Pentagon hides behind 6th Amendment in Hasan case
We talked the other day about the 160 victims of Nidal Hasan in the Fort Hood murders of 14 people who’ve banded together to fight against the Pentagon’s reticence to label the attack as terror, preferring the completely ridiculous “workplace violence” as if Nasan was a disgruntled employee instead of a jihadist who sought the counsel of a fellow traveler halfway around the world. Today, the Pentagon tells the Washington Times that they won’t change their classification of the attack because they’re worried about whether or not Hasan would get a fair trial with an impartial jury if they called it terrorism;
“The Department of Defense is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nadal Hassan and for that reason will not further characterize, at this time, the incident that occurred at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said in the statement. “Major Hassan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, and 32 counts of attempted murder. As with all pending UCMJ matters, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”
I don’t understand that answer. Whether it was terrorism or not, it doesn’t change the facts of the case. Why would a jury be more likely to be prejudiced against Hasan if his murder of 14 people were called terrorism?
But Mark Zaid, a national security law expert who sued Libya for the 1988 terrorism bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, said he doubted the government’s hesitancy to designate the Fort Hood assault terrorism was really motivated by concern about prejudicing his trial.
“I find that a little difficult to believe,” he said. “If that was the case, than how in the world would the Pentagon prosecute any terrorism case? There is a process in any case — whether military or civilian — to deal with any potential bias of a juror. It’s a fundamental part of the judicial system to ensure that juries are impartial.”
When presenting its case against Maj. Hasan, prosecutors will undoubtedly point to email chains between the defendant and al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, Mr. Zaid noted.
“There’s clearly going to be terrorist angles in the process,” he said. “And calling it terror is not going to change the nature of the incident or the [jurors’] knowledge about it.”
It’s a continuing pattern from this administration who doesn’t want to admit to the fact that there’s a war going on in this country under their watch and they think that by mincing words, we’ll believe it. In the meantime, there are soldiers who are being cheated out of the status and medical treatment they deserve, screwed by geography and political cowardice.
Category: Big Army, Terror War
I talked about this a few years ago with regards to them awarding purple hearts in this issue as well. If they declare it terrorism, it gives Hasan an automatic appeal on the basis of “Command Influence.” So, the Pentagon can’t call it Terrorism without jeopardizing the case and landing it on appeal. It’s a totally screwed proposition all around.
Also, Zaid’s comment doesn’t really make sense. All other Terrorism cases the defendant is a) not a US Military member and b) actually charged with a terrorism related charge.
Funny but I know lots of civilian jails require grooming standards even in pretrial confinement and religious preference be damned. Why pussyfoot around anymore?
Seems to me they’re worried about pretrial publicity prejudicial to the prospective jury, Jonn. As I recall that’s gotten a number of otherwise “dead-to-rights guilty” murderers off in the past.
I personally don’t care what it’s called prior to trial. He can’t get any worse sentence than he’s facing now if they change the charges.
Justice grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly fine. Let Hasan rot slowly in jail, sitting daily in his own filth, while the process plays out by the book. I’m fine with that.
Then, when the process has run it’s course, wheel him into the chamber at Leavenworth. And send him – coldly, quietly, and with by-the-numbers military precision – to meet Shaytan.
And the reason the prosecution’s witness list includes one Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert who has testified in 26 Federal and foreign terrorism cases is what?
TSO, I’m no legal expert, but can they decide it was terrorism after execution and then retroactivly award the victims Purple Hearts?
My contention is that the prosecution does regard the slaughter as terrorism but it appears that The Bastard with the Beard would have to be prosecuted under Federal law, not the UCMJ, to be properly charged with terrorism. The not-calling-it-terrorism openly is a political, not a legal, angle.
I do believe you’re correct, 2-17 AirCav. I just checked the online text of the UCMJ posted at Air University ( http://www.au.af.mil/AU/AWC/AWCGATE/ucmj.htm ), and there doesn’t seem to be a defined offense relating to terrorism. Multiple counts of premeditated murder, plus related charges, seems to be the worst he can face under the UCMJ.
‘Course, under the UCMJ that also carries the death penalty as a possible sentence. So IMO it doesn’t really matter all that much. They can always declare the SOB a terrorist and his actions terrorism after he’s been convicted.
However, with it only labeled “workplace violence” those soldiers who were forced to medically retire won’t get the benefits they need. So, in the end, it is about the government saving money and burying their head in the sand.
I miss the Army but some days I am glad that I am out.
If they labeled it ‘terrorism’, they’d have to concede that the war zone is literally everywhere, and then they’d have to justify why we aren’t all armed 24/365. FSM forbid that out “Armed Forces” actually be.. you know… ARMED.
Fucking candy-asses.
@11
If they labeled it terrorism, they’d have to admit the line Obama’s been spouting about AlQ being on the run is utter horseshit.
It’s all exceedingly frustrating for all of us. But, I get that the prosecution should indeed be looking for those charges which are easiest to successfully prosecute even if it is not entirely satisfying. Yes, we all know that this clown is a terrorist. A simple murder charge surely must be easier to prosecute.
Could the prosecution introduce terrorism as motivation for the murders? Might that be an easier way to get to his dealth penalty? Charge is murder. Then, although supplying a motive may or may not be legally required, it sure helps in securing a guilty verdict.
If they call it Terrorism, Obama can not claim the have prevented a major terror attack on US soil, which is a win for Bush-Cheney.
Thing is: the administration and its surrogates in the Pentagon haven’t shown any respect toward the law, often exceeding the boundaries by ignoring it or by being exceedingly ruthless (there’s no such thing as a whistleblower anymore, if anyone’s paying attention).
The idea that calling it terrorism gives Hasan a chance to escape DB is lawyer kabuki. Justice is too important to be left to lawyers.
TSO, let me clarify for you so that my comments might make more sense to you. I was informed by the reporter that the Pentagon had declined to designate the incident a terrorist attack as requested by some of the victims and their families. Doing so would trigger certain awards, designations and possible benefits for the victims. The stated rationale was that such a designation would unduly prejudice a fair trial for Maj Hasan. I responded that any such concern could easily be dealt with during voir dire of the prospective jurors and that if this was a legitimate concern than no terrorist could ever be tried in an American court of law, which obviously is not the case.