Fort Hood Shooter Hasan...What should be done with him?

They may an exception with this lad. If they do not then we will have to question our entire concept of justice. The fellow wanted to live by the sword, it is only poetic that he die by the same.

How can you justify only partial opposition to the death penalty?

So you don't actually oppose the death penalty per se, you're just talking about graduated punishment. Is that right?

That's rather an interesting concept. I am generally against the death penalty for a number of reasons, but that might be something I could accept. The evidence would have to be really strong though because there are still innocent people on death row. That just scares me out of my mind.

Public executions sound awfully barbaric. Hardly befitting the world's leading democracy, the country that the world supposedly looks up to to set an example of how a civilized society behaves. I'd expect that kind of primitive spectacle in the dark ages, but from America? I don't want my country lowering itself to that kind of disgusting sensationalism.

Then ban them

I'd wager they already are banned under the eighth amendment.

Done in private it does not deter.

This country already has a history of public executions and they didn't deter crime. This country has a history of private executions, and that has not deterred crime. Nor should anyone expect it to, the death penalty is not a deterrent, it's punishment.

It deters repeat murders by the one executed.

No, it prevents it. There's a subtle but important difference.

If society wants to execute people it should be public.

We tried it. It didn't work. We moved on. Time to try something different.

But you have educated me with your comments here.

It's mutual.

Trying him in a civilian court would introduce the religious element into the discussion and should not be considered.

If you're going to arbitrarily eliminate potential defenses merely because you don't personally approve of them, why give him a trial at all? If you're certain that he'll be convicted then what possible reason could you have for handicapping his defense?

If you're going to arbitrarily eliminate potential defenses merely because you don't personally approve of them, why give him a trial at all? If you're certain that he'll be convicted then what possible reason could you have for handicapping his defense?

The issue in a civilian court will be the jury selection and the appearances thereof, not whether he is determined guilty or not. One of the questions asked in a capital crime is if there is any objections to the death penalty. Naturally, we assume that a person that is against the death penalty, has reasons that go beyond any religion. The seed of doubt is planted in the public's mind over the concept that it is a sin for a Muslim to kill another Muslim.

If a life sentence is handed down, instead of the death penalty, and it is later determined that a Muslim sat on the jury, then the message will further reinforce the idea that Muslims find it okay to kill non-Muslims, but not each other. It is not about the guilt, but the matter of remaining civil during, before and after the trial.

But of course, some snide commenter will set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner, and without even an attempt at clarification, presume that I am eliminating potential defenses on a mere whim.

You didn't answer my questions:

1. If you're certain that he'll be convicted then what possible reason could you have for handicapping his defense?

2. If you're going to do that, why give him a trial at all?

PWT: You didn't answer my questions:

Is that the case or you do not wish to accept the answer.

PWT: 1. If you're certain that he'll be convicted then what possible reason could you have for handicapping his defense?

You seem to be clouded with a false notion of what constitutes presumption of innocence.

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

The presumption of innocence applies to all the red flags that are being pointed out in retrospect.

PWT:2. If you're going to do that, why give him a trial at all?

The reason for his actions must be determined. If insanity or diminished capacity is pled.... then jurisdiction becomes paramount. The state of Texas adheres to the M'Naghten Rule.....

Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and . . . that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party ACCUSED was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

The federal rule is:

at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

There are some states that do not even allow an insanity plea.

The reason he gets a trial, is if he requests one. For him to request a trial, would be mostly for show and a platform for him to air his ideologies, imo. Nothing more and nothing less. People plea bargain on much less proof of guilt and the presumption of innocence has already been discussed.

Is that the case

Yes, you still have managed not to answer my questions.

I think I clearly answered your questions, but we are not connecting for some reason. To clarify you position and to assist me in developing a frame of reference for you, I ask these questions of you...

PWT... do you think Hasan killed anyone at Ft. Hood?

If not, then why?

If you do think that he killed people at Ft. Hood, what do you think is the reason/rationale for that action?

I challenge anyone to illustrate the difference between what wingman just said, and what your run-of-the-mill terrorist or insurgent in Iraq has been saying for the last even or eight years. Advocating for torture and arbitrary extrajudicial executions.

