Jump to content

Fort Hood shooting trial: 5 things you need to know...


Numbers

Fort Hood Shooting...  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. If found guilty what should happen ?

    • Life Imprisonment no parole
    • Life Imprisonment with possiblity of parole
      0
    • Execution (Lethal Injection - Military and Texas)
    • Other - please specify
    • Give him his gun back and make him block captain...


Recommended Posts

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57596935/fort-hood-shooting-trial-5-things-you-need-to-know/

 

Fort Hood shooting trial: 5 things you need to know

The trial of Major Nidal Hasan begins Tuesday, nearly four years after the horrific shooting at the Ft. Hood Army base. Hasan's 2009 shooting rampage left 13 dead and more than 30 others wounded. The court-martial proceeding has been authorized to consider the death penalty as punishment.

Here are five things you need to know about the trial:

How is this trial different from a civilian trial?

Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. He faces a panel of 13 senior Army officers -- including nine colonels, three lieutenant colonels and one major -- who will hear evidence and render a verdict in the case. The panel consists of two women and 11 men, with the highest ranking officer being a female colonel who will act as the president of the panel. The panel must unanimously convict Hasan of murder in order to sentence him to death, but even a unanimous death penalty conviction would likely face years, if not decades, of appeals.

Why did it take so long for this trial to begin?

While charges were filed in this case just days after the shooting, the proceedings have been delayed for almost four years by pre-trial motions, changes in defense counsel, and a six-month-long controversy about Hasan's right to appear in court with a beard, in violation of proper military grooming standards.

The judge in the case was also replaced halfway through the proceedings. On December 3, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ordered the removal of Col. Gregory Gross. He was removed due to the "appearance of bias": A court ruled that a reasonable person "would harbor doubts about the military judge's impartiality."A new judge, Col. Tara Osborn, was appointed the following day to preside over the trial. Judge Osborn is a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer, who has served in the Active Duty Army since 1988.

Why is Hasan defending himself?

After dismissing multiple defense attorneys, Hasan requested to waive his right to counsel and represent himself. At a pre-trial hearing on May 29, 2013, Judge Osborn noted that, "[A] prior inquiry into Hasan's mental health indicated that he had the mental capacity to conduct and assist in his own defense." However, Hasan was injured during the shooting and has since been confined to a wheelchair, so the judge ordered a medical exam to assess his physical ability to conduct his own defense.

After hearing testimony from an Army physician on Hasan's ability to handle the physical a stain of representing himself at trial, Judge Osborn ruled that Hasan could represent himself. Over objections from Hasan, the judge ruled that he will have stand-by counsel on hand throughout the trial. Lt. Col. Kris Poppe and Major Joseph Marcee will sit at the defense table, and Lt. Col. Christopher Martin will remain in the gallery.

What is his defense?

Hasan argues that he was acting in defense of others when he went on a shooting rampage in November 2009. He argues that he sought to protect the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the leadership of the Taliban, including Mullah Mohammad Omar. Judge Osborn has rejected Hasan's defense, stating that there was no "evidence to support an immediate threat by anyone at Fort Hood to anyone in Afghanistan." She also held that, as a uniformed Solider in the U.S. Army, Hasan had no justification to kill other U.S. Soldiers, and therefore Hasan will not be allowed to present that defense at trial.

Even if he is convicted and sentenced to death, what are the odds Hasan would ever be executed?

It has been more than 50 years since the U.S. military executed a U.S. service member. Army Private First Class John A. Bennett was the last service member to be put to death, on April 13, 1961 after being convicted of the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old girl.

In 1983, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals ruled that military capital punishment was unconstitutional, but it was reinstated in 1984 when President Reagan signed an executive order adopting new rules for capital courts-martials. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, there have been 16 military death penalty convictions since 1984, but 11 of those sentences have been overturned. The remaining five service members remain on death row.

 

 

Notes:  For those that are interested here is information on the last American Service member sentenced to death and carried out.  I am refraining from the vote.  My sister who was in the Army and living outside Fort Hood, lost her friend she worked with so my bias would be obvious.  The subject of military execution does bring up larger questions as one does a little research.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Bennett

 

John Arthur Bennett

Born:  April 10, 1935
Virginia, U.S.

Died:  April 13, 1961 (aged 26)
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, U.S.

