PDA

View Full Version : Hassan the Terrorist is CONVICTED



imported_WILDJOKER5
08-23-2013, 06:50 PM
I think firing squad is poetic justice.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/23/nidal-hasan-guilty-of-all-charges-in-fort-hood-shooting/

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 06:55 PM
Sure.....until you factor in that the last military member actually executed by the militay was in 1961....

Greg
08-23-2013, 07:05 PM
Let 'em rot in a cell, with nothing but a prayer rug. Treat every month as Ramadan, only one meal in the evening.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-23-2013, 07:14 PM
Sure.....until you factor in that the last military member actually executed by the militay was in 1961....

And there are what, 3 on death row for crimes in the military?

garhkal
08-23-2013, 07:45 PM
While i do feel its about time they found him guilty, i am surprised all those upper echelon supervisors who continually 'turned a blind eye/advanced him in rank etc' have yet to be punished for anything.
As for what to do with hassan. I say break his limbs and put him in a pig pen to get eaten!

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 08:06 PM
And there are what, 3 on death row for crimes in the military?

Right now? Five. Three have appeals pending and two have exhausted all appeals (as of 2009). Total of 15 have been sentenced to death since the gov brought back the military death penalty option in '84. 2x the sentence was commuted, 8x the conviction was reversed, 5 sit on death row....

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

Class5Kayaker
08-23-2013, 08:52 PM
Right now? Five. Three have appeals pending and two have exhausted all appeals (as of 2009). Total of 15 have been sentenced to death since the gov brought back the military death penalty option in '84. 2x the sentence was commuted, 8x the conviction was reversed, 5 sit on death row....

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

Actually it's 4 now. On Aug. 9, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 3-2 to throw out the death sentence against former SrA Andrew Witt because the defense had overlooked key evidence that could have persuaded jurors to sentence Witt to life rather than death. The court ordered the case sent back to the convening authority and authorized a new sentencing hearing.

There was an article in the AF Times recently. It's online, but restricted to subscribers (give it about a week and it'll be open to all)

Edit. I just checked your source. If you dig farther to HERE (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org//description-cases-those-sentenced-death-us-military-0) they have a note about Witt's overturn. Not sure why they still have him on the list of five. My understanding is he would be taken off death row even if the Military challenges the appeal to a higher court, until a higher court rules if he should go back on death row.

efmbman
08-23-2013, 10:52 PM
We have not seen the last of the Ft Hood shooter. I think that any rational appellate judge will look at this trial and clearly see that he should not have been allowed to act as his own lawyer. His actions as his lawyer are enough to warrant a new trial... and I am fairly certain he knows that.

garhkal
08-24-2013, 03:25 AM
Right now? Five. Three have appeals pending and two have exhausted all appeals (as of 2009). Total of 15 have been sentenced to death since the gov brought back the military death penalty option in '84. 2x the sentence was commuted, 8x the conviction was reversed, 5 sit on death row....

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

How many appeals do they get?




We have not seen the last of the Ft Hood shooter. I think that any rational appellate judge will look at this trial and clearly see that he should not have been allowed to act as his own lawyer. His actions as his lawyer are enough to warrant a new trial... and I am fairly certain he knows that.



Maybe that's WHY he defended himself, didn't call any witnesses etc.. Cause he was WANTING to get found guilty, so he could appeal it based on shoddy defense.

efmbman
08-24-2013, 12:52 PM
Maybe that's WHY he defended himself, didn't call any witnesses etc.. Cause he was WANTING to get found guilty, so he could appeal it based on shoddy defense.

I think that is exactly why. And since there were so many eyes on this (politics) the trial judge was probably pressured to let him be his own lawyer despite her better judgement. After all, they spent a year just trying to determine if an AD Army Officer should be allowed to grow a beard despite a regulation which already states he cannot.

bombsquadron6
08-24-2013, 07:20 PM
One point that seems to be missing here is this Islamic terrorist slimebucket WANTS to be executed. This will make him a martyr to other Islamic terrorists. It would actually be counterproductive to kill the guy, as gratifying as it would be to us. Letting him rot in a cell, perhaps near Manning who is now a "female" would be more appropriate. Please don't give him what he wants. Living in obscurity in prison is much more effective.

garhkal
08-24-2013, 08:06 PM
I disagree with that. Just cause he wants to be martyered, is no excuse for NOT executing him.

bombsquadron6
08-24-2013, 08:21 PM
I agree with you in that he should be executed and I want him killed too, preferably slowly and painfully. But this is where the thorny part is. His creepy brethren will adulate him even more after we toast him. But since it takes years on average to execute anyone in the U.S. anymore maybe sitting in the slammer for a long time first will be a good compromise.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 02:24 AM
I agree with you in that he should be executed and I want him killed too, preferably slowly and painfully. But this is where the thorny part is. His creepy brethren will adulate him even more after we toast him. But since it takes years on average to execute anyone in the U.S. anymore maybe sitting in the slammer for a long time first will be a good compromise.

In no way am I condoning attacks or terrorism, but to play devil's advocate here... if an American CIA member had shot a few dozen Taliban members before being captured, tortured, ect... would we not also celebrate him as a hero?

garhkal
08-25-2013, 04:43 AM
And that is something i also feel needs changing. 5 years is long enough imo for 1 appeal, more likely 2. \

John Drake
08-25-2013, 06:29 AM
I recall in the latest rash of school massacres, pundits have been saying that those school kids should have just suicide charged the shooter, sacrificing themselves for the greater good. I wonder where these pundits were when the Fort Hood shooting, and why there were no complaints about the absence of Soldier suicide rushes.

bombsquadron6
08-25-2013, 06:16 PM
In no way am I condoning attacks or terrorism, but to play devil's advocate here... if an American CIA member had shot a few dozen Taliban members before being captured, tortured, ect... would we not also celebrate him as a hero?
Good point. I suppose my response would be the difference between the vast majority of people in this country and many, many Islamics is that while we might privately celebrate to learn of a CIA member killing a bunch of Muslim terrorists few of us would want to do it ourselves. We are not inspired to go out and kill them. Dearborn, Michigan has the largest Arab Muslim population in the U.S. but to my knowledge they have not had any significant retaliatory acts committed against them. My guess is that our tolerance of them has emboldened Islamic terrorists worldwide. Hassan isn't afraid he will be tortured before he is executed. Please don't think for a moment that I have anything but loathing for Islam. Personally, I think it is a cancer on humanity but I would never act out against anyone. My only point was that with Islamic terrorists each act of terrorism inspires another one.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 06:39 PM
Good point. I suppose my response would be the difference between the vast majority of people in this country and many, many Islamics is that while we might privately celebrate to learn of a CIA member killing a bunch of Muslim terrorists few of us would want to do it ourselves. We are not inspired to go out and kill them. Dearborn, Michigan has the largest Arab Muslim population in the U.S. but to my knowledge they have not had any significant retaliatory acts committed against them.

That's the key right there - most people just aren't too eager to drop everything they're doing and go be a terrorist. Some people predicted that our wars in the Middle East would cause another 9/11. So far that hasn't happened. While a Muslim who saw his whole family killed in an airstrike might be motivated to plant an IED and kill some Soldiers... its unlikely he's going to be willing and able to travel all the way to the continental US to carry out an attack. A defensive war, like in Iraq or Afghanistan, will see plenty of recruits from the local population - and even neighboring countries, but Jihad overseas is still enormously difficult.


