence or guilt, just the stated charges against the defendant and the defendant is allowed to plead guilty, innocent, or in some cases no contest. If you refuse to plead, the judge enters a plea of not guilty for you. This is not a presumption of innocence. Just that the state is not allowed to presume that you are guilty.
However...
If a defendant tries to plead guilty or no contest but still claims to be innocent, a judge cannot accept the plea (North Carolina v. Alford, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1970).
In federal courts, defendants who want to plead guilty or nolo contendere must testify under oath to facts establishing their guilt. Moreover, before accepting guilty pleas, judges have to be sure that defendants are aware of the rights they are giving up by pleading guilty. For a “knowing and intelligent” guilty plea to be made, defendants have to:
admit the conduct made punishable by the law
admit and understand the charges against them
know the consequences of the plea (both the sentence as it stands and the possible sentences that could be given were the defendant to have a trial), and know and understand the rights that they are waiving (giving up) by pleading guilty, including (1) the right to counsel if unrepresented, (2) the right to a jury trial, (3) the right not to incriminate themselves, and (4) the right to confront and cross-examine their accusers.
Fort Hood Judge Bans Evidence of Shooter's 'Jihadi' Motives
http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-judge-bans-evidence-shooters-jihadi-motives-195407699--abc-news-topstories.html
"Lawyers representing the family members of those killed and injured in the Ft. Hood shooting rampage were outraged today when an Army judge limited prosecutors from introducing evidence, including emails to a known Al Qaeda operative, that would establish accused shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan's "jihadi" motives.
The judge's rulings could inhibit the ability of the victims' families to claim in a civil suit that the shootings were an act of terror. Federal lawyers involved in the civil suit claim that the people shot during Hasan's murderous rage were victims of workplace violence, a designation that could sharply limit the damages in a civil suit......."
Just workplace violence.
...its hard to retreat from Afghanistan while claiming victory, if we are actively dealing with Al-Qaeda within our own ranks.
I don't know how some politicians can breath with their heads so deeply buried in their own ass.
Fort Hood Judge Bans Evidence of Shooter's 'Jihadi' Motives
http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-judge-bans-evidence-shooters-jihadi-motives-195407699--abc-news-topstories.html
"Lawyers representing the family members of those killed and injured in the Ft. Hood shooting rampage were outraged today when an Army judge limited prosecutors from introducing evidence, including emails to a known Al Qaeda operative, that would establish accused shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan's "jihadi" motives.
The judge's rulings could inhibit the ability of the victims' families to claim in a civil suit that the shootings were an act of terror. Federal lawyers involved in the civil suit claim that the people shot during Hasan's murderous rage were victims of workplace violence, a designation that could sharply limit the damages in a civil suit......."
Just workplace violence.
Wonder what that does to proving motive, which I am not sure they have to do here. But still, motive is important in first degree murder.
craigepo
08-19-2013, 19:28
Wonder what that does to proving motive, which I am not sure they have to do here. But still, motive is important in first degree murder.
It looks like the judge is playing the evidence safe, which is a pretty smart move. Often, when a judge starts making rulings like this, it's because the case is getting lopsided and the judge doesn't want to have to try the case twice.
From what I have noticed, the defendant has already admitted that the evidence will show that he did the shooting. As he carried the gun into the building, premeditation is proven. There has been a ton of eyewitness evidence; stated differently, this case is already done. There is no need to bring in "old" evidence and give the defendant a "prior bad act" issue to appeal.
From what I can tell, under the UCMJ, either premeditated murder or felony murder(a killing that occurs during the commission of a separate felony) can be death penalty verdicts.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl118.htm
It seems like this judge is being very conservative. She is right to keep out the prior stuff until the sentencing phase of the trial.
It looks like the judge is playing the evidence safe, which is a pretty smart move. Often, when a judge starts making rulings like this, it's because the case is getting lopsided and the judge doesn't want to have to try the case twice.
From what I have noticed, the defendant has already admitted that the evidence will show that he did the shooting. As he carried the gun into the building, premeditation is proven. There has been a ton of eyewitness evidence; stated differently, this case is already done. There is no need to bring in "old" evidence and give the defendant a "prior bad act" issue to appeal.
From what I can tell, under the UCMJ, either premeditated murder or felony murder(a killing that occurs during the commission of a separate felony) can be death penalty verdicts.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl118.htm
It seems like this judge is being very conservative. She is right to keep out the prior stuff until the sentencing phase of the trial.
