The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Johnny Bravo on November 12, 2009, 09:48:26 AM
-
By ANTHONY SPANGLER
aspangler@star-telegram.com
FORT WORTH — Complicated by a federal investigation into possible terrorist ties and the prospect of mental issues, the prosecution of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will likely be a lengthy and intricate process, military legal experts say.
Hasan has been identified by military officials as the lone suspect in the Fort Hood shootings last week that left 13 dead and more than 30 wounded — the deadliest mass shooting at a U.S. military installation.
A former Army staff judge advocate and military law expert at Texas Tech University suggests that it could take about two years to go to the military equivalent of a trial, depending on the defendant’s health. And the outcome of the case would likely end up mired in complex appeals.
"We never had a case quite like this before . . . because of pretrial publicity, it will create a lot of complications," said Richard Rosen, vice chairman of the university’s law school and former military justice attorney at Fort Hood.
Many factors will make the legal process challenging for prosecutors and defense attorneys: the number of witnesses, whether the actions were related to terrorism, mental capacity and the prospect of the death penalty. What may be the most difficult decision, military legal experts say, is whether the case will be tried at Fort Hood.
The convening authority in the case, which will be one of Hasan’s commanders, could request a change of venue.
Still, Rosen said, Hasan could get a fair trial.
"There could be a lot of prejudice there and, because of the tremendous pretrial publicity, there could be pressure to move the case elsewhere," he said. "But experience has been that military jurors are an independent bunch. The military jurists are smart people. The officers will all be college-educated and people with advanced degrees."
Venue questions
Federal officials have indicated that the case against Hasan would be handled by military justice because the suspect is a service member, the victims are Defense Department employees and the incident occurred at a military installation. It also signals that federal officials will not pursue a terrorism angle, but military legal experts say federal prosecutors could revisit terrorism-related crimes separately.
But if Hasan faces military death-penalty charges, prosecutors will be required to prove premeditation.
Fort Worth attorney Jim Lane, who made headlines three decades ago defending U.S. soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, said many questions swirling in the media about the suspect’s motive may not be answered until the trial.
"It’s not a question of what happened, but the question is why it happened," he said. "It will be a most interesting and provocative defense."
Hasan’s attorney, John Galligan, did not return phone or e-mail messages Tuesday which in part asked whether Hasan has been read his rights or whether he has spoken with investigators. Galligan, a retired colonel hired Monday by Hasan’s family, has asked that federal investigators not interview Hasan because it was unclear whether he had been cleared medically to talk, according to The Associated Press.
-
And the media circus is in town and setting up their tents!
-
What a load of crap. The case is open and shut, A whole room full of people saw him, including 2 police officers who marked him for identification with bullet holes, and removed from his hand a pistol that not only bears his finger prints but also matches the bullets recovered from the scene. Motive and mental state are irrelevancies that in hundreds of cases over the centuries have never been established, and in fact have absolutely no bearing on the fact that he is a mass murderer.
Premeditation ? He cleaned out his apartment the day before and brought 2 guns and ammunition to a "gun free zone" how much more pre planning do they need ?
As to whether he was influenced by others, that is a secondary question which should, but will not, be the subject of a RICO investigation into the mosques and other Muslim groups he was involved with.
A fair trial is one thing, but it is not very likely that he is going to have gall enough to say, "nope, wasn't me, I was in at my mothers house that day."
-
Amen Tom. But the thing is, as long as he stays in custody, they can hang him tommorow or ten years from now. Who cares? The concern is that they dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s so the bastard won't wiggle free on a technicality. To quote a New Englander "The wheels of God grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine". We'll get him, just let him stew.
FQ3
-
Amen Tom. But the thing is, as long as he stays in custody, they can hang him tommorow or ten years from now. Who cares? The concern is that they dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s so the bastard won't wiggle free on a technicality. To quote a New Englander "The wheels of God grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine". We'll get him, just let him stew.
FQ3
The tax payers do!!!
-
The tax payers do!!!
Thats the problem with the death penalty, its expensive. It shouldn't be, but it is. I'm all in favor of one mandatory appeal to make sure the trial was on the level, and then the rope. However that ain't the way things seem to work.
FQ13
-
Maybe I am a little slow, but wouldn't this fit under the definition of treason?
US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Seems to me that the evidence all fits. Where am I wrong?
Rick
West Lafayette, Indiana
-
Welcome Rick! (think of us like an AA meeting, only in reverse.) ;D The thing about treason is that its a very dangerous word. You start throwing it around and before you know it, half this board will be hanged, Tom first. ;) Why bring that kind of heat when you can kill the guy just as dead with multiple first degree murder charges? At least that seems to be the reasoning of prosecutors. If you look back historically, there have been damned few treason charges, even during the Civil War and the Red Scares. Charging someone with a capital crime for disloyalty to the state seems to scare the crap out of everyone, as it should. Why bother, when murder or espionage and the like are on the table? Just my speculation.
