TexasCHLforum.com

What really irks me is that the court is considering allowing Hasan's "defense of others" as his defense.
He specifically states that he was attempting to protect the "leadership of the Taliban".
How in the world can he be allowed to do this while the government of the US declines to recognize this as an act falling under the Global War on Terrorism?

Allowing /= believing

gigag04 wrote:Allowing /= believing

Exactly. In fact, one might even easily believe that the judge rolled his eyes while permitting that defense, knowing full well that it isn't going to go well for Hasan. In fact, Hasan himself will make the case that this was actual terrorism and not mere workplace violence as that tool in the oval office would have us believe.

I say let him try and make his case. When he's finished, the court is going to find him guilty and he's going to get the death penalty.....because HE will have made the argument himself.

Hasan had ONE avenue of escape left to him: an insanity plea. There are too many victims who survived being shot and who have clear memories of him making eye contact with them as he shot them. There are too many other witnesses who were unhurt but saw and heard everything. There is absolutely no doubt that he did the things he did, and even his defense pays heed to the fact that he did the things he did. The only defenses left to him are about his motives: A) I did it because I'm crazy; or B) what I did is entirely justifiable with the "defense of others" argument.

(A) keeps him from getting the needle (or the rope or the firing squad or whatever the military uses these days). (B) is so utterly implausible that it guarantees him the needle.

Give him the needle. It's what he wants.

Execution is too easy of an escape. Life in prison with hard labor and three squares per day consisting of bacon, bacon, and bacon. Pork bacon that is.

As painful as it will be to those, and their families, involved, his expressed motives while conducting his defense will leave no doubt that this was NOT "workplace violence." This should be a great boost to the effort to grant the full benefits and awards deserved by those injured or killed by the "enemy." This man will prove he is the epitome of the enemy.

Just for those that may not know..

Date of last military execution

On April 13, 1961, U.S. Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder. (R. Serrano, "Last Soldier to Die at Levenworth Hanged in an April Storm," Los Angeles Times, 7/12/94).

The death penalty by the U.S. military was reintroduced by the executive order of President Ronald Reagan in 1984.[2]

On July 28, 2008, President George W. Bush approved the execution of United States Army Private Ronald A. Gray, who had been convicted in April 1988 of multiple murders and rapes. A month later, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren set an execution date of December 10, 2008 and ordered that Gray be put to death by lethal injection at the Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute. The military publicly released Gray's execution date on November 20, 2008. On November 26, however, Gray was granted a stay of execution by federal judge Rogers. He has not yet been executed as of 2012

E.Marquez wrote:Just for those that may not know..

Date of last military execution

On April 13, 1961, U.S. Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder. (R. Serrano, "Last Soldier to Die at Levenworth Hanged in an April Storm," Los Angeles Times, 7/12/94).

The death penalty by the U.S. military was reintroduced by the executive order of President Ronald Reagan in 1984.[2]

On July 28, 2008, President George W. Bush approved the execution of United States Army Private Ronald A. Gray, who had been convicted in April 1988 of multiple murders and rapes. A month later, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren set an execution date of December 10, 2008 and ordered that Gray be put to death by lethal injection at the Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute. The military publicly released Gray's execution date on November 20, 2008. On November 26, however, Gray was granted a stay of execution by federal judge Rogers. He has not yet been executed as of 2012

Thank you for the information. So who is this judge Rogers, and on what basis did he stay the execution?

I know you can't predict these things, particularly given the pretenders to governance we suffer under now, but what is your sense about this particular trial and the death penalty?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Thank you for the information. So who is this judge Rogers, and on what basis did he stay the execution?

I know you can't predict these things, particularly given the pretenders to governance we suffer under now, but what is your sense about this particular trial and the death penalty?

TAM... I am not at liberty to discuss my personal opinions or predictions of this case.. My public admission of my rank, duty position, current assignment would lead some to believe I was making an “official statement” to which I most certainly am not authorized to do.. so I will make NO statements that could be misconstrued as such from an official position and opinion. .

http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploa ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That has some additional info on the case of PVT Gray.. but it is slightly dated

Understood. Sorry, I didn't mean to try and put in a bad position.

Firing squad IMO.

Or dismiss the case and turn him free...

gigag04 wrote:Firing squad IMO.

Or dismiss the case and turn him free...

Yeah, on the M1A2 Abrams range, during a live fire exercise...

I think the court will ban the defense of others argument. It is a confession to a crime which would result in the conviction for treason. Note that in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution it says:

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.

There is little doubt that the Taliban is the enemy of the US in a legal sense. It does not require a declared war, just the fact of being the enemy. Defending them by use of violence, or even without violence, would be adhering to the enemy. If he raises this defense during a trial, he has confessed in open court to treason.

Most of the time when I see people yell about treason, such as Obama or Bush doing something, it does not meet the legal definition. Behavior against the best interests of the US is not treason. Even traitorous behavior may not be treason. But defending the Taliban by use of violence is about as clear cut a case of treason as I can think of.

srothstein wrote:I think the court will ban the defense of others argument. It is a confession to a crime which would result in the conviction for treason. Note that in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution it says:

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.

There is little doubt that the Taliban is the enemy of the US in a legal sense. It does not require a declared war, just the fact of being the enemy. Defending them by use of violence, or even without violence, would be adhering to the enemy. If he raises this defense during a trial, he has confessed in open court to treason.

Most of the time when I see people yell about treason, such as Obama or Bush doing something, it does not meet the legal definition. Behavior against the best interests of the US is not treason. Even traitorous behavior may not be treason. But defending the Taliban by use of violence is about as clear cut a case of treason as I can think of.

He can claim he was in defense of civilians not Taliban or Al-Qaeda militants terrorists. That would not put in him in Jeopardy of treason. He would claim, that with "Predator" campaign US was killing civilians as well as Terrorists. He would claim defense of Civilians only.

Beiruty wrote:

srothstein wrote:I think the court will ban the defense of others argument. It is a confession to a crime which would result in the conviction for treason. Note that in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution it says:

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.

There is little doubt that the Taliban is the enemy of the US in a legal sense. It does not require a declared war, just the fact of being the enemy. Defending them by use of violence, or even without violence, would be adhering to the enemy. If he raises this defense during a trial, he has confessed in open court to treason.

Most of the time when I see people yell about treason, such as Obama or Bush doing something, it does not meet the legal definition. Behavior against the best interests of the US is not treason. Even traitorous behavior may not be treason. But defending the Taliban by use of violence is about as clear cut a case of treason as I can think of.

He can claim he was in defense of civilians not Taliban or Al-Qaeda militants terrorists. That would not put in him in Jeopardy of treason. He would claim, that with "Predator" campaign US was killing civilians as well as Terrorists. He would claim defense of Civilians only.

....Except that he has specified the Taliban in his statements....

Furthermore, that logic doesn't hunt anyway. I'm an evangelical Christian. So militant Islamist Muslims in the Sudanese government have been murdering Christian civilians in Darfur for the past 10 years. I cannot murder Muslims here in Texas because Muslims in Darfur are murdering Christians. That's not a valid defense.

The Annoyed Man wrote:...Furthermore, that logic doesn't hunt anyway. I'm an evangelical Christian. So militant Islamist Muslims in the Sudanese government have been murdering Christian civilians in Darfur for the past 10 years. I cannot murder Muslims here in Texas because Muslims in Darfur are murdering Christians. That's not a valid defense.

Exactly.

So this murdering enemy of the state is still drawing pay (okay, he's innocent until proven guilty) and is an officer in the army and he has a beard? A judge ruled he could keep his beard?! Has the world gone completely upside down?