Good to know. So it sounds like, if convicted, her keeping it out shouldn't prevent him from getting the death penalty either.
ddoering
08-20-2013, 05:00
Jihadi evidence doesn't fit into the workplace violence official stance. It could also possibly give him combattant status though being in a US uniform at the time of the act would still allow for execution.
This guy will NEVER get the needle. The Army hasn't executed anyone since 1961. We don't have the balls - as an institution - to put this rabid dog down.
MiTTMedic
08-23-2013, 11:52
http://http://www.kens5.com/news/Maj-Nidal-Hasan-found-guilty-on-all-counts-eligible-for-death-penalty-220838971.html
The link from MTTMedic didn't work for me, so...
Nidal Hasan convicted of Fort Hood killings
By Billy Kenber, Friday, August 23, 1:52
Nidal Malik Hasan faces a possible death sentence after being found guilty Friday of killing 13 people and wounding dozens more when he opened fire at Fort Hood army post in Texas in November 2009.
Hasan, 42, a U.S.-born Muslim who acted as his own attorney, was convicted of 13 charges of premeditated murder and 32 of attempted murder by a panel of senior officers. The case will now move to the sentencing phase, during which further witnesses may be called and Hasan could testify before a punishment is handed down.
Hasan, who was paralyzed from the chest down and confined to a wheelchair after being shot by an Army civilian police officer while being apprehended, admitted responsibility for the shooting at the start of the trial, saying he had “switched sides.”
Aside from a very brief opening statement and a few questions of prosecution witnesses, the military psychiatrist has shown little interest in mounting a defense. Hasan, who was prohibited by military law from entering a guilty plea, declined to call any witnesses, testify himself or give a closing argument.
At a pre-trial hearing, the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, ruled that Hasan could not defend himself by arguing that he carried out the killings to protect Taliban leaders in Afghanistan.
Instead, the defendant chose to make his case to the public through a series of communiques and authorized leaks to newspapers, arguing that he was waging jihad because of the U.S.’s ”illegal and immoral aggression against Muslims” in Iraq and Afghanistan. In another document, it emerged he had told a mental health panel that “if I died by lethal injection I would still be a martyr.”
During the court martial, Osborn refused a request by Hasan’s three standby lawyers to limit their role because they believed the defendant was deliberately trying to secure a death sentence.
Experts said that in spite of Hasan’s apparent desire to be executed it will be years before a potential death sentence could be carried out.
Under the military’s justice system, there are several automatic appeal stages during which attorneys will likely be appointed to represent Hasan, regardless of the defendant’s own wishes.
After a sentence is handed down, the court’s records and findings will have to be reviewed and signed off by a military official known as the convening authority.
The case will then enter the appellate phase, going before the appeals courts for the Army and the armed forces. The case can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Finally, the president must sign off on the death sentence. The last time an active-duty soldier was executed was in 1961.
Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said he expected the appeals process to take several years. “It’s most likely to be the next president that’s going to have to make the final decision,” he said.
Greg Rinckey, a former U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps attorney, said the appeals courts were highly unlikely to allow Hasan to represent himself and that his appointed attorney could lodge a number of challenges.
“Part of defense strategy in this case will be delays...[and] I think they’re going to file mental health issues, whether he had the capacity to stand trial, ineffective assistance of counsel,” Rinckey said.
The two-and-a-half-week long military trial took place almost four years after the mass shooting because of repeated legal delays, with Hasan twice dismissing his legal team and there was also protracted argument before he won the right to keep his beard.
During hearings, held at a courtroom just a few miles from the site of the shooting on the sprawling Texas military post, the defendant declined the opportunity to cross-examine some of his victims.
Hasan had been due to deploy to Afghanistan within a few weeks of the attack and prosecution attorneys set out evidence of his meticulous planning. The psychiatrist chose the most high-tech, high-capacity weapon available at a gun store in Killeen and trained himself at a local firing range before giving away some of his belongings on the day of the shooting.
Shortly after 1 p.m. on November 5, 2009, Hasan walked into Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center with two guns, shouted “Allahu akbar!” meaning “God is great,” and opened fire, the court heard.
His victims were almost all soldiers who were waiting for blood testing. The sole civilian who was killed was shot as he attempted to tackle Hasan with a chair, according to testimony.
The case will now enter the sentencing phase during which the prosecution and defense can present evidence on the impact of the crime and any mitigating circumstances. Three-quarters of the military jury must vote to approve a jail term of more than 10 years, with a unanimous decision required for the death penalty.