Service/branch:  United States Army

Years of service:  1953-1955

Rank:  Private First Class

John Arthur Bennett (April 10, 1935 – April 13, 1961) was a United States Army soldier who was convicted and executed for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl.[1] He is the last person to have been executed by the U.S. military.[2]

Bennett was born in Virginia to a family of African American sharecroppers. He was epileptic, but managed to enlist in the U.S. Army when he was 18.[1] Days before Christmas 1954,[2] a heavily intoxicated Bennett left his base to find a brothel, but chanced upon an 11-year-old Austrian girl.[1] He raped her, and then attempted to drown her in a nearby stream.[1] He was convicted by a court-martial one month later and sentenced to death.[1] President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Bennett's death warrant.[2] Days before Bennett's scheduled execution four years later, the girl and her parents wrote to President John F. Kennedy, asking that Bennett's life be spared. Kennedy took no action on the appeals, letting his predecessor's death warrant stand.[1] Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in 1961.[1]

 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/10/magazine/tm-18406

 

Pvt. John Bennett Is the Only U.S. Soldier Executed for Rape in Peacetime.

 

He Was Mentally Troubled and Black. Six White Murderers Were Also on Military Death Row. They Were Spared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is lifetime with hard labor (no parole) an option?  I think the military still does hard labor.  If so, I think that is worse than lethal injection (or whatever method they will use).  Everyone dies, the question is, how long does it take, and how much do they suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still shocked that Lieberman called it "the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11" and yet somehow the current administration has finagled a way to describe it as a "workplace accident" or whatever the fuck they are calling it, no doubt to pad Obama's "record" of being "tough on terror". I don't get it and apparently this change in classification affects the victims and their families in terms of whatever benefits they qualify for. Which makes me unsure as almost all of the victims were active duty military, which means they would have health and whatever benefits anyway. If someone could shed some light on this part of the issue I'd be glad to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is lifetime with hard labor (no parole) an option?  I think the military still does hard labor.  If so, I think that is worse than lethal injection (or whatever method they will use).  Everyone dies, the question is, how long does it take, and how much do they suffer.

He is paralyzed from the waist down. Hard labor isn't an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still shocked that Lieberman called it "the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11" and yet somehow the current administration has finagled a way to describe it as a "workplace accident" or whatever the fuck they are calling it, no doubt to pad Obama's "record" of being "tough on terror". I don't get it and apparently this change in classification affects the victims and their families in terms of whatever benefits they qualify for. Which makes me unsure as almost all of the victims were active duty military, which means they would have health and whatever benefits anyway. If someone could shed some light on this part of the issue I'd be glad to read it.

Wat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is lifetime with hard labor (no parole) an option?  I think the military still does hard labor.  If so, I think that is worse than lethal injection (or whatever method they will use).  Everyone dies, the question is, how long does it take, and how much do they suffer.

 

I am not an expert and if I was still in I would call the lawyer who handled these matters for a personal discussion.  Most of them I worked with enjoyed answering questions like this that required no effort.  However, since I am no longer afforded that easy way out, I will try and give the best explanation I can.

 

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf

 

According to the MCM (Manual for Court Martials) 2012, Section 918.  Article 118. Murder.  According to Fort Hood press releases he is being charged with Article 118 premeditated murder by a General Court Martial (not a special).  http://www.forthoodpresscenter.com/go/doc/3439/1229091/

 

According to the MCM, A commissioned or warrant officer or a cadet or midshipman may not be sentenced to hard labor without confinement.  In other words, he will never receive hard labor (not because he is in a wheelchair but because he was an officer).  If he was an enlisted soldier (sailor, airman, marine, etc...) he could be assigned hard labor but not for life.  There is a limiting factor on amount of hard labor (can't tell for sure but the MCM does say "no more than 3 months."  However, I believe there is a standard rule of thumb that there is a possibility for changing certain things and do not know if this is one of them).

 

Since the press release from Fort Hood said on "Nov. 12, 2009 -- Initial Charges Filed. The initial charge filed against Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan alleged 13 specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice", and they were seeking the death penalty.  Therefore the possible penalties he is looking at are the following;

 

Article 118(1) or (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Death, mandatory minimum life with parole, DD, BCD Life4 Total

 

Death:  self explanatory (Lethal Injection)

Life with parole (at a bare minimum he will get this)

DD:  Really don't believe this is even an option but DD stands for dishonorable discharge.  Kind of like a kick in the ribs but you live free out of jail with simply a stain on your record that prevents you from ever doing certain things (like having a government job, etc...  Not sure what else right now)

BCD:  Big Chicken Dinner (what we jokingly referred to it as) is a bad conduct discharge.  Kind of like a smaller stain than a DD.

Life4:  Life with or without eligibility for parole.

 

Note 1:  Please excuse my definitions above for DD and BCD.  Not going to do the research necessary to find out what they mean by todays standards because there is not a snowball chance in hell of him getting one of those.  I believe the mere fact it was a premeditated act of murder he only has two options;  death or imprisonment for life (with or without parole).