You could attribute a statement like that, word for word, to any terrorist leader in the world and it would still make perfect sense. The only difference I can see is that when they say it, we condemn it and use it to justify our endless wars, because they are The Enemy, but when we say it, we agree and cheer it on because we're inherently good people so anything we advocate for is also good and The Right Thing.

Does no one see the hypocrisy in that? Does no one find it disturbing that when upset, we can and often do sound exactly like they do?

PWT, in regards to Wingman1's statement of

Torture him. Kill him. Either works.

You state:

I challenge anyone to illustrate the difference between what wingman just said, and what your run-of-the-mill terrorist or insurgent in Iraq has been saying for the last even or eight years.

I accept your challenge.

The difference is that wingman1 is espousing this toward someone who killed over a dozen people in cold blood, and wounded almost 3 dozen more.

That run of the mill terrorist, on the other hand, is advocating this for all the kids in a random elementary school, or everyone at the mall or shopping center on a random Saturday, or everyone who is in a restaurant on a random Friday Night. Or somebody who just went to work on a September Morning.

If you need anything else clarified, please don't hesitate to ask.

The difference is that wingman1 is espousing this toward someone who killed over a dozen people in cold blood, and wounded almost 3 dozen more.

So too would an Iraqi insurgent say after a U.S. airstrike that killed a dozen civilians, including women and children -- non-combatants. See what I'm saying?

That's an interesting punishment. You think torture is ok? Because the rest of the civilized world doesn't (you should already know this from the Bush/Cheney years).

I think this man should suffer the same as his wounded and killed suffered.

I heard on MPR this morning, that when he was shot he was running after the wounded to finish the job he started. Do you think that he should just get to have food and water and a bed for the rest of his life for this? No-he should be made to die, the same as he made the thirteen die.

Yup, he should rot in jail for his crimes, no matter how heinous they are.

Oh-and just because the honey and ants were the first thing I thought of-doesn't mean that is what would be best.

I just think execution over prison, is what I would prefer. However-the law will decide what punishment fits the crime. So-no matter what you or I think-they will decide.

I do believe in the death penalty though, I think it is a valid form of punishment for premeditated, explicitly proven murder crimes.

Let him have his fair trial then summarily execute his ass!

You can't have both, either you arbitrarily execute someone extra-judicially, or they get a fair trial and receive a sentence that is not predetermined. Which is it?

Let me ask you them, what do you think should happen if a fair trial finds him innocent? Do you turn inward on the system and declare the trial unfair, because it didn't give you the outcome you wanted? Do you accept it and move on? Do you take him out back late some night and put a couple rounds in his head?

My point is that there is more to a fair trial than getting what you want out of it. Sometimes fair trials let guilty people go, and very often they send innocent people to prison.

I appreciate the intellectual honesty.

There are tens of thousands of muslims in our millitary. thousands have gone to fight in the middle east. only one other did something similar and that was a frag of an officer's tent in theater (Iraq 2003).

Most of the muslims in the military are Nation of Islam types, which are a far cry from the the sort we are talking about re Hasan.

No, they are Arab.

Nation of Islam is not a recognized Muslim faith.

traveling gal

It is a myth that muslims consider each other "brothers and sisters"as the daily bombings, suicide or otherwise, that kill dozens of "brothers and sisters" in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere proves.

It's all BS.

Actually he does have connections to Al-Queda.

actualy he doesn't.

He worshiped at a mosque that some of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped at, but they were not there at the same time.

He is a murderer, not a terrorist. He has no terror affiliations at all.

So.. There's no such thing as a lone terrorist?

Behind My Screen
He is a murderer, not a terrorist. He has no terror affiliations at all. Why would a terror group stage a hostage taking to get him out of prison? Why, if you are so worried about such behavior by terrorists? We have had most of the top teir terrorists in gitmo since 2002. You would think if ransom kidnapping was a threat, it would have happened multiple times by now.

Rich-1235415

Actually he does have connections to Al-Queda

Behind My Screen

actualy he doesn't.

He worshiped at a mosque that some of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped at, but they were not there at the same time.

ACTUALLY Maj Hasan DOES...............!

EXCLUSIVE: Fort Hood suspect contacted Muslim extremists
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/officials-say-fort-hood-suspect-had-islamist-ties/" target="_blank">washingtontimes.com ^ | Nov. 12, 2009 | Ben Conery and Victor Morton and Jerry Seper

Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:02:43 PM by Free ThinkerNY

Fort Hood shooting suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been in contact with numerous Muslim extremists -- some of whom are under federal investigation -- before last week's rampage, two U.S. officials told The Washington Times on Wednesday.