When is the execution and will it be open to the public???
May he rot in hell!
I hope it is life without parole...he will be seen by other Islamists as a Shaheed if sentenced to die, he wants to die at our hands so as to die for Islam.
Let him slowly rot in prison in his wheel chair.
Living, in his case, is more painful than death.
I hope it is life without parole...he will be seen by other Islamists as a Shaheed if sentenced to die, he wants to die at our hands so as to die for Islam.
Let him slowly rot in prison in his wheel chair.
Living, in his case, is more painful than death.
That is true, deny him what he craves...martyrdom. His status won't be as "revered" in his muslim world....
Time for bacon for breakfast, ham sandwiches for lunch and pork chops for dinner...for the rest of his warped, pathetic, treasonous life.
If he complains, unwrap that diaper and fire up that sex change procedure that these recent scumbags seem to crave.
craigepo
08-23-2013, 16:25
I hope it is life without parole...he will be seen by other Islamists as a Shaheed if sentenced to die, he wants to die at our hands so as to die for Islam.
Let him slowly rot in prison in his wheel chair.
Living, in his case, is more painful than death.
Is there any elevated status for a Muslim spending life in prison, who winds up being the cell block's girlfriend?
Oldrotorhead
08-23-2013, 17:18
Is there any elevated status for a Muslim spending life in prison, who winds up being the cell block's girlfriend?
Man date Thursday every day.:D
Finally, after all these years some good news.
May you rot in prison for the rest of your miserable life you SOB.
I think a group of Quiet Professionals should send a nice letter volunteering to serve as the firing squad. ;)
Is there any elevated status for a Muslim spending life in prison, who winds up being the cell block's girlfriend?
Nope, that is your average street grade ME Muslim...can't get next to a woman so sword fighting is the order of the day.
UWOA (RIP)
08-23-2013, 22:12
I'd say -- take his wheel chair and let him grovel on the ground after they rip off his rank and reduce him to whale feces.
.
I'd say -- take his wheel chair and let him grovel on the ground after they rip off his rank and reduce him to whale feces.
.
I like. We should give him a service dog and train it to lift its leg whenever anyone whistles.
So if he goes to the Leavenworth big house, does he still keep his beard?
As much as I think the death penalty applies here, I think as a taxpayer I'd be willing to foot my share of the bill to keep his ass locked up in a supermax for the rest of his life.
I admit to being torn about what to do to this POS. Not because I don't think he deserves a harsh punishment, but what would be worse for him?
As he is in a wheelchair now, as a nation we are so politically correct and proper that he will have to have guards attending to his personal needs and turning him over in bed at night so he doesn't get bed sores, etc. I can see him being very smug at having his guards taking care of him like a child.
I want HIM to be humiliated and suffering. So, realistically, what punishment would be the worst?
He obviously does not care about what happens to him, and as much as I think we should pull the plug on him I do not see our government going through with it.
The Reaper
08-24-2013, 09:10
Where is the justice for the fallen and their families?
F&^k him.
TR
Badger52
08-24-2013, 10:20
Where is the justice for the fallen and their families?
F&^k him.
TR+1 A 9x18 round in a room with a floor drain.
ddoering
08-24-2013, 14:10
Just toss him into a pigpen with a bunch of hungry hogs in it.
I'd treat him as a human being should be treated. Feed him properly, work appropriately and meet his physical needs in a humane fashion.
Let him think about that...let him exist where it will be hard for him to hate...
That would be harder on him than confrontation as it would not underwrite his hatred or the basic tenets of Islam.
Let him die confused.
ZonieDiver
08-27-2013, 10:17
I'd treat him as a human being should be treated. Feed him properly, work appropriately and meet his physical needs in a humane fashion.
Let him think about that...let him exist where it will be hard for him to hate...
That would be harder on him than confrontation as it would not underwrite his hatred or the basic tenets of Islam.
Let him die confused.
Outstanding post. I second that. "Let him die confused." (And frustrated.)
I hope the Marksmen are at the range today!!!
Hasan has been sentenced to DEATH!
May he rot in hell!
Snaquebite
08-28-2013, 14:56
Military (mandatory) appeals process could last years...
Military (mandatory) appeals process could last years...
The inmates may choose to carry out the sentence early. If so, saves us tax dollars, he gets the punishment sooner, with his rapidly declining health hopefully he is miserable until the time his death occurs, and being killed by the inmates would deny him his martyrdom.
Also, if his health is declining as rapidly as rumors imply, maybe he will die with a loaded Depends, and will still be denied his martyrdom.