 

Note 2:  All of the above info comes directly or paraphrased from the two links posted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still shocked that Lieberman called it "the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11" and yet somehow the current administration has finagled a way to describe it as a "workplace accident" or whatever the fuck they are calling it, no doubt to pad Obama's "record" of being "tough on terror". I don't get it and apparently this change in classification affects the victims and their families in terms of whatever benefits they qualify for. Which makes me unsure as almost all of the victims were active duty military, which means they would have health and whatever benefits anyway. If someone could shed some light on this part of the issue I'd be glad to read it.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f

 

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; 

 

It was labeled "workplace violence" not workplace accident.  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/07/let-get-real-call-hasan-ft-hood-attack-by-it-true-name/

 

In the very same article quoted above it states;

 

Although President Obama called the shooting “violent jihad” last May, the army’s “workplace” designation remains.

 

In other words, it is not the Obama administration specifically but the Army (Defense Department) which seems to be having problems with the designation.  Yes, I am aware of who the defense department takes its marching orders from but do not see it that way in this case.  What I do see is military families getting the shaft because of the Defense Department's naming of this as an act of workplace violence and not as an act of terrorism as it should be.  Add in the fact in the same article it mentions we the tax payers have paid this murderer over 300,000 dollars to date and the fuel is added to the fire.

 

Not sure why he doesn't step in and set the Defense Department straight on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

 

According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform.[28] These soldiers were not allowed to carry personal firearms on the base due to military policy.[29] At one point, Hasan reportedly approached a group of five civilians hiding under a desk.[30] He looked at them, swept the dot of his pistol's laser sight over one of the men's faces, and turned away without firing.[30]

 

Civilian physician assistant Michael Cahill also tried to charge Hasan with a chair, but was shot and killed.[26]

 

Representative John Carter introduced legislation to change the shooting designation from "workplace violence" to "combat related" which would make the victims of the shooting eligible to receive full benefits and the Purple Heart.[52]

 

...was arraigned by a military court on July 20, 2011 and was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder

 

The incident, which lasted about 10 minutes,[40] resulted in 14 killed—12 soldiers and two civilians; 12 died at the scene, and two died later in a hospital; and 30 people wounded.[41][42]

 

Note:  The only civilian I can see was Cahill who charged Hasan.  However, if the article is considering the unborn baby as a civilian then 14.  However, he was only charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder.

 

http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=terrorist+victim&f=treesort&fq=true&num=30&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title26-section692

 

2201. Combat zone-related deaths of members of the Armed Forces, deaths of astronauts, and deaths of victims of certain terrorist attacks
(a) In general
Unless the executor elects not to have this section apply, in applying sections 2001 and 2101 to the estate of a qualified decedent, the rate schedule set forth in subsection (c) shall be deemed to be the rate schedule set forth in section 2001(c).

(Qualified decedent
For purposes of this section, the term “qualified decedent” means-

(1) any citizen or resident of the United States dying while in active service of the Armed Forces of the United States, if such decedent-

(A) was killed in action while serving in a combat zone, as determined under section 112(c), or

( died as a result of wounds, disease, or injury suffered while serving in a combat zone (as determined under section 112(c)), and while in the line of duty, by reason of a hazard to which such decedent was subjected as an incident of such service,

(2) any specified terrorist victim (as defined in section 692(d)(4))

 

http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=terrorist+victim&f=treesort&fq=true&num=30&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title26-section692

 

(4) Specified terrorist victim
For purposes of this subsection, the term “specified terrorist victim” means any decedent-

(A) who dies as a result of wounds or injury incurred as a result of the terrorist attacks against the United States on April 19, 1995, or September 11, 2001, or

( who dies as a result of illness incurred as a result of an attack involving anthrax occurring on or after September 11, 2001, and before January 1, 2002.

Such term shall not include any individual identified by the Attorney General to have been a participant or conspirator in any such attack or a representative of such an individual.

 

In not so many words, the victims at Fort Hood do not fit the definition of terrorism related.  Nor do they fit the definition of combat zone.  Hasan specifically targeted military/military employed people.  If this is simply a hang-up over words, I will be upset because (read above quote) victims of 9 / 11 and anthrax attacks (civilian and military) were given the consideration of being labeled terrorist acts, even those that were specifically targeted at the Pentagon.  To date, there has not been a clear reasoning for the "label" placed on the incident at Fort Hood.

 

I am stepping off my soap box as I have allowed my bias to cloud my vision again.  Peace and happiness to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...