My guess is that our tolerance of them has emboldened Islamic terrorists worldwide.

We've probably killed at least a hundred Muslims for every American who died on 9/11. What more could we have done?


Hassan isn't afraid he will be tortured before he is executed. Please don't think for a moment that I have anything but loathing for Islam. Personally, I think it is a cancer on humanity but I would never act out against anyone. My only point was that with Islamic terrorists each act of terrorism inspires another one.

Agreed - its the classic cycle of violence. A couple thousand years from now, students in the classroom will probably be learning about the violent religious tribesmen in the Middle East and North America who were fighting each other for no clear reason.

"But teacher, they worshipped the same god, why would they want to kill each other?"

"We're still trying to figure that one out, Billy."

bombsquadron6
08-25-2013, 06:44 PM
Agreed - its the classic cycle of violence. A couple thousand years from now, students in the classroom will probably be learning about the violent religious tribesmen in the Middle East and North America who were fighting each other for no clear reason.

"But teacher, they worshipped the same god, why would they want to kill each other?"

"We're still trying to figure that one out, Billy."
There is always some dark humor in there somewhere!

garhkal
08-25-2013, 08:18 PM
We've probably killed at least a hundred Muslims for every American who died on 9/11. What more could we have done?

Maybe nuke mecca?!

bombsquadron6
08-25-2013, 08:25 PM
Maybe nuke mecca?! SNORT.....It would be considered civic improvement. J/K

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:00 AM
I think firing squad is poetic justice.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/23/nidal-hasan-guilty-of-all-charges-in-fort-hood-shooting/

No way. The dude WANTS to die and these stupid appeals will go on for years. Left the f***** rot in a cell. Feed him pork for every meal. Play Justin Bieber music in his cell 24/7 with zero contact with the outside world.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 06:03 AM
Raymond Allen Davis.

Remember kids, murderers are only bad if they kill Americans. ;)

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:19 AM
Raymond Allen Davis.

Remember kids, murderers are only bad if they kill Americans. ;)

Who said that?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 06:24 AM
Who said that?

Did you understand who I was referring to?

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:52 AM
Did you understand who I was referring to?

Yes, I know exactly who you are referring to. What does Raymond Allen Davis have to do with a thread about the convicted Muslim terrorist, Nidal Hasan?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 06:53 AM
Yes, I know exactly who you are referring to. What does Raymond Allen Davis have to do with a thread about the convicted Muslim terrorist, Nidal Hasan?

Okay, let me bring up my post again:



Remember kids, murderers are only bad if they kill Americans. ;)

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:54 AM
Okay, let me bring up my post again:



Remember kids, murderers are only bad if they kill Americans. ;)

And I'll ask you again...Who said that?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 06:55 AM
And I'll ask you again...Who said that?

...I did. Did you not see my name above the post?

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:56 AM
...I did. Did you not see my name above the post?

Why do you feel that way?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 07:00 AM
Why do you feel that way?

Well that's just it, isn't it? I'm not "feeling" - I'm thinking, and not getting emotional about this. I do find your patriotic enthusiasm admirable, I really do. I on the other hand just see two terrorists. One was fortunate enough to have political protection and got an air ticket home. The second terrorist wasn't so lucky and has to pay for his crime.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:14 AM
Well that's just it, isn't it? I'm not "feeling" - I'm thinking, and not getting emotional about this. I do find your patriotic enthusiasm admirable, I really do. I on the other hand just see two terrorists. One was fortunate enough to have political protection and got an air ticket home. The second terrorist wasn't so lucky and has to pay for his crime.

I could really careless about Davis and would not have shed a tear if he was in prison in Pakistan somewhere if he was tried and convicted in court, but I don't see a lot of people defending him, do you? What does that have to do with Hasan being found guilty for something that he admitted doing?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 07:21 AM
I could careless about Davis and would not have shed a tear if he was in prison in Pakistan somewhere and I don't see a lot of people defending him, do you? What does that have to do with Hasan being found guilty for something that he admitted doing?

Well clearly SOMEONE defended him, since he's home safe.

Like I said earlier - I'm not worked up about either of these cases. They're just players in the great game. I do however admire your patriotic enthusiasm. I should buy you a great big flag.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:46 AM
Well clearly SOMEONE defended him, since he's home safe.

Like I said earlier - I'm not worked up about either of these cases. They're just players in the great game. I do however admire your patriotic enthusiasm. I should buy you a great big flag.

If by "patriotic enthusiasm" you mean being glad that justice has been served to someone who took an oath and wore the uniform of this country and then killed 13 of his own and injured 30+ others, I guess you're right.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 07:50 AM
If by "patriotic enthusiasm" you mean being glad that justice has been served to someone who took an oath and wore the uniform of this country and then killed 13 of his own and injured 30+ others, I guess you're right.

Yes, he certainly did get a much higher kill count than Davis - however it appears Hassan had no exit strategy. Or if he did have one, it clearly failed.

Though in all honesty - I attribute his actions to a psychological melt-down. His killings certainly caused quite a stir, but really, accomplished nothing. I would be very curious to read an analysis of his life and behavior. Did he always have these odd ideas, or were they something new? Did the war against Islam have an effect on his mental stability? Of course I doubt such a study will ever be done, let alone be made public. It would ruin the patriotic narrative.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:59 AM
Yes, he certainly did get a much higher kill count than Davis - however it appears Hassan had no exit strategy. Or if he did have one, it clearly failed.

Though in all honesty - I attribute his actions to a psychological melt-down. His killings certainly caused quite a stir, but really, accomplished nothing. I would be very curious to read an analysis of his life and behavior. Did he always have these odd ideas, or were they something new? Did the war against Islam have an effect on his mental stability? Of course I doubt such a study will ever be done, let alone be made public. It would ruin the patriotic narrative.

I believe that what you just said is pretty much what we already know. He reached his breaking point and with the hatred his religious influences taught him, he took it out on his fellow soldiers.

RobotChicken
08-26-2013, 08:01 AM
:spy "John Drake' sir, you are a heaven sent breath of fresh air of intellectual impute that has been in demand around here for a while. Good spirit and knowledge, and never back down! :yourock::welcome 'RC'."

John Drake
08-26-2013, 08:08 AM
:spy "John Drake' sir, you are a heaven sent breath of fresh air of intellectual impute that has been in demand around here for a while. Good spirit and knowledge, and never back down! :yourock::welcome 'RC'."

You, IMHO, have great intellect - though disguised in a baffling assault of rambling emoticons, the gems of wisdom hidden underneath are only apparent upon careful study.


I believe that what you just said is pretty much what we already know. He reached his breaking point and with the hatred his religious influences taught him, he took it out on his fellow soldiers.

Indeed. It's hardly a new question. While I myself have often been baffled and angry at the actions of my government, I have never had such a severe case of conflicting loyalties. I don't know the feeling of my fellow adherents being blown to pieces in droves by people wearing my own uniform. As a non-religious person with no particular feelings of nationalism, I can content myself with a fun job, the men and women on my team, and plenty of adventure. Perhaps I should consider myself fortunate.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 11:51 AM
I recall in the latest rash of school massacres, pundits have been saying that those school kids should have just suicide charged the shooter, sacrificing themselves for the greater good. I wonder where these pundits were when the Fort Hood shooting, and why there were no complaints about the absence of Soldier suicide rushes.