Maj. Hasan made some of the contacts while visiting known jihadist chat rooms on the Internet, according to one of The Times' sources, a senior FBI official. He said that several people with whom Maj. Hasan was in contact had been the focus of investigations by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The other source, a military intelligence official, said those in contact with Maj. Hasan are located both in the U.S. and overseas. The official said they are "broadly known and characterized as Islamic extremists if not necessarily al Qaeda."

Both officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said some of the names of those with whom Maj. Hasan was in contact will likely be released soon.

The FBI official said that could happen during pending congressional hearings into the massacre.

These ties are in addition to Maj. Hasan's already-reported links to radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who called Maj. Hasan a "hero" on a blog post about last week's Fort Hood shooting, which left 13 dead and 29 wounded.

The military intelligence official said, "Those connections, except for Awlaki, could be explained innocently. But all of them together form a very concerning picture."

"I may run into contact with shady people through coincidence, through social events, etc.," he said. "But at some point you start saying like, 'Huh? Why are you coming in contact with all these charming people?' "

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com

I neve said he is a terrorist. But today he is likely a hero to terrorists. He did what many of them would like to do. They see US saoldiers as legitimate targets.

U.S. soldiers are legitimate targets. Look, don't get me wrong on this matter, I'm not defending Hasan and I'd like to see him put on trial and get what he has coming, but the reality is that this country has invaded and occupied two Muslim countries this decade, constantly assists Israel in killing dozens of civilians in Gaza every year through weapons sales and aide -- including Lebanon -- and consistently threatens to invade and occupy a third. As we're doing all of this with our military.

Regardless of the reasons why we do these things, we are seen as imperialists that only target Muslim nations in the Middle East and since we're doing it with our military, that makes our military a legitimate target.

Ask yourself if some other country invaded the United States, overthrew our government, installed one of their own that was unquestionably corrupt operating on a constitution based on their laws and then continued that occupation for eight years while tens of thousands -- if not hundreds of thousands -- of our civilians have and are being killed, would you consider that invading military a legitimate target?

If you couldn't kill them over here, wouldn't you try to go somewhere where you could kill them? When you're the one being invaded, occupied, and seeing thousands of your people killed, wouldn't you do literally anything to free yourself and your people? Hell, you might even strap on a vest loaded with explosives if it came down to that. If our streets were clogged with Chinese tanks -- or if you need such nostalgia, Russian tanks -- and everything that happened in Iraq happened in, only it happened to us, wouldn't you do whatever you had to do?

Most people would, I would think. Besides, it's not like terrorists needed Hasan's actions to magically justify their feelings toward the U.S. They already thought our military was a legitimate target the day we stepped into Afghanistan.

actualy he doesn't.

He worshiped at a mosque that some of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped at, but they were not there at the same time.

Actually he does:

"As officials advance the investigation into the Army Major who allegedly perpetrated last week's massacre at Fort Hood , attention is turning to Anwar al Awlaki, a top al Qaeda recruiter who was in contact with Major Nidal Malik Hasan before last week's shootings.

Awlaki, a charismatic American Muslim imam, now operates a jihadist web site out of Yemen that calls on all Muslims to wage war against the U.S. Officials say Hasan had between 10 and 20 contacts with Awlaki beginning late last year.

(Read it all)

He is a murderer, not a terrorist. He has no terror affiliations at all.

Oh, but he is too. He has connections to a radical imam and apparently was doing wire tranfers to or from Pakistan. Here is an excerpt from a story on Verizon.com.

FORT HOOD, Texas - The Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people in a shooting spree at Fort Hood made or accepted wire transfers with Pakistan, a country wracked by Muslim extremist violence, a Republican congressman said Friday.

Paul William Tenny I had to read this 3 times. In part I agree. I disagree. Israel does its own fighting and I don't see the US as causing those wars.

Cause? No, but we do enable them. Israel flies our most advanced fighters, drives our best tanks, drops our bombs, fires our rifles, and they buy all of that with billions in "aide" we give to Israel and for absolutely nothing in return. When Israel went into Lebanon and more recently Gaza, we expedited weapons shipments for those wars. Weapons manufactured here in the U.S. within days were being expended over seas to kill innocent people by the hundreds -- the majority of whom were defenseless Palestinian civilians, women and children I'm talking about.

