Soldier deletes video of Hasan shooting spree
DefendUSA sends us a link to an article in the Associated Press that reports that one soldier testified that he was ordered by his NCO to delete the video on his cell phone of Nidal Hasan on his shooting spree.
Under cross examination, Pfc. Lance Aviles told an Article 32 hearing that his noncommissioned officer ordered him to destroy the two videos on Nov. 5, the same day that a gunman unleashed a volley of bullets inside a processing center at the Texas Army post.
The footage could have been vital evidence at the military hearing to decide if Maj. Nidal Hasan should stand trial in the shootings.
No, I don’t blame the NCO for doing what he probably thought was right at the time. We already know that the Army began this whole thing by telling us Hasan was dead. I don’t know why they did it, and I won’t speculate, but the young NCO’s thoughts were probably running along the same track. I’m sure that if the Army really wanted the video to convict Hasan, they could get it from Aviles’ phone. We all know that nothing is really deleted if the authorities really want it.
I’ve noticed that a couple of the victims from that are deployed despite this act of terrorism;
A defense lawyer asked [Spc. Megan] Martin if the tragedy could have prevented her from deploying to a combat zone.
“I did not want to be removed from deployment. I wanted to carry on with the mission, sir, as my fallen soldiers would want me to.”
Hoo-ah! Terrorism doesn’t work on those closest to the fight.
Category: Terror War
Okay, your head is cooler than mine. I agree, he probably did what he thought was right, but it still makes me angry because it is not decided whether he will be tried as a terrorist or even get the death penalty. I thought that’s what all terrorists wanted? You know to meet the 72 virgins?
Bullshit…any NCO with an ounce of sense would know that CID or any law enforcement agency would want to see that. Granted, he probably wanted to ensure the young troop didn’t send it to CNN first, but still, bad move.
Very bad move. It boggles the mind that any NCO or soldier would think deleting evidence would be a good idea. And yeah, if that phone is intact, the video is recoverable. But Jonn, please don’t start your conspiracy theory stuff again. Seriously, man.
It was a bad call, but more importantly, does that NCO even have the right to make that order? Can an NCO or Officer tell you to delete something off of your personal belongings such as a cell phone? I’ll have to call my lawyer and ask him.
Casey,
Legally an NCO or Officer cannot order someone to delete something if it is evidence of a crime. However, they can order them not to post the item or send it out if it is sensitive or criminal in nature.
There were times as a Company Commander that I had a sit down with some of my Soldiers to discuss items that they posted on their social media pages. Nothing that was posted was technically illegal or OPSEC but I talked with them about the message they were posting and its effects on the Army or themselves. In most cases I was able to reason with them and get them to understand the implications of their post and they took them down on their own accord.
In this case I personally believe that the NCO was trying to do the right thing but implemented it incorrectly. He should have ordered the Soldier not to post the videos and then found out what should have been done with them (turned over to COC or investigators).
Now I’m no attorney, but my immediate knee-jerk reaction is that such an act would be obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and punishable by the UCMJ. But, of course, I’m not an attorney.
Destroying evidence of a crime is ILLEGAL = this was an illegal order. Army training teaches members to refuse when an order is illegal.
You guys are circling the wagons against ‘outsiders’ rather than address public opinion; the issue is RULE OF LAW w/in mil justice. This case and others will result in loss of the broad public support and TRUST you now enjoy. Civilians will be effected and will affect the future incl recruitment, procurement, deployment. Do not squander your public trust as has Congress.
c1,
So public opinion is that this NCO purposely and maliciously destroyed evidence to hide a crime? The Soldier should be punished for obeying an order from an NCO that turns out to be illegal?
This fact is being brought up in an Article 32 hearing. Therefore, military justice is investigating and will make a decision on what action to take in the Article 32 findings.
We are not saying the NCO is not culpable, just that he made a mistake in his decision.
What Daniel said.
Daniel, you are right about the uploading issue. However, what I’ve found is that so many leaders don’t know what can and can not been put online.
Now, as evidence, yeah, this NCO made a bad call.
At first thought, I wondered if the NCO was Muslim and wanted the video destroyed to protect Hasan.
On second thought, though, I wondered if the NCO wanted the video destroyed so that it couldn’t somehow later fall into the wrong hands and be used later as Islamic terrorist recruiting video. Just imagine the joy Islamic terrorists would get with putting up a video of one of their own infiltrating a United States military base and shooting up ‘infidels’.
be, not been. Typo on my part.
I don’t know if they could recover the data. When you “delete” something, the space is usually just marked as available. The data is still there and can be recovered until it is written over by something new. Since it has been several months, I don’t see how it could still be there. It might be worth a shot, but I wouldn’t hope for much.
One angle I haven’t seen considered here is that the NCO told the PFC to erase the data to protect the PFC. We know al Qaeda uses video of attacks as propaganda footage, so maybe the only thing the NCO had in his head is, “This shit is going to end up being on terrorist recruiting videos.” That seems like it may be likely, especially if he believed the shooter was dead. The last thing you want is public footage of a martyr mowing down service members.
It could be a case of “good initiative, bad judgement.”
Shit, I just saw Michael in MI beat me to the punch. Great minds think alike. lol
I’m siding with Debra. It was evidence that needed to be preserved and the NCO in question should have realized that even though it can still be retrieved.
The more I think about it, the more I can imagine that the NCO was likely reacting from his gut based on knowing how soldiers have gotten themselves into trouble in the past with their own videos, or perhaps he had gotten to thinking along the lines of that the soldier had violated something by taking the video and failed to recognize what would be logical to someone like myself – that the video is critical evidence and should immediately be turned over to investigators. It’s not clear thinking from a more removed perspective, of course, but considering the stresses that our soldiers are under anyway due to the wars, and then an extreme stressor like this whole shooting situation, perhaps it’s not unreasonable to argue this as a mistake made by the NCO because of the stress of the situation. In my opinion, it was a wrong decision, I would think certainly an unlawful decision, and an all around very bad decision, but that’s not to say there can’t still be a rational explanation for an otherwise moral person to have made such a decision under these particular circumstances.
Of course, all of the above is really just speculation. The NCO himself is the only one who can explain the reasons for his actions.
When you factor in that it was being reported that he was dead, the likelihood that the NCO was probably thinking more about his soldier’s well-being than the video acting as evidence for a trial makes more sense.
Perhaps, but an investigation would still have to be done and the video would still be needed for it.
Question, was there another article because the one linked said…
Lance Aviles said he used his cell phone to record the rampage inside the processing center but was ordered by an officer to delete both videos later the same day.
Why are we talking about an NCO?
“DefendUSA sends us a link to an article in the Associated Press that reports that one soldier testified that he was ordered by his NCO to delete the video on his cell phone of Nidal Hasan on his shooting spree.”
???
Probably it was because it was written by a civilian reporter who doesn’t know the difference between a commissioned officer and a non-commissioned officer, hence, the word “officer” becomes a one-size fits all.
Yeah, the headline says “Officer” but in the first paragraph that I’ve quoted above says “noncommissioned officer”.Blame it on the editor who wrote the headline – which has since changed.