Where did you see that opinion in the news media? I can't recall anything like that. You said pundits so I assume you mean you heard more than one person on the news say this.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 11:56 AM
In no way am I condoning attacks or terrorism, but to play devil's advocate here... if an American CIA member had shot a few dozen Taliban members before being captured, tortured, ect... would we not also celebrate him as a hero?

Not sure I get your comparison here. The CIA usually engages in intelligence gathering and while they do have a para-military capability they usually rely on USSOCOM for strike missions. Is that what you are comparing? For your scenario to be a relevant comparison the 'CIA member' would have to actually be a member of the Taliban. Not sure I am getting the comparison as stated.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 12:19 PM
Well that's just it, isn't it? I'm not "feeling" - I'm thinking, and not getting emotional about this. I do find your patriotic enthusiasm admirable, I really do. I on the other hand just see two terrorists. One was fortunate enough to have political protection and got an air ticket home. The second terrorist wasn't so lucky and has to pay for his crime.

How is Davis a terrorist? He killed two men with guns drawn that he thought were a threat to him. It was without a doubt a botched intelligence operation with a third person killed by what is believed to be a vehicle coming to extract Davis from the scene but I fail to see that comparison between Major Hassan, a serving US Army officer who shot and killed 13 unarmed people in a self-declared jihadist action and the actions of a CIA contractor reacting to a perceived threat to his life.

That makes two puzzling comparisons today.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 12:20 PM
Yes, he certainly did get a much higher kill count than Davis - however it appears Hassan had no exit strategy. Or if he did have one, it clearly failed.

Though in all honesty - I attribute his actions to a psychological melt-down. His killings certainly caused quite a stir, but really, accomplished nothing. I would be very curious to read an analysis of his life and behavior. Did he always have these odd ideas, or were they something new? Did the war against Islam have an effect on his mental stability? Of course I doubt such a study will ever be done, let alone be made public. It would ruin the patriotic narrative.

When did that war start?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 03:17 PM
Where did you see that opinion in the news media? I can't recall anything like that. You said pundits so I assume you mean you heard more than one person on the news say this.

Mark Steyn and Megan McArdle, off the top of my head. Possibly others have, I don't know. Training elementary school children to be elite Soldiers seems to be a running theme of certain political circles in this country, so I wouldn't be surprised if others said it as well.


Not sure I get your comparison here. The CIA usually engages in intelligence gathering and while they do have a para-military capability they usually rely on USSOCOM for strike missions. Is that what you are comparing? For your scenario to be a relevant comparison the 'CIA member' would have to actually be a member of the Taliban. Not sure I am getting the comparison as stated.

I think you are reading too much into the analogy. I didn't mean to get that detailed with it. :)


How is Davis a terrorist? He killed two men with guns drawn that he thought were a threat to him. It was without a doubt a botched intelligence operation with a third person killed by what is believed to be a vehicle coming to extract Davis from the scene but I fail to see that comparison between Major Hassan, a serving US Army officer who shot and killed 13 unarmed people in a self-declared jihadist action and the actions of a CIA contractor reacting to a perceived threat to his life.

That makes two puzzling comparisons today.

The two men killed by Davis were shot in the back, their pistols were holstered and no round chambered. When Davis was captured, he was discovered to have a camera, filled with photographs of government buildings.

You are right that labelling it "terrorism" is hypberbole - but consider if the roles were reversed. I think we both know that if a Pakistani agent was caught spying and murdered two Americans (three, if you count the QRF vehicle) - there would be pundits on national television throwing around the "terrorism" label... and more likely than not demanding retaliatory strikes.

And back to my original point - one of those men was a Muslim extremist, the other an American agent - both however were part of the same game, just different sides. Though I do think Davis was rational at the time of his actions, as opposed to insane like Hassan most likely was (only a guess, I'm not a psychiatrist).


When did that war start?

In the modern era, my guess would be when it ceased to be a useful weapon against Communism, and started to become a nuisance to our overseas interests.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 04:53 PM
Mark Steyn and Megan McArdle, off the top of my head. Possibly others have, I don't know. Training elementary school children to be elite Soldiers seems to be a running theme of certain political circles in this country, so I wouldn't be surprised if others said it as well.

I couldn’t find anywhere that Mark Steyn said anything like that but he did have a pretty good piece (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336343/massacre-innocents-mark-steyn) about Sandy Hook. Maybe I missed his advice to have children sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

I assume you didn’t read Megan McArdle’s actual piece (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html) (maybe you read the HuffPost where they skewered her). She said nothing about “sacrificing themselves for the greater good.” What she said was part of a much larger discussion of real answers to the problem of gun violence in America. BTW, the paragraph cited is one of the last in a moderately lengthy piece. Suggest you read the whole thing.

BTW, in spite of what the HuffPost cites in Active Shooter scenarios the three choices (currently being taught across the country) is Run, Hide, Fight. Fighting of course is a last resort but if no other solution presents itself it is there. Of course the thought of little children doing this is pretty unpalatable but equally so is their massacre.



I think you are reading too much into the analogy. I didn't mean to get that detailed with it. :)

I don't see how I am reading anything into it that you didn’t state. The analogy is flawed.



The two men killed by Davis were shot in the back, their pistols were holstered and no round chambered. When Davis was captured, he was discovered to have a camera, filled with photographs of government buildings.

Actually both men reportedly approached Davis on a motorcycle with guns drawn. He shot one through the windshield and shot the other as he ran away (in the back – not automatically a bad thing). His activities as a CIA employee have no bearing on whether he can intellectually be compared to Hassan.


You are right that labelling it "terrorism" is hypberbole - but consider if the roles were reversed. I think we both know that if a Pakistani agent was caught spying and murdered two Americans (three, if you count the QRF vehicle) - there would be pundits on national television throwing around the "terrorism" label... and more likely than not demanding retaliatory strikes.

Probably but the whole point was your lumping Davis in with Hassan which is again a flawed comparison.


And back to my original point - one of those men was a Muslim extremist, the other an American agent - both however were part of the same game, just different sides. Though I do think Davis was rational at the time of his actions, as opposed to insane like Hassan most likely was (only a guess, I'm not a psychiatrist).

No actually one is a serving US Army Officer and if he wanted to be a Muslim extremist he should have resigned his commission and gone to join the Taliban or one of the many other organizations who have declared war on the US. I have seen no legitimate evidence presented which states Hassan is or was insane. The simple point is to look at why each committed the acts in question. Hassan set out to kill American Soldiers because they were American Soldiers. Davis was (in his mind or actually) defending himself in one of the most dangerous countries in the world.


In the modern era, my guess would be when it ceased to be a useful weapon against Communism, and started to become a nuisance to our overseas interests.

An opinion which has been stated on the MTF before but again, a little hyperbole with a dash of rhetoric. Why not call it the War on Terrorism because it is a more accurate term. In the 70’s and 80’s we were fighting terrorists which had various flavors of Marxism, Leninism, Socialism, etc as their touchstone but we didn’t label our efforts against them as such. Most were raised Christian but were at the most non-practicing but we didn’t label our efforts as such. It was merely anti-terrorism (or counter terrorism in the active sense).