And that's not even addressing the painful contortions we get ourselves into in order to protect and defend Israel uncritically from accountability. A U.N. commission called the Goldstone Report recently found that both Hamas and Israel committed war crimes -- real, true and literal war crimes -- in the recent Gaza conflict. The U.S. passed a nearly unanimous resolution condemning the report simply because it criticized Israel.

Think about how twisted it is that we denounced a U.N. report that found Hamas guilty of war crimes just so that we could give political cover to Israel.

Israel currently has an estimated stockpile of over 100 nuclear weapons and continues to build more as fast as they can. And unlike Iran, which we constantly threaten to invade and occupy, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and refuses to allow weapons inspectors from the IAEA into their facilities. On that level even Iran is a better world citizen than Israel has been, and we defend their behavior without question even when 95% of the world has been trying to do something about that within the security council.

Whether we like it or not, and whether we agree with it or not, the Muslim world looks at these things and they see us helping to repress and slaughter them.

And you know what? They're right.

If he was a soldier in a Muslim he would be justified.

I'm not saying his actions were justified, I'm saying that for a person in his position, yes, our military is a perfectly legitimate target. If not them, then who? If not the military then who possibly would qualify as a legitimate target? Who else is left?

Yet wearing the uniform of his enemy(US} he could be considered a spy and hanged.

No, you actually have to be a spy to be considered a spy. You can't just contort reality to fit a preconceived notion. Nowhere have I seen even the accusation, much less proof, that Hasan gave military intelligence to our enemies or compromised national security in that way.

It's temping to blow this up into the worst possible scenario, but that's also deeply irresponsible.

Or he could be termed an enemy combatant captured on the battlefield and be put under the jail forever.

That's not correct.

Nidal Hasan is an American citizen who was born in Virginia, which means he is unquestionably protected in full by the Constitution, which necessarily includes the right to petition his detention under section 9, clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that suspension of Habeas is unacceptable so long as the court system is at least partially functional, a precedent that dates back to the civil war. This was affirmed in Boumediene v. Bush, when the Supreme Court ruled that gitmo detainees (including enemy combatants) had the legal right under the constitution to petition their detention.

Like it or not Nidal Hasan has rights that cannot be extinguished merely because of his actions, no more for him than you or I, and if this country still believes in upholding the constitution and the rule of law then we must abide by them.

Okay, I don't understand all of this stuff about Israel. Why are we doing all of this for them? Why are we protecting them? Why are we giving them arms to use against other peoples? Why are we giving them aid when they seem perfectly self sufficient? Why do they get a pass on nuclear weapons inspections, but Iran doesn't? All of this seems extremely out of whack to me. I would appreciate anyone's help in understanding this. I'm obviously missing something important.

Why are we doing all of this for them?

I'm not a historian so I can't really speak to the historical reasons why we've done things in the past, but these days it's nothing more than doing something for the sake of doing it. A Clique of people in the United States -- largely neo-conservative Republicans but certainly not limited to that group -- has succeeded in ruling out of bounds any and all criticism of Israel, period. It doesn't matter if it's substantive or true, they've equated criticizing Israel with hating it, hating jews, wanting it to lose and its enemies to win, and of course being an antisemite.

This despite the fact that this group holds views that are largely rejected by American Jews and in some cases even by the Israelis. Glenn Greenwald is fond of linking to stories in Israeli newspapers that are more critical of the Israeli government than anyone in the United States is allowed to be without being labeled an antisemite, or worse.

That's why the Goldstone Report was almost unanimously denounced by the U.S. Congress, viciously so. Anyone that would do otherwise would be attacked by this group of people (Glenn is far more familiar with their names than I am or I'd name them outright) in the worst imaginable ways.

Glenn Greenwald, November 2nd, 2009:

The latest Haaretz column by the outstanding and courageous Israeli columnist, Gideon Levy, is entitled "America, Stop Sucking Up to Israel," and it highlights one of the most bizarre political facts: criticism of Israeli actions is far more tolerated and permitted in Israeli political discourse than it is in America's. It's simply inconceivable that any establishment journalist or national politician would ever echo Levy's scathing indictments of Israel's conduct and his calls for the U.S. to apply serious pressure and even threats to coerce changes in Israeli behavior. [..]