FQ13
-
Welcome Rick! (think of us like an AA meeting, only in reverse.) ;D The thing about treason is that its a very dangerous word. You start throwing it around and before you know it, half this board will be hanged, Tom first. ;) Why bring that kind of heat when you can kill the guy just as dead with multiple first degree murder charges? At least that seems to be the reasoning of prosecutors. If you look back historically, there have been damned few treason charges, even during the Civil War and the Red Scares. Charging someone with a capital crime for disloyalty to the state seems to scare the crap out of everyone, as it should. Why bother, when murder or espionage and the like are on the table? Just my speculation.
FQ13
Yes, you are probably right, considering Homeland Security already thinks gun owners are one step away from joining right-wing terrorist camps.
Rick
West Lafayette, Indiana
-
From RACassidy's post;
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
(welcome to the forum ;D )
Yes, shooting 43 unarmed soldiers seems to fill that requirement pretty well, not to mention falling under the heading of a "war crime".
FQ, on this you are again falling into the traps set by your socialist work environment.
First off I would have to say that any one with an IQ above 6 should be able to see that the disregarded warnings of the "Red scares" have pretty much come to pass or been put in motion.
Secondly, your excuse for not raising the TREASON Issue is flat out ignorant. Exterminating the elitist scum who are siezing power is NOT the same as waging war to OVERTURN the Constitution, in fact, not doing so is more in keeping with the "aid and comfort" clause, I never have and never will advocate, or condone violence against ANYONE who is actually trying to UPHOLD the Constitution, I would in fact offer my help.
The reason politicians are afraid to charge any one with treason is because it hits to close to home for them.
A wise man once said "Treason never prospers, for if it DOES prosper, none dare call it treason."
-
"We never had a case quite like this before . . . because of pretrial publicity, it will create a lot of complications," said Richard Rosen, vice chairman of the university’s law school and former military justice attorney at Fort Hood.
Uh, yes we have, I posted the link from 2003, another Hasan threw a grenade into the U.S. barracks in Kuwait. He was convicted and sentenced to death at Ft. Bragg.
He is awaiting his needle at Levinworth.. It was all over the news during the opening week of the war. People just have short memory.
Convict this scumbag, pull the other scumbag out of 3 hots and a cot, line them up and shoot them via firing squad. There will be no shortage of volunteers, and it will save a lot of money for the REAL soldiers.
No need to throw treason out there, it is murder. The Army has it covered in the R&R Manual.
-
you don't need to swing for the fence, 13 1st degree murders , X ammounts of attempted murder and a long list of lesser crimes will still get him the needle.
-
FQ, on this you are again falling into the traps set by your socialist work environment.
From Tom's post (nonsense deleted) ;D.
My point was not there were not and are not traitors. There were, and there are, and they need to be dealt with. My point, Mr. (soon to be doing the Spandau ballet if you don't listen) Bogan, is that once you establish a precedent for prosecuting a nebulous charge like treason, rather than prosecuting its visible fruits, which are not nebulous, like espionage or murder, you have a problem. I am confident that a certain President could make a pretty good case for treason from your posts here alone. The fact is that the problem with treason is the same problem we find with hate crimes. You punish the thought rather than the action. It is obviously an imperfect analogy as there are many otherwise lawful acts that could and should be considered treasonous once the motive was understood (picking a "friend" up at the airport, waiting to see what time an official left work etc.) . The thing is though, it is better from a civil liberties stand point to prosecute these things under conspiracy charges. If the state starts routinely (not just in exceptional cases) prosecuting treason cases, my fear is that it will give whoever is in charge the ability to equate dissent with disloyalty and start throwing folks in jail. We went through this three times before in our history and we've always come back from the brink. I don't want to push our luck.
FQ13
-
From Tom's post (nonsense deleted) ;D.
My point was not there were not and are not traitors. There were, and there are, and they need to be dealt with. My point, Mr. (soon to be doing the Spandau ballet if you don't listen) Bogan, is that once you establish a precedent for prosecuting a nebulous charge like treason, rather than prosecuting its visible fruits, which are not nebulous, like espionage or murder, you have a problem. I am confident that a certain President could make a pretty good case for treason from your posts here alone. The fact is that the problem with treason is the same problem we find with hate crimes. You punish the thought rather than the action. It is obviously an imperfect analogy as there are many otherwise lawful acts that could and should be considered treasonous once the motive was understood (picking a "friend" up at the airport, waiting to see what time an official left work etc.) . The thing is though, it is better from a civil liberties stand point to prosecute these things under conspiracy charges. If the state starts routinely (not just in exceptional cases) prosecuting treason cases, my fear is that it will give whoever is in charge the ability to equate dissent with disloyalty and start throwing folks in jail. We went through this three times before in our history and we've always come back from the brink. I don't want to push our luck.