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:30 PM
I disagree with that. Just cause he wants to be martyered, is no excuse for NOT executing him.

Firing ranged with bullets dipped in bacon grease.

garhkal
08-26-2013, 06:41 PM
Firing ranged with bullets dipped in bacon grease.

Or go the old school route and stick him on the Guillotine.

wildman
08-26-2013, 07:16 PM
Why do we not call it what it is in the case of Hassan? "Traitor", and he should be hung. Davis IMO was a case of self defense and the bleeding hearts can kiss my butt.

Always,
Wildman

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 07:18 PM
Or go the old school route and stick him on the Guillotine.

.....laced with bacon grease. What ever is used, make sure bacon grease lubes it up.

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 06:15 PM
.....and sentenced to death (by lethal injection not hanging)....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/us/jury-weighs-sentence-for-fort-hood-shooting.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

garhkal
08-30-2013, 07:02 PM
Now he's been sentenced, how long do you think it will be with his appeal after appeal to the appelate court appealing the appeal, before he is actually put to death?

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 07:21 PM
Now he's been sentenced, how long do you think it will be with his appeal after appeal to the appelate court appealing the appeal, before he is actually put to death?

Well, lets see... Ronald Gray was sentenced in 1988, Dwight J. Loving in 1989, Hasan Akbar in 2005, and Timothy Hennis in 2010 so my guess...not any time soon.

Mr. Joe
08-30-2013, 07:38 PM
He is the lowest of the low. It used to be that a traitor could face a firing squad in time of war. He admits to "Changing sides". What a guy! He should suffer more, but waiting in prison may be all he gets. I know the Koran promises great things for a martyr, which he believes he is.
The important thing NOW is for the Army to recoup the pay he was receiving all the time he was getting paid as a Medical Doctor Major in prison before conviction, and getting our president to change his erronious ruling of "Workplace Incident" and make it "Enemy Fire" or whatever the correct wording might be necessary to get the victims, living and dead, the medals they deserve! Unfortunately, it may take lots of us writing to our congresspersons to get any results at all, if any. A sad state of affairs!

efmbman
08-30-2013, 07:41 PM
Now he's been sentenced, how long do you think it will be with his appeal after appeal to the appelate court appealing the appeal, before he is actually put to death?

I think it will take only one appeal, but it will not be about his execution. Once any judge reviews this case, it will be obvious that he should not have been allowed to act as his own lawyer. This will be re-tried. The victims and their families will get to go through it all again.

Chief_KO
08-30-2013, 10:45 PM
If I recall correctly...doesn't the POTUS have to sign off on any military death sentences?
He'll need a teleprompter

efmbman
08-30-2013, 11:01 PM
If I recall correctly...doesn't the POTUS have to sign off on any military death sentences?

True... if it gets that far.

garhkal
08-31-2013, 04:05 AM
It used to be that a traitor could face a firing squad in time of war.


Since we are in a time of war (on terror), should he not get the firing squad?



The important thing NOW is for the Army to recoup the pay he was receiving all the time he was getting paid as a Medical Doctor Major in prison before conviction, and getting our president to change his erronious ruling of "Workplace Incident" and make it "Enemy Fire" or whatever the correct wording might be necessary to get the victims, living and dead, the medals they deserve! Unfortunately, it may take lots of us writing to our congresspersons to get any results at all, if any. A sad state of affairs!

Agreed. I can't stand our pencil dick politicians call it workplace violence..

efmbman
08-31-2013, 12:53 PM
Since we are in a time of war (on terror), should he not get the firing squad?

I thought time of war meant exactly that - a declared war. That has not happened since 1941. Otherwise, pretty much any conflict or military adventure would qualify.

Pullinteeth
09-03-2013, 01:36 PM
If I recall correctly...doesn't the POTUS have to sign off on any military death sentences?

Yep...THEN the appeals can start.

Stalwart
09-03-2013, 01:42 PM
Yep...THEN the appeals can start.

Well he (as much as you and/or I may hate it in this case) is entitled to his due process.

MrMiracle
09-03-2013, 03:57 PM
It's an amusing catch-22, one that applies even to insanity cases in civilian courts: if you don't want to be killed by the court, simply claim that you want to be killed by the court. You must therefore be insane and no longer eligible for the death penalty.

Whatever the cause of his death, I'm calling for another burial at sea.

Pullinteeth
09-03-2013, 04:10 PM
Well he (as much as you and/or I may hate it in this case) is entitled to his due process.

Who said he wasn't? I just pointed out that the Pres approves the sentence on the front end of the process...

wildman
09-03-2013, 05:50 PM
Well he (as much as you and/or I may hate it in this case) is entitled to his due process.

Gee I kind of remember the days when traitors were shot. There is his due process!

Always,
Wildman

Stalwart
09-03-2013, 06:22 PM
Gee I kind of remember the days when traitors were shot. There is his due process!

Always,
Wildman

Just saying, he gets his due process which includes a review of the sentance and his appeals, then he is shot (more likely to be lethal injection these days though.)

garhkal
09-03-2013, 09:21 PM
Well he (as much as you and/or I may hate it in this case) is entitled to his due process.

And is not having a trial, and one appeal afterwards not getting his due process? If so, why allow 2 or more appeals?

Stalwart
09-03-2013, 09:48 PM
And is not having a trial, and one appeal afterwards not getting his due process? If so, why allow 2 or more appeals?

Procedurally I could not tell you (I am not a lawyer).

My basic point is that we (America) are a nation of laws & we (the military) fight to defend them. People like Nidal Hassan (& Bradley Manning & Edward Snowden) are entitled to their due process under the law. Part of that process is the appeals process. I am not anti-death penalty, but when talking about a capital crime I am okay with a deliberative appeals process before someone is executed.

In the case of Nidal Hassan I don't think there is a question of his guilt, but the appeals will likely center around if the death penalty is appropriate for the crime (he was convicted of 13 counts of murder and 32 counts of attempted murder.) Again, I am not a lawyer but would guess that the sentance is upheld.

grimreaper
09-03-2013, 09:52 PM
Procedurally I could not tell you (I am not a lawyer).

My basic point is that we (America) are a nation of laws & we (the military) fight to defend them. People like Nidal Hassan (& Bradley Manning & Edward Snowden) are entitled to their due process under the law. Part of that process is the appeals process. I am not anti-death penalty, but when talking about a capital crime I am okay with a deliberative appeals process before someone is executed.

In the case of Nidal Hassan I don't think there is a question of his guilt, but the appeals will likely center around if the death penalty is appropriate for the crime (he was convicted of 13 counts of murder and 32 counts of attempted murder.) Again, I am not a lawyer but would guess that the sentance is upheld.

What pisses me off the most about it is that it took us longer than our involvement in WWII to try and convict an animal who admits to doing it when there was dozens of witnesses to it as well.

Stalwart
09-03-2013, 10:06 PM
What pisses me off the most about it is that it took us longer than our involvement in WWII to try and convict an animal who admits to doing it when there was dozens of witnesses to it as well.

I won't argue that it took an extraordinary amount of time to convict him.