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

[..]

Even worse, the U.S. Congress appears poised -- yet again -- to enact a meaningless though odious Resolution that has no purpose other than to shield Israel from criticism; place ourselves squarely on Israel's side no matter what it does; and once again obstruct war crimes investigations. That Resolution -- co-sponsored by two members of Congress from each party, including supreme AIPAC loyalist Howard Berman, the Democratic Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- would advance the repellent through all-too-familiar personal smears against U.N. investigator Richard Goldstone by urging that the U.S. "oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration" of Goldstone's report -- which found both Israel and Hamas likely guilty of "war crimes" in the war in Gaza -- on the ground that the Report was biased, flawed, one-sided, pre-ordained and false.

In short, what we do with Israel has nothing to do with Israel, but what certain people in this country want. We arm Israel to the teeth hoping that it will launch (and win) an unprovoked war against Iran, so that we don't have to. We arm them so that they can keep the Palestinians under siege with no ability to fight back. We do it because it infuriates Muslim nations in the Middle East and that deeply satisfies a lot of crazy people in this country.

And in a sick way, protecting Israel politically is protecting ourselves. We can hardly endorse a report finding Israel committed war crimes while covering up our own.

I'd also note in that story a reminder that our weapons sales to Israel are illegal under international law because of Israel's rogue nuclear weapons program. What does that say about us?

Israel flies our most advanced fighters, drives our best tanks,

Drives our best tanks? Source?

, fires our rifles

Apparently that will change:

IMI Tavor assault rifle has been selected as the future weapon for Israel Defense Forces infantry units.

For several years the IDF evaluated the Tavor against the M-16 M4. The two weapons recently completed extensive field evaluations with special forces as well elite infantry units, such as the Givati Brigade. Following the conclusion of these tests, the IDF made its decision. The evaluations were very positive and overall, Tavor proved to be significantly more accurate and reliable compared to the M4, and became the favorable sidearm by the majority of the infantrymen participated in the tests. The weapon proved to be more comfortable to operate, and more accurate in instinctive fire, as the natural carrying position – an inherent advantage of the rear center of gravity, derived by the compact bull-pup design. Due to budget constraints and large quantities of M-16 and M-16A2 which are already in its inventory, the IDF is expected to order only thousands of rifles per year, however, according to IMI, the importance of the decision is the recognition in the quality and superiority of the new Israeli weapon, to promote export sales.

Okay, I don't understand all of this stuff about Israel. Why are we doing all of this for them? Why are we protecting them? Why are we giving them arms to use against other peoples?

Well-- you could also ask-- why are we selling so many weapons to Egypt and Saudi Arabia? (And, I believe, to Jordan and some of the Gulf states as well?).

And-- weapons to be used 'against other peoples"? Generally speaking, that's what countries use weapons for-- except in the case of countries such as Iran-- who makes use of at least the lighter weapons against their own people.

Why are we giving them aid when they seem perfectly self sufficient?

They are not. They cannot manufafture anything like the F-16, F-15 or the F-35. (I haven't checked recently-- but in the past, almost all the aid we gave them was military-- not economic)>

Why do they get a pass on nuclear weapons inspections, but Iran doesn't? All of this seems extremely out of whack to me. I would appreciate anyone's help in understanding this. I'm obviously missing something important.

Well, for starters-- we do tend to help our allies militarily. In WWII, rfor example-- we gave quite abit of aid to britain and other allies.

I'm not a historian so I can't really speak to the historical reasons why we've done things in the past, but these days it's nothing more than doing something for the sake of doing it. A Clique of people in the United States -- largely neo-conservative Republicans but certainly not limited to that group -- has succeeded in ruling out of bounds any and all criticism of Israel, period.

Actually, in the recent election, the president the Americans elected was a liberal democrat. And,, in fact, the conservative republicans do not hold a majority in either branch of Congress.

This despite the fact that this group holds views that are largely rejected by American Jews and in some cases even by the Israelis.

That's a good point. President Obama got, overall, abouit 53% of the vote-- but he received about 76% of the Jewish vote.

Interesting trivia-- but why does it matter? (jerws are a relativle small demographic).

