Did Obama Just Convict the Suspected Fort Hood Shooter?

[lindy]

RL, your thoughts? Is it possible Hasan could get off?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...d=sec-politics


Did Obama Just Convict the Suspected Fort Hood Shooter?

By Scott Butterworth

President Obama began his weekly Internet and radio address on Saturday with these words: "This past Thursday, on a clear Texas afternoon, an Army psychiatrist walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, and began shooting his fellow soldiers."

Did the president, speaking directly about the man suspected in the killings, prejudice any jury that might be called to hear the case? At the least, he appeared to fall afoul of a lesson that every journalism student -- and law student -- learns early: The safest way to avoid yourself some trouble is to couch such a flat assertion of guilt.

That is why news organizations scrambled to rewrite their stories Thursday night after an Army general changed his story about the suspected gunman. You can't libel the dead, goes the legal doctrine, and the general had said the gunman was dead. So the media felt pretty comfortable with stories asserting that Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was the man who had killed so many at the Army post.

But once Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the commander at Fort Hood, said that Hasan had not been killed but rather was hospitalized and in no imminent threat of dying, news anchors, reporters and editors hurried to add the words "suspected" and "allegedly" and "believed to have" to their scripts and stories.

Obama said the "act of violence" by the psychiatrist was "heartbreaking" and "despicable" and "horrified us." It was even "the worst of human nature on full display." The speech included not a single "reportedly."

Then again, Obama is not the first president to stray from the well-trod path of "not prejudging an investigation." For instance, President George W. Bush did so in December 2005, saying in an interview with the Fox News Channel that he believed former House majority leader Tom DeLay was innocent of money laundering and conspiracy charges.

Asked about whether Bush had just prejudged -- and prejudiced -- a criminal case, White House press secretary Scott McClellan replied, "Call it a presidential prerogative."

The Obama White House had no comment.

[SF_BHT]

He is a military member and committed his crime on the base. UCMJ is going to deal with him not the local system. I would prefer that TX deal with him as he would be executed a lot faster.

Not a lawyer but I do not think Obamas comments will be usable to taint a jury of his peers. Remember it was done in TX and on FT Hood.

[JJ_BPK]

I suspect his lawyer will immediately ask for a change of venue to Beirut.
That his client is a foreign national and should be tried in a world court..
That neither Texas nor the UCMJ has jurisdiction over Prisoners of War.




Just dawned on me.. A foreign national, perpetrating a war crime, while in an American Military uniform, would be classified a spy, and can executed on the spot???

[Pete]

You guys assume anybody listens to the President's weekly radio address.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Whether BHO is out to hurt America - or out to help in his mind - is irrelevant.

The result is the issue.

[lindy]

Remember it was done in TX and on FT Hood.

Foxnews recently reported that Former President Bush and Former First Lady Bush already visited Ft. Hood.

Obama visited the Capitol this weekend.

Priorities.

[Geenie]

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.

In another thread people are tearing up Obama for "not telling it how it is". It seems that in this instance he was quite clear. So why hold it against him?
Is there any reasonable doubt that Nidal Hasan was the shooter?

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Your post did not add to the thread

Edited by Pete

Added by 6.8:

This is the 3rd time Pete has taken the time to edit a post of mine. Each time he did so in an intelligent, even-handed and as respectful of a way as I could hope for.

Save the title "Sir" for him and other of America's bravest here Genie. I don't condone bombing Germans and have noticed that I've been polluting PS.com with "C" level jokes over the last week as an unproductive reaction to political developments in this country that are unprecedented, and as of a couple years ago, unimaginable to me.

I have about 30 articles that I'm in the process of boiling down on how the Treasury has literally become an open check book to private corporations at the expense of taxpayer's. I'll keep my frustrated trap shut until it's capable of something hopefully productive by the hands of men greater than myself.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Geenie

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. ..........

It's how our laws work. The perp could be convicted but the defense can shop around for a lib judge who will find that the President's comments did not allow the perp to get a fair trial - and throw out the conviction, tied up in courts for years to come.

But on the other hand - the perp was uniformed military and did the shooting on Federal Property so we will hope it stays in the military system.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Geenie

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.

In another thread people are tearing up Obama for "not telling it how it is". It seems that in this instance he was quite clear. So why hold it against him?
Is there any reasonable doubt that Nidal Hasan was the shooter?