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 05:12 PM
Gee I kind of remember the days when traitors were shot. There is his due process!

Always,
Wildman

Liar. Never happened. Of everyone convicted of treason in the United States (which BTW, Hassan was NOT), not one was shot;

John Brown-Hanged in 1859
Aaron Dwight Stevens-Hanged in 1860
William B rue Mumford-Hanged in 1862
Mary Surratt-Hanged in 1865
Lewis Powell-Hanged in 1865
George Atzerodt-Hanged in 1865
Herbert Haupt-Electrocuted in 1942

The last military execution by firing squad was Dan J. Lee in November of 1945 but even IF you remember that, it wasn't for treason.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-military

wildman
09-04-2013, 06:49 PM
Liar. Never happened. Of everyone convicted of treason in the United States (which BTW, Hassan was NOT), not one was shot;

John Brown-Hanged in 1859
Aaron Dwight Stevens-Hanged in 1860
William B rue Mumford-Hanged in 1862
Mary Surratt-Hanged in 1865
Lewis Powell-Hanged in 1865
George Atzerodt-Hanged in 1865
Herbert Haupt-Electrocuted in 1942

The last military execution by firing squad was Dan J. Lee in November of 1945 but even IF you remember that, it wasn't for treason.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-military

Okay so I stand corrected I guess they were hung instead, so hang the son of a bitch. Knew I could count on you pullinteeth.

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 07:05 PM
Okay so I stand corrected I guess they were hung instead, so hang the son of a bitch. Knew I could count on you pullinteeth.

Always,
Wildman

A) He wasn't convicted of treason-he was convicted of murder
B) The DoD's ONLY permissible method of execution is lethal injection.

Have your facts right and you won't have to worry about being called on your bullshit.

wildman
09-04-2013, 07:45 PM
A) He wasn't convicted of treason-he was convicted of murder
B) The DoD's ONLY permissible method of execution is lethal injection.

Have your facts right and you won't have to worry about being called on your bullshit.

Knew I could count on you to shovel shit. Gee why should I confuse you with facts then you wouldn't have any fun at all.

Always,
Wildman

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 09:33 PM
In other news, the Commander at Leavenworth had him forcefully shaven. :clap2

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/04/Fort-Hood-shooter-forcibly-shaved-in-prison

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 09:50 PM
This made me smile.

Yup, the Col. (judge) that allowed him to be in her military courtroom like that should be ashamed of herself.

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 09:56 PM
Not sure I agree with that...but, I agree with the jailer shaving him.

Why a judge, or any military member for that matter, would not make sure even the most basic of military rules are followed is beyond me.

efmbman
09-04-2013, 10:00 PM
Why a judge, or any military member for that matter, would not make sure even the most basic of military rules are followed is beyond me.

The previous judge was removed from the case by an appellate judge for that reason. That sent a very clear message I think.

So he was shaved. Will this become a daily extra duty for one of the guards? A monthly ritual?

grimreaper
09-05-2013, 12:13 AM
Of course, the judge is supposed to be impartial and concerned with following procedure and the law.

I mean, I get that as a military member it's everyone job to enforce standards, yada yada yada...I'm just seeing the appeals court idea on this that the impartiality of a judge in a court of law is a much bigger issue that whether or not a guy is wearing a beard in court...If he refuses to shave, fine let his commander tack on further charges.

I can see it both ways, but in the long run...allowing him to wear it in court only to have it forcible shaved once he is "under the command of leavenworth" is kind of sweet.

There is a much bigger issue about whether or not there should be a prohibition on wearing a beard if it is mandatory with so many's religious beliefs, but that's another topic.

I get that, but not adhering to the military's regulations and the instructions of a military judge (when the defendant is still part of the military and collecting a paycheck) is blatant contempt of court and the judge should act accordingly.

grimreaper
09-05-2013, 12:34 AM
Okay...Death + 3 days in jail. :-)

and 50 lashes with a wet noodle.


What's next...you can't be court martialed if you have a 40 inch waist?

You can or can't be? For a PT failure, no I don't think you can since the Commander only recommends discharge after 4 failures within 24 months, and even then its and administrative dischage. You could be court martialed for not cutting your hair if your Commander offers you NJP in lieu of a court martial and you decline. But in that case, it was your choice.

grimreaper
09-05-2013, 01:41 AM
Can't.

Well, you were saying the judge should have insisted Hassan meet grooming standards for the trial.

Shouldn't he also then have to meet waist standards?...IOW, the trial can not proceed until the accused's waist is <39.5 inches..

If you had a troop show up to work with earrings in his ears, would you not do anything about it because he happened to have a 40 inch waist?

grimreaper
09-05-2013, 01:50 AM
Good grief.

No, of course not...which is also why the court shouldn't have made a big deal about Hassan's beard when trying him for mass murder.

So after he says no to you after you've given him a lawful order, you do what? And in the case of Hassan, let him "make a political statement" and turn the military courtroom into a joke, where instead of a military member obeying a lawful order, we remove the person that gave the lawful order.

garhkal
09-05-2013, 04:22 AM
In other news, the Commander at Leavenworth had him forcefully shaven. :clap2

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/04/Fort-Hood-shooter-forcibly-shaved-in-prison

About time!

grimreaper
09-05-2013, 06:14 AM
I don't think the courtroom was a joke that sentenced him to death.

His guilt was never in question; the only question was if he was going to face life or get the death penalty. Letting this guy make a political statement at the expense of a military judge was wrong IMO.

garhkal
09-05-2013, 07:09 PM
IMO his making his having his beard be based on his religion WAS trying to make a political statement.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 01:50 PM
Why a judge, or any military member for that matter, would not make sure even the most basic of military rules are followed is beyond me.

Then you didn't follow the case. The first judge DID try to enforce the standard and was told it was none of the courts' business. The courts' business was the trial and the member's meeting uniform standards was the responsibility of his command-so while correct in you judgement, your condemnation is misplaced.

garhkal
09-06-2013, 06:06 PM
Held him in contempt TIll he got shaved.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 06:22 PM
Held him in contempt TIll he got shaved.

So your solution would be to delay the trial indefinately and leave the survivors and families in limbo until he choose to shave? WTH kind of half-@$$ed solution is THAT?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 06:42 PM
Then you didn't follow the case. The first judge DID try to enforce the standard and was told it was none of the courts' business. The courts' business was the trial and the member's meeting uniform standards was the responsibility of his command-so while correct in you judgement, your condemnation is misplaced.

Thanks, but I followed the case very well and I am fully aware that the FIRST judge did try to enforce the standards and was removed. That's the whole damn point. Why are we removing people from their positions for enforcing military regulations?

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 06:51 PM
Thanks, but I followed the case very well and I am fully aware that the FIRST judge did try to enforce the standards and was removed. That's the whole damn point. Why are we removing people from their positions for enforcing military regulations?

Because it was ruled that the judge was out of line. Enforcement of standards is up to his chain of command. Order in the court is the responsibility of the judge. Crossing that line is forbidden. The judge crossed the line, the judge was removed. The better question would be why didn't his commander order him shaved. The answer? Ummm....duh. You can order someone to do something every day. That doesn't mean they will do it. What are they going to do? Execute him AGAIN for refusing to shave? If they forcibly shaved him, then he would have them charged with assault....