The fact is, the American voters rejected these conservative Republican views in the last election-- they Republicans lost not only the presidency, but also both houses of congress. And even with this lack of power-- the party is in disarray-- I believe that ion the past election they even lsot a seat in what was considered a solidly Republican area-- because moderate ansd conservative republicans are at each others throats.

The fact is, the American voters rejected these conservative Republican views in the last election-- they Republicans lost not only the presidency, but also both houses of congress.

While that's true, I'm not talking about conservative Republicans, I'm talking about neo-conservatives.

If you can have a lone terrorist then all the right wing lone gunmen from the last few months are terrorists.

Articles from a right wing rag are worthless. connecting him to a mosque that the hijackers worshiped at, that has a imam that teaches radicalism does not make him a terrorist because he is not a member of a terror group. Holding religious views is NOT sufficient enough to call someone a terrorist.

The fact is, the American voters rejected these conservative Republican views in the last election-- they Republicans lost not only the presidency, but also both houses of congress.

While that's true, I'm not talking about conservative Republicans, I'm talking about neo-conservatives.

the office of the President, the House, and the Senate are all in Democratic hands-- not traditional Republicans, not neo-cons-- but Democrats. The voters put the Democrats in control.

the office of the President, the House, and the Senate are all in Democratic hands-- not traditional Republicans, not neo-cons-- but Democrats. The voters put the Democrats in control.

You don't see to understand what I'm talking about -- this isn't about government, but why the United States has a climate in which Israel cannot be criticized under any circumstances, and who is responsible for creating that climate.

And that would be the neo-cons.

He was not going to fight, he was going to heal. He was not expected to pick up a gun against anyone, he was a candy ass.

I find it interesting how some people feel it necessary to beat their chests like that, to tear down and degrade people as "candy ass", perhaps because they've got no other way to express their feelings or thoughts. Me, I hardly think someone who has been in the military for any length of time is a "candy ass" when they've got the balls to turn their weapon on their own comrades. In its own sick way, I think it takes a @!$%# load of courage to do something like that.

It doesn't justify what he did, or really say anything positive about him. But to pick up a weapon on a military base overflowing with highly trained soldiers -- people just as well trained to kill without mercy the way you were -- with more weapons available than any of us would know what to do with, and then start a firefight?

Many words come to mind, but "candy ass" isn't one of them.

Apparently this one did.

Apparently this one did.

Actually I don't think he did-- as a matter of course.

He purchased it outside the base from a gun store (thiese murders were pre-meditated).

Ah, you can't help but love that great state!

Don't Mess with Texas!

He is active duty military, and as such, is not a subject of the constitution. He is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Constitution applies to everyone, period.

Paul,

Obviously, you have never served in the US military, or you have forgotten what they teach you. You are not subject to criminal process according to the constitution, but acording to the UCMJ. Some constitutional rights are given up, or restricted, and the UCMJ is the governing document. The fact that a person can be found guilty by Court Marshall instead of a jury of his peers is one of those rights.

The constitution applies to everyone except those who are pledged to protect it. Period.

The constitution applies to everyone except those who are pledged to protect it. Period.

Nope, the Constitution applies to every citizen in every case. The UCMJ is merely just another act of Congress, and not one passed as a constitutional amendment. That makes the constitution the higher law of the land, just as it is with every other law that Congress passes.

Military trials are only legal when they provide all necessary protections guaranteed by the constitution, such as the 5th amendment right against self incrimination and the right to face your accusers.

I've never served in the military, but I do know the law and the constitution sir.

Your knowledge of the constitution and the law was never in question.

Your knowledge of the UCMJ and Military law, on the other hand, is something that you might want to read up on.

By the way, the UCMJ would not require a constitutional amendment, as Article I, Section 8, Clause 14, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

Your knowledge of the UCMJ and Military law, on the other hand, is something that you might want to read up on.

Not necessary.

By the way, the UCMJ would not require a constitutional amendment, as Article I, Section 8, Clause 14, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

It wold require an amendment if any law passed is in conflict with another part of the constitution, lest it be struck down. This is where a finer understanding of the constitution comes in handy. Any part of the UCMJ that conflicts with any part of the constitution is unconstitutional.

If you don't believe it, look at Boumediene v. Bush, in which the Supreme Court "ruled 5-4 that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally limited detainee's access to judicial review and that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in conventional civilian courts".