Military (mandatory) appeals process could last years...
True but I am personally happy to see the jury make the right decision and skip the PC bull crap, which is so apparent in the modern upper Officer ranks!
Peregrino
08-28-2013, 20:07
Good. Maybe now they'll finally stop his pay and allowances. :mad:
Ambush Master
08-30-2013, 18:16
Who wants to take on a wager that "The Administration" grants him a pardon, before they trash out the White house and leave?!?!?!
medic&commo
08-31-2013, 07:13
Who wants to take on a wager that "The Administration" grants him a pardon, before they trash out the White house and leave?!?!?!
Because I believe it's a real possibility, I won't take your bet - but it will be interesting to see the outcome.
m&c
Who wants to take on a wager that "The Administration" grants him a pardon, before they trash out the White house and leave?!?!?!
I'll take it.
Because I believe it's a real possibility, I won't take your bet - but it will be interesting to see the outcome.
m&c
I don't.
Richard
Well, at least this administration will have enough maturity to leave the "C" keys on the key boards.
Well, maybe because C is a D is why.
Well, at least this administration will have enough maturity to leave the "C" keys on the key boards.
Well, maybe because C is a D is why.
;)
(1VB)compforce
09-04-2013, 04:34
Wonder if they will make him shave his beard now?
Question answered: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/03/convicted-fort-hood-killer-hasan-forcibly-shaved-in-prison/?intcmp=obnetwork
Convicted Fort Hood killer Hasan forcibly shaved in prison
mark46th
09-04-2013, 08:26
I still don't understand why the responding officers didn't finish him off...
Oldrotorhead
09-04-2013, 16:23
This isn't much, but Levenworth has higher standards that JAG.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/04/fort-hood-shooter-forcibly-shaved-in-prison.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=9
FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. -- The Army psychiatrist sentenced to death for the Fort Hood shooting rampage has been forcibly shaved.
Maj. Nidal Hasan began growing a beard in the years after the November 2009 shooting that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, saying it was required by his Muslim faith. The beard prompted delays to his court-martial because it violated Army grooming regulations.
Hasan, an American-born Muslim, is at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., home to the military death row.
Lt. Col. S. Justin Platt, an Army spokesman, said in a statement Tuesday that Hasan had been shaved. Officials at Fort Leavenworth previously had said Hasan would be subject to Army regulations.
The dispute over the beard had led to the ouster of the original judge in his court-martial. The new judge had allowed Hasan to keep it at his trial last month.
This isn't much, but Levenworth has higher standards that JAG.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/04/fort-hood-shooter-forcibly-shaved-in-prison.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=9
FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. -- The Army psychiatrist sentenced to death for the Fort Hood shooting rampage has been forcibly shaved.
Maj. Nidal Hasan began growing a beard in the years after the November 2009 shooting that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, saying it was required by his Muslim faith. The beard prompted delays to his court-martial because it violated Army grooming regulations.
Hasan, an American-born Muslim, is at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., home to the military death row.
Lt. Col. S. Justin Platt, an Army spokesman, said in a statement Tuesday that Hasan had been shaved. Officials at Fort Leavenworth previously had said Hasan would be subject to Army regulations.
The dispute over the beard had led to the ouster of the original judge in his court-martial. The new judge had allowed Hasan to keep it at his trial last month.
Anything this POS has forceably done to him, is a GOOD thing. May he rot in hell here on earth first, before dying.
Holly :-<
DIYPatriot
12-05-2014, 14:24
It's about time.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fort-hood-victims-set-to-receive-purple-hearts-combat-status/article/2556950
Congress is set to make victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings eligible for Purple Hearts and combat injury benefits after the Obama administration has denied them the status for the past five years.
House Republicans, working with the Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee, added a provision to the defense authorization bill that would give battlefield recognition for the victims of the deadliest attack on a domestic military installation in U.S. history. It passed on a voice vote with strong bipartisan support.
The measure, which is expected to pass Congress next week, also would end a five-year effort by Texas GOP Reps. John Carter, Michael Conaway and Roger Williams to give the victims the status, the Military Times first reported. Texas GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn introduced the bill in the Senate.
The victims have long asked the Pentagon to label the attack terrorism so they would be eligible for the Purple Hearts and added combat-related benefits. But Defense Secretaries Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel have stuck to the original assessment that the attack by Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan was an act of workplace violence.
Full story (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fort-hood-victims-set-to-receive-purple-hearts-combat-status/article/2556950)