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 06:55 PM
Because it was ruled that the judge was out of line. Enforcement of standards is up to his chain of command. Order in the court is the responsibility of the judge. Crossing that line is forbidden. The judge crossed the line, the judge was removed. The better question would be why didn't his commander order him shaved. The answer? Ummm....duh. You can order someone to do something every day. That doesn't mean they will do it. What are they going to do? Execute him AGAIN for refusing to shave? If they forcibly shaved him, then he would have them charged with assault....


So you're trying to tell me that only your own chain of command can enforce standards? When did this start?

And then tell me what the difference is of having him forcibly shaved for court and having him forcibly shaved by the CO at Leavenworth?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 07:05 PM
If the person refuses...there is only so much you can do. If you're walking into the BX and see a guy with his shirt open...you tell him and he refuses...are you going to physically button it on him??



The difference is, in court, he is presumed innnocent and entitled to a fair trial.

In Leavenworth, he is a convicted inmate under control of the CO.

So he's convicted of murder. So what? Now that means you can you what you want to him? Pullinteeth just got done telling me that if they had forcibly shaven that would constitute assault. So the CO at Leavenworth should be brought up on assault charges? When did it stop being considered assault?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 07:16 PM
Without looking it up, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a CO of a Corrections Unit has a lot more authority to physically enforce compliance on a prisoner in his charge, than a regular CO, or judge, has to enforce compliance on a presumed innocent Major.

I'm not really up on the authority of prison officials, but it would seem logical.

I mean, what's the big deal, right? He's convicted and facing the death penalty. Why are we going to bother with such trivial like shaving regulations?

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 07:19 PM
I mean, what's the big deal, right? He's convicted and facing the death penalty. Why are we going to bother with such trivial like shaving regulations?

Now? Because they can. A convicted felon by definition gives up some civil rights. A convicted military felon gives up even more. Someone on trial but not convicted gives up some civil rights (the whole freedom of movement thing) but not nearly as many as someone that has been convicted.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 07:24 PM
Now? Because they can. A convicted felon by definition gives up some civil rights. A convicted military felon gives up even more.

So being "assaulted" as you put it is one of those? Pretty sure prisoner abuse is still against the law. So, if I'm hearing you correctly, military regulations? No big deal. In fact, we'll remove a Colonel from their position from trying to enforce them.

Prison regs? Definitely. We need to make sure a guy on death row is clean shaven!!!!

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 07:29 PM
You are arguing that there should be no difference between the rights and management of a presumed innocent Major in the USAF...and a federal inmate convicted of mass murder.

I disagree.

The fact that he's presumed innocent is completely irrelevant to being within regs in a military courtroom. Even if it was someone in attendance in the courtroom, I would hope someone would say something to the person if they showed up with earrings in their ear. You are trying to connect his criminal charge to a military member being in regs when they have nothing to do with each other.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 07:33 PM
The fact that he's presumed innocent is completely irrelevant to being within regs in a military courtroom. Even if it was someone in attendance in the courtroom, I would hope someone would say something to the person if they showed up with earrings in their ear. You are trying to connect his criminal charge to a military member being in regs when they have nothing to do with each other.

And therein is the difference. He was TOLD to shave. He didn't. Per your post, they did what they should have. I guess you also think they shouldn't have forced him to shave at Leavenworth then? Should have just told him to shave?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 07:35 PM
And therein is the difference. He was TOLD to shave. He didn't. Per your post, they did what they should have. I guess you also think they shouldn't have forced him to shave at Leavenworth then? Should have just told him to shave?

Apparently, since you classified it as assault.

wildman
09-06-2013, 07:48 PM
Sort of what one can expect form pullinteeth. I need say no more.

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 07:50 PM
Sort of what one can expect form pullinteeth. I need say no more.

Always,
Wildman

Facts? As opposed to the lies and wild conjecture you spew forth? I will take that as a compliment.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 07:59 PM
Apparently, since you classified it as assault.

Yep and if you handcuffed someone off the street and kept them confined for a long period of time then gave them a lethal injection of drugs, you would be charged with kidnapping and murder yet that doesn't happen with someone convicted of capitol murder.....

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:09 PM
Yep and if you handcuffed someone off the street and kept them confined for a long period of time then gave them a lethal injection of drugs, you would be charged with kidnapping and murder yet that doesn't happen with someone convicted of capitol murder.....

OK then, before the trial he was in pre-trial confinement. Are you seriously telling me that all they could do is ASK him to do things and if he said no, he could just do what he wanted? After all, he was still an innocent man, right?

Come on dude.

And BTW, if someone other than the people authorized to perform the lethal injection at the prescribed place and time killed a person on death row, that person would be charged with murder. Terrible example.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 08:25 PM
OK then, before the trial he was in pre-trial confinement. Are you seriously telling me that all they could do is ASK him to do things and if he said no, he could just do what he wanted? After all, he was still an innocent man, right?

Come on dude.

And BTW, if someone other than the people authorized to perform the lethal injection at the prescribed place and time killed a person on death row, that person would be charged with murder. Terrible example.

Absolutely. There are SOME things that you cannot be forced to do when in pre-trial confinement that you can be forced to do once you are convicted.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:27 PM
Yes...they absolutely should say something. They did. He refused to shave. They considered having him forcibly shaved...it went to the appeals court.

If someone was attending...that person could be removed the courtroom without affecting the fairness of the trial. Not so clear with the accused. If he was removed from the courtroom and tried in absentia, or forcibly shaved...the issue of the fairness of trial is at least somewhat in question and opens the door to a complicated appeals, etc.

All in all...I think the second judge got the better results.

Fairness of the trial? So what wouldn't be "fair" about it if he was forcibly shaven? Do we not expect the same out of everyone?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:35 PM
Absolutely. There are SOME things that you cannot be forced to do when in pre-trial confinement that you can be forced to do once you are convicted.

And why do you think beards are not allowed? Mainly due to hygienic reasons. You don't think the same thing applies in jail?

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 08:36 PM
Fairness of the trial? So what wouldn't be "fair" about it if he was forcibly shaven? Do we not expect the same out of everyone?

If you can't understand the difference between a prisoner and "the accused" then we are at an impass. Here is what the Federal Court said about inmates;

"We are not unmindful that prison officials must be accorded latitude in the administration of prison affairs, and that prisoners necessarily are subject to appropriate rules and regulations. But persons in prison, like other individuals, have the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances …"

So in a nutshell, they can forcibly shave him and if he doesn't like it, he can try to sue. Since it is part of the regulations of that particular prison, I think he would have a tough time winning that one.


And why do you think beards are not allowed? Mainly due to hygienic reasons. You don't think the same thing applies in jail?

You are mistaken. The Federal Prison regulations/Poilicies ALLOW beards. Leavenworth regulations do not. Difference? Federal Prison vs. Military Prison

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:39 PM
If you can't understand the difference between a prisoner and "the accused" then we are at an impass. Here is what the Federal Court said about inmates;

"We are not unmindful that prison officials must be accorded latitude in the administration of prison affairs, and that prisoners necessarily are subject to appropriate rules and regulations. But persons in prison, like other individuals, have the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances …"

So in a nutshell, they can forcibly shave him and if he doesn't like it, he can try to sue. Since it is part of the regulations of that particular prison, I think he would have a tough time winning that one.