FQ13
From FQ's post....I'm too damn tired to delete the nonsense. ;D
So am I to understand that you are against the charge of treason for pragmatic reasons? I can agree with you on the "slippery slope" assertion. In addition, if by some miracle, this asshat gets acquitted on the murder charges (13 premeditated murder charges filed today), they can at that point go back and charge him with treason, without violating his double jeopardy protection, and STILL have the opportunity to toast his ass.
I propose that for the execution they hold a lottery. $100 buys a ticket, and the winner gets to flip the switch. Hell, I'd pay $100 for that opportunity.
-
tt11758
My only objection to a treason charge is pragmatic. It is unecessary to off this guy since he's facing 13 counts of murder which should be more than sufficient if the prosecuter is halfway competant and shows up to court sober. My objection to treason is that it does take one step closer to the slippery slope and there is no need to go there. Dead is dead. I am in complete agreement withyour lottery idea, the money going to the victims, I'll buy a tickey.
FQ13
-
tt11758
My only objection to a treason charge is pragmatic. It is unecessary to off this guy since he's facing 13 counts of murder which should be more than sufficient if the prosecuter is halfway competant and shows up to court sober. My objection to treason is that it does take one step closer to the slippery slope and there is no need to go there. Dead is dead. I am in complete agreement withyour lottery idea, the money going to the victims, I'll buy a tickey.
FQ13
You and I agree. The end of the world can't be far off. ;D
-
Charge and try him which ever way will get his terrorist ass dead the quickest.
-
Charge and try him which ever way will get his terrorist ass dead the quickest.
Comment of the day!
FQ13 who has no trophy, but I mean well ;D
-
I posted earlier but for some reason it just, disappeared ???
Any way the gist of what I said was that the murder charges are better because treason has not resulted in a death penalty since WWI or earlier.
Tokyo Rose got 29 years for making Japanese propaganda broadcasts, James Joyce (Lord Haw Haw ) and Axis Sally were both imprisoned for broadcasting from Germany (they were English).
-
True. Even the Rosenbergs were executed for espionage, not treason. Just like Hassan, there was no need to. Lesser charges would serve the same end, and be tried on facts, not intent. The treason laws are a good weapon to have, but its best to leave them in the holster if other means are available.
FQ13
-
Charge and try him which ever way will get his terrorist ass dead the quickest.
I'm with you Peg. The quickest and the cheapest or the quickest is the cheapest! (http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac157/johnnybravo7/smileys/smiley_emoticons_hangman.gif)
The sooner the better ! It kills me to think of what the families are going through.
-
I have a somewhat different opinion than a lot of folks on this type of stuff.
First, I think that we should enact laws that allow for "cruel and unusual punishment" for crimes of terrorism in which someone is killed. Take the gloves off and make these guys really pay. For instance, Hasan could be set up in stocks at Ft Hood with a 2x4 next to him and anyone who is pissed can come by and take a whack. What the hell? Make them understand that they get the WORST punishment for these kinds of crimes.
Second and MORE IMPORTANT I don't believe that Hasan should get the death penalty. Yep, you heard it here. These asshats don't mind dying because they get their 70 virgins, etc. I'm sure if he is put to death he still qualifies for martyrdom, and gets his virgins and all, so he really doesn't care. I say we sentence him to life without parole and keep him alive as long as possible, feed him some bacon, and make him watch Debbie does Dallas everyday. All while he is allowed two visitors each day- volunteer relatives of those he killed or injured. They each get a 15 second visit with Hasan and the 2x4.
-
Feelin' ornery today, Jay?
;D
-
I have a somewhat different opinion than a lot of folks on this type of stuff.
First, I think that we should enact laws that allow for "cruel and unusual punishment" for crimes of terrorism in which someone is killed. Take the gloves off and make these guys really pay. For instance, Hasan could be set up in stocks at Ft Hood with a 2x4 next to him and anyone who is pissed can come by and take a whack. What the hell? Make them understand that they get the WORST punishment for these kinds of crimes.
Second and MORE IMPORTANT I don't believe that Hasan should get the death penalty. Yep, you heard it here. These asshats don't mind dying because they get their 70 virgins, etc. I'm sure if he is put to death he still qualifies for martyrdom, and gets his virgins and all, so he really doesn't care. I say we sentence him to life without parole and keep him alive as long as possible, feed him some bacon, and make him watch Debbie does Dallas everyday. All while he is allowed two visitors each day- volunteer relatives of those he killed or injured. They each get a 15 second visit with Hasan and the 2x4.
Works for me.
-
Putting him in with the general population (especially at Ft. Leavenworth) would save the tax payers a lot of money.
-
Feelin' ornery today, Jay?
;D
I'm working on a distribution deal for 2x4s.
-
I'm working on a distribution deal for 2x4s.
Plenty of targets if you can get the sport legal. ;)
-
Plenty of targets if you can get the sport legal. ;)
+1 That's why I like you Haz. You are always so optomistic.