The MCA tried to replace civilian trials and rights under the constitution with lesser substitutes, and the Supreme Court struck it down. That's why the UCMJ doesn't provide lesser alternatives, but full rights under the constitution.

If it didn't, it wouldn't be equally as constitutional.

do we live in a free country where people have rights? Was Hassan not a member of the US military where they have their legal rights guaranteed by the UCMJ?

Why do you hate freedom and laws?

I don't hate freedom and laws-so thanks for that silly remark.

He does have rights-but I think he should be tried within the military, and not a civilan trial. Also, the media is wide-so I don't think moving him if he does have a civilian trial to another area, is going to help.

Don't forget those that he murdered in cold blood also had rights-and they have a right to have their murderer get punished for his crimes.

dreamer

By the lawyer's reasoning he can't get a fair trial anywhere in the U.S. This simple case with dozens of witnesses to the event could drag on for years if the obstructive civilian shysters get involved.

He was and is an active duty soldier who is subject to the UCMJ which means a court martial under military law.

Physically disabled encompasses much. My point is, if Hasan is indeed paralyzed and found guilty, death by lethal injection may be problematic; under those circumstances, cruel and unusual treatment will be undoubtedly raised by those against the death penalty. Me? I have no problem with it.

Russell's murders were in May, 2009, and I don't think there's even a trial date yet? Any news? And the defense has been talking PTS from the onset.

PTS, naturally. Screw that! He needs to be put in front of a firing squad like Hasan!

PTS, naturally. Screw that!

Sure, let's ignore the possibility that the stress of war drove him insane. Let's just pretend that war is awesome like it is on TV.

Well, "we" should leave that to the competent institutions (not that we have a choice anyhow).

And in more general terms - I guess there is little room for interpretation and it will be max sentence - the syringes, that is.

Though, actually, if that guy really is the religious nut the press claims he is (and watch it, that may be bogus), then I wouldn't do him the favor of becomming a martyr. He should actually rot for the next 100 years.

More interestig IMO is though, if there is criminal neglect on the part of anyone else, especially in the military. If true what is said (IF!!!) and there were really indications beforehand, some alarm bell should have sounded. Not only for preventing a potential shooting incident, but also - lets remember - he's a shrink for PTSD soldiers, and there should be some specific concern that such a guy is up to the job. And it definitely doesn't look like he was up to it. He should have known, who should have checked, who should have blown a whistle. Alas, I don't think that this will ever be investigated. And if it will, we won't know the results.

Martin-- I still have you on "ignore".

However, I do agree with most of what you'v said in this comment.

I only read part of the article and a few of the comments so I may be out of synch here.

The man is under arrest, (I assume) for killing 13 people and numerous counts of attempted murder. Put him on trial, select a jury if in civilian court,

He is a soldier-- why would this be tried in a military court?

Religion should not be an issue, that is playing the wrong game. In Mr. Hassans case, I would forgo the death penalty and put him in a small cell for the rest of his life. Death is what he craves. The man definitely deserves no special consideration or treatment.

A lot of Viners have expressed opinion about what they would like to see happen. However, there are established procedures and oenalities which will be followed by the authorities-- regardless of our opinions expressed here .

He is a soldier-- why would this be tried in a military court?

Did you, by chance, mean civilian court? - H²

I only mentioned civilian court because before this is all over, it will likely be turned into some sort of a circus. He should be tried and judged by a military court. Who knows how it will unfold in the end. Given the attention span of the American public it will be forgotten by all but a few in a short time anyway.

You know, I really think this entire debate is academic. This will never reach trial. Nidal Hasan will in all likelihood plead guilty to avoid the death penalty.

I'm not sure I see the point of that, what do they expect him to tell other than a first person account of him killing a bunch of people?

Don't you mean they want him to tell them if he was in a terrorist group, etc?

I also think the death penalty shouldn't be used in this case because he will then be considered a martyr by other radicals

Why should we change our system of justice regardless of what our enemies believe?

My call is military justice and they give him the death penalty.

The most basic question is why a Born in the USA soldier took up our enemy's cause. We also have to decide at what point is agreeing with your enemy's views a difference of opinion and at what point is it treasonous. Is making public statements like Hasan did enough to take action or do you have to wait until acts of violence are in the works?

The most important question is what the government knew about this guy. Why or why not did they take no action against him.