It is part of military regulations too, but I guess those don't matter.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:42 PM
It puts the judges impartiality into question.

How so? If everyone is treated the same, how can you question impartiality? As a matter of fact, by allowing it, it does question impartiality in the other direction.

So I guess now, everyone can have a mowhawk and a goatee in court if they want. After all, we have to be impartial.

For as big a scumbag B. Manning is, he at least had the sense to be in proper regulations in his trial.

Rusty Jones
09-06-2013, 08:43 PM
It is part of military regulations too, but I guess those don't matter.

Only when in uniform.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 08:44 PM
It is part of military regulations too, but I guess those don't matter.

The courts addressed that as well;

"Persons not yet convicted of a crime may be detained by government upon the appropriate determination of probable cause and the detention may be effectuated through subjection of the prisoner to the restrictions and conditions of the detention facility. But a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Therefore, unconvicted detainees may not be subjected to conditions and restrictions that amount to punishment. However, the Court limited its concept of punishment to practices intentionally inflicted by prison authorities and to practices which were arbitrary or purposeless and unrelated to legitimate institutional objectives."

So.....to impose these guidelines on someone in pretrial confinement, they would have to PROVE a purpose. After conviction, merely having the regulation would be enough to force compliance. Not what you wanted to hear I know but....

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:48 PM
It puts the judges impartiality into question. He is no longer acting as an independent and impartial arbiter, but as an authority enforcing regulations dress and grooming standards on a not-yet convicted accused.

Bottom line, although he may be a military officer, in this particular case, his role as judge supercedes his responsibilities as a military officer.

Negative. You are a military member first, your job is secondary, especially in the Army...everyone is a soldier first.

And if everyone is treated the same, I'm still not buying that you can call a judge's impartiality into question.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 08:50 PM
Negative. You are a military member first, your job is secondary, especially in the Army...everyone is a soldier first.

And if everyone is treated the same, I'm still not buying that you can call a judge's impartiality into question.

Soldier isn't an MOS....I think you meant to type infantry....

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:50 PM
The courts addressed that as well;

"Persons not yet convicted of a crime may be detained by government upon the appropriate determination of probable cause and the detention may be effectuated through subjection of the prisoner to the restrictions and conditions of the detention facility. But a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Therefore, unconvicted detainees may not be subjected to conditions and restrictions that amount to punishment. However, the Court limited its concept of punishment to practices intentionally inflicted by prison authorities and to practices which were arbitrary or purposeless and unrelated to legitimate institutional objectives."

So.....to impose these guidelines on someone in pretrial confinement, they would have to PROVE a purpose. After conviction, merely having the regulation would be enough to force compliance. Not what you wanted to hear I know but....

Dress and appearance regulations are not "arbitrary", nor are they optional, so I fail to see what the point of that was.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:52 PM
Soldier isn't an MOS....I think you meant to type infantry....

I'm guessing you've never worked with the Army? You are a soldier first. Or are you just playing sematics?

Rusty Jones
09-06-2013, 08:54 PM
Dress and appearance regulations are not "arbitrary", nor are they optional, so I fail to see what the point of that was.

Grooming standards only apply when in uniform. When he's in prison, he's not in an Army uniform.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:55 PM
Of course they do...and he absolutely should be properly punished with a sternly worded LOR in addition to the death sentence.

Ah, so were back to it being trivial...yet they made a point of doing it at Leavenworth. He's on death row. Who cares?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:56 PM
Grooming standards only apply when in uniform. When he's in prison, he's not in an Army uniform.

Not according to the Army:


But while imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., he must be cleanshaven and wear the required uniform and insignia, the Army spokesman said.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 08:57 PM
Dress and appearance regulations are not "arbitrary", nor are they optional, so I fail to see what the point of that was.

So in your opinion, it would have been better for the Army to go down the rabbithole of trying to attempt to show a valid purpose as to why he should have to shave during his trial as opposed to letting him grow his beard during the trial and shaving it when he was convicted?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 08:58 PM
So in your opinion, it would have been better for the Army to go down the rabbithole of trying to attempt to show a valid purpose as to why he should have to shave during his trial as opposed to letting him grow his beard during the trial and shaving it when he was convicted?

By expecting him to be in regs like we would expect every other military member to be? Oh, the horror. I'm sorry you think we should make exceptions for terrorists.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 08:59 PM
Not according to the Army:

You are mistaking enforcement of the prison rules with the enforcement of the USA standard. The prison rules at Leavenworth govern all inmates regardless of branch of service.


By expecting him to be in regs like we would expect every other military member to be? Oh, the horror. I'm sorry you think we should make exceptions for terrorists.

Apparently you just don't see a line that one shouldn't cross when trying to enforce said uniform standard. Next time you see someone out of regs I would like for you to physically restrain them and force them to comply....see where that lands you.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 09:02 PM
You are mistaking enforcement of the prison rules with the enforcement of the USA standard. The prison rules at Leavenworth govern all inmates regardless of branch of service.

Well of course they have one standard in prison. How the hell could they possibly enforce all the different service branches regs with a mixed population? Either way, beards aren't allowed in prison or out.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 09:09 PM
You are mistaking enforcement of the prison rules with the enforcement of the USA standard. The prison rules at Leavenworth govern all inmates regardless of branch of service.

Apparently you just don't see a line that one shouldn't cross when trying to enforce said uniform standard. Next time you see someone out of regs I would like for you to physically restrain them and force them to comply....see where that lands you.

"I" wouldn't have to physically do anything to force compliance. After repeated non-compliance, NJP, loss of pay, restriction to base, etc, people tend to get compliant after that. You however, are trying to compare someone in the control of authorities to someone who's not. Go disobey the orders of a cop and see what happens to you.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 09:12 PM
Again...I believe the second judge got the better result.

LOL, The "better" result? Versus what?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 09:19 PM
Do you think the defense attorney should be more concerned with his role a military officer, or his role in providing the best defense of his client? Should he openly and publicly question the integrity or judgement of a senior officer who is a witness in trial...or a prosecutor that outranks him?

Should he be concerned with the wishes of the CIC that sexual assault suspects be given a dishonorable discharge...or should he argue for a reduced sentence if his client is found guilty?

What is this even about? Hassan presented little or no defense to speak of. Sounds like you're trying to draw parallels that have no similiarities to this case.

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 09:20 PM
Well..under the first judge, the trial was delayed for months while he sat in regular jail drawing Major pay...oh, I think he was fined $1,000 for contempt of court.

So, yeah...better than that.

And you know that was all due to the beard issue?

grimreaper
09-06-2013, 09:28 PM
Not if they are already in jail facing mass murder charges.

What would happen? Get arrested? He already is...get put in jail? He already was. Held in contempt and fined $1,000...whoopee. Bring it on...

And we're back to discussing how trivial it is again.

Removing the judge was a BS PC move IMO and one that is shared by plenty of folks.

Anyway, I'm done waisting any more time on convicted murderer and terrorist Hassan. I'm pissed at myself for waisting as much time as I already have.