It was this very President who just a day or two ago said that no one should jump to conclusions about this case. A wise man would have followed his own counsel.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by 6.8SPC_DUMP

Your post did not add to the thread

Pete

And yours did?

When people post and you wish to rebuttal them you should look at what the thread is about. Then Who is making the post and where they are from. Then you formulate a response that will either aid that person or the thread.

Geenie is from Germany and is not familiar with our laws and ways as we are not always up to par in his. Pete did the best response that could have been made. A constructive response.

We are here to be constructive and aid each other in an intelligent exchange of information and the Mod's/Admin's and QP's here will redirect or chastise as needed. As you see the ADMIN/MOD's made their comments that needed to be said.

Thanks SF_BHT

[lindy]

It's how our laws work.

Exactly Pete. As a wise retired SF Major wrote on this board months ago, "...it is the rule of law by which we choose to live as a society."

Is there any reasonable doubt that Nidal Hasan was the shooter?

Genie, you have thus made my point.

How do YOU know Hasan was the shooter? Did you personally witness the act? Did you hear a sworn statement made under oath from an eyewitness?

Point: a lawyer has the potential to argue that everyone all over the US has been repeatedly "told" that Hasan was in fact the person who fired the weapons that resulted in injury and death of the victims. How can he get a fair trial from an objective jury or objective military panel who have been exposed to months (by the time the trial takes place) of "Hasan did it"?

IMO, terrorism is not a criminal act but an act of war. Two to chest and one to head then move to the next target. Death of the perpetrator brings closure to the victims and the ones left behind whereas a trial simply aggravates the grieving process.

Imad Fayez Mughniyah is a case in point. No trial. Effective outcome which sends a message: you will be found and you will met be with similar force, which you brought to us. Kill and you will be killed.

A foreign national, perpetrating a war crime, while in an American Military uniform, would be classified a spy, and can executed on the spot???

Bingo!

Personally, Obama should not be involved in telling the American public what happened: leave that up to CNN, MSNBC, & ABC. He should focus on the troops and lead for heavens sake! I only wish he was in as close contact with Gen McChrystal as he claimed he was with FBI Dir, SecDef, and "relevant agencies".

Priorities.

I think once the Senate passes Obamacare, his priorities will change. As of date, he needs the Libs to enact his agenda. But that's a different thread.

[Geenie]

Originally Posted by 6.8SPC_DUMP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcmuG...eature=related

6.8SPC_DUMP Sir,

I fail to see how a youtube video about "bombing Germany" addresses any of the points I made in my post in a way that is in accord with the professional nature of this board.
To be honest, I find your posting this as a reply to my question quite offensive, considering that you do not know me or my personal background. If I stepped on any toes by making my post, I apologize. I did not mean to come across as provocative or anything like that.

Back to topic...

QP Pete: Thank you for explaining. I did not know there were such laws in place. I will make sure to do better research before posting next time.

I find this to be an interesting distinction in the law:

That is why news organizations scrambled to rewrite their stories Thursday night after an Army general changed his story about the suspected gunman. You can't libel the dead, goes the legal doctrine, and the general had said the gunman was dead. So the media felt pretty comfortable with stories asserting that Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was the man who had killed so many at the Army post.

Suppose that Hasan had in fact died at the scene and it was later discovered that he was not the shooter. Could the family then sue the press for making "false claims" and shedding a bad light on the family, so to speak?

I found a case that would pertain to my question, but it seems that the conviction wasn't based on the defamation of the dead but rather on an infringement of the living person's right to privacy and "emotional well-being". So it seems that it's not illegal for someone to publicly spread rumors and defame my dead relatives.
http://stupidevilbastard.com/2007/10...ns_11_million/

Seems like a bit of a grey area.

Edited to add: Lindy, thank you for elaborating on your point. You explained it very well.

[Pete]

Geenie;

There are two different thoughts that are being bounced around in this thread. People can get into a lot of hair spliting on then.

The innocent until proved guilty is for the courts not the public. It is "OK" for the public to say "Yeah, he did it". The trick is to find an unbiased jury for the trail - the defense does not want somebody who says "Yeah, I know he's guilty - I want on the jury so I can convict him." They want the person who says "What shooting? There was a shooting at Ft Hood?"

So the more people and sources say "He did it" the more chance of a lawyer claiming a tainted jury. The lawyers here can give a better explaination.

But this may well stay in the military system.

Pete

Originally Posted by Pete

You guys assume anybody listens to the President's weekly radio address.

I was at the range.