:yield :yield :yield

garhkal
09-06-2013, 11:20 PM
Because it was ruled that the judge was out of line. Enforcement of standards is up to his chain of command. Order in the court is the responsibility of the judge. Crossing that line is forbidden. The judge crossed the line, the judge was removed. The better question would be why didn't his commander order him shaved. The answer? Ummm....duh. You can order someone to do something every day. That doesn't mean they will do it. What are they going to do? Execute him AGAIN for refusing to shave? If they forcibly shaved him, then he would have them charged with assault....

Then tell his command to force it on him (comply with regs).


Absolutely. There are SOME things that you cannot be forced to do when in pre-trial confinement that you can be forced to do once you are convicted.

So you are saying you can't be forced to cut your hair unless you are convicted of something?


It puts the judges impartiality into question. He is no longer acting as an independent and impartial arbiter, but as an authority enforcing regulations dress and grooming standards on a not-yet convicted accused.

Bottom line, although he may be a military officer, in this particular case, his role as judge supercedes his responsibilities as a military officer.

But how is it calling his impartiallity into question if he (A MILITARY JUDGE) is wanting all in his court room to comply with military regulations?


Grooming standards only apply when in uniform. When he's in prison, he's not in an Army uniform.

I call BS. 2 of the commands i reported to, i showed up a day early to get the lay of the land. BOTH times i was unshaven, and got in deep doodoo for being out of regs. One of the master chiefs correcting me even reported that to the command i DID check into the following day, so i got a counciling chit for it when i checked in.

UncaRastus
09-07-2013, 12:53 AM
I am going out on a limb here, but maybe the reason that haircuts are enforced is because Leavenworth doesn't want to be holding a bunch of hippies. If one goes unshaven and unhaircut, then everyone could do the same thing.

wildman
09-07-2013, 02:30 AM
Originally Posted by Pullinteeth View Post
Because it was ruled that the judge was out of line. Enforcement of standards is up to his chain of command. Order in the court is the responsibility of the judge. Crossing that line is forbidden. The judge crossed the line, the judge was removed. The better question would be why didn't his commander order him shaved. The answer? Ummm....duh. You can order someone to do something every day. That doesn't mean they will do it. What are they going to do? Execute him AGAIN for refusing to shave? If they forcibly shaved him, then he would have them charged with assault....

Facts? Ummm these be the facts? According to Pullinteeth! Hay folks he claims to be the authority on everything. Now correct me if I'm wrong but don't the regs apply 24/7? Ummm can't disciplinary action be applied to force the individual into compliance? Okay Mr. Knowitall your up!

Always,
Wildman

Cerberus
09-07-2013, 02:49 AM
Wildman, take it down a notch please. Pullinteeth is being civil and sticking to the subject, don't make it personal.

Pullinteeth
09-07-2013, 01:38 PM
Then tell his command to force it on him (comply with regs).

So you are saying you can't be forced to cut your hair unless you are convicted of something?

But how is it calling his impartiallity into question if he (A MILITARY JUDGE) is wanting all in his court room to comply with military regulations?

I call BS. 2 of the commands i reported to, i showed up a day early to get the lay of the land. BOTH times i was unshaven, and got in deep doodoo for being out of regs. One of the master chiefs correcting me even reported that to the command i DID check into the following day, so i got a counciling chit for it when i checked in.

And how exactly is his command going to FORCE him to shave?

That is exactly what I am saying

It wasn't his impartiality. It was whether enforcing standards of the accused was within his purview. Look at it this way, it is your responsibility to enforce standards right? So if you see a Sec Ops guy with a beard, do you hold him down and shave him or do you let his command handle it?

Big fucking deal. You think someone waiting to die is going to be intimidated into shaving by a good talking to? A counciling chit? Seriously? You have GOT to be shitting me. He is getting the needle and you think a couciling chit would get him to shave?



Facts? Ummm these be the facts? According to Pullinteeth! Hay folks he claims to be the authority on everything. Now correct me if I'm wrong but don't the regs apply 24/7? Ummm can't disciplinary action be applied to force the individual into compliance? Okay Mr. Knowitall your up!

Always,
Wildman

Who exactly are "Hay folks?" Cows? Horses? What disiplinary action could you possibly think would force someone facing the needle to shave if they don't want to?

wildman
09-07-2013, 05:58 PM
Who exactly are "Hay folks?" Cows? Horses? What disciplinary action could you possibly think would force someone facing the needle to shave if they don't want to?

So this is what you think about the fellow members here at MT (FOLKS)? Gee I guess you think prison is a nice place and the inmates should be treated as pampered guests? The SOB don't comply with the rules ya plant a boot in his ass and shave him! He most likely will be sitting on death row for a long time while the bleeding hearts try and postpone his exhaustion as long as possible. In the mean time I say make his life in prison a living hell!

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
09-08-2013, 01:25 PM
So this is what you think about the fellow members here at MT (FOLKS)? Gee I guess you think prison is a nice place and the inmates should be treated as pampered guests? The SOB don't comply with the rules ya plant a boot in his ass and shave him! He most likely will be sitting on death row for a long time while the bleeding hearts try and postpone his exhaustion as long as possible. In the mean time I say make his life in prison a living hell!

Always,
Wildman

You of course realize it was YOU that said "hay folks" correct?


Facts? Ummm these be the facts? According to Pullinteeth! Hay folks he claims to be the authority on everything. Now correct me if I'm wrong but don't the regs apply 24/7? Ummm can't disciplinary action be applied to force the individual into compliance? Okay Mr. Knowitall your up!

Always,
Wildman

I notice you didn't answer either question....shocker I know...

wildman
09-08-2013, 07:12 PM
You of course realize it was YOU that said "hay folks" correct?


I could have used the word attention instead but I chose to use the word hay. It was you who refereed to them as cows and horses not me. I have a tad bit more respect for the fellow members of MT than you apparently have. Of course there are a few exceptions you being one.

Always,
Wildman

wildman
09-08-2013, 07:18 PM
I notice you didn't answer either question....shocker I know...

Pullinteeth the questions were directed at you! Once again you just can not seem to comprehend a simple written post. Go back to what ever institution of learning you attended and demand a refund because it appears as if you got ripped off.

Always,
Wildman

Absinthe Anecdote
09-08-2013, 07:45 PM
I could have used the word attention instead but I chose to use the word hay. It was you who refereed to them as cows and horses not me. I have a tad bit more respect for the fellow members of MT than you apparently have. Of course there are a few exceptions you being one.

Always,
Wildman

You chose the wrong word.

hay - noun \ˈhā\
—herbage and especially grass mowed and cured for fodder and feed for livestock

hey - interjection \ˈhā\
—used especially to call attention or to express interrogation, surprise, or exultation

Rainmaker
09-08-2013, 08:38 PM
You chose the wrong word.

hay - noun \ˈhā\
—herbage and especially grass mowed and cured for fodder and feed for livestock

hey - interjection \ˈhā\
—used especially to call attention or to express interrogation, surprise, or exultation

Po tate o/ Po taught o? NomSayin?

Rainmaker
09-08-2013, 08:40 PM
He on a boat Muhfuggas!

Rainmaker
09-08-2013, 08:41 PM
. Double Psot. NomSayin

wildman
09-09-2013, 02:37 AM
You chose the wrong word.

Oops! My typing and spelling sometimes is not that good, but I don't hide the fact. What to me is more important is the context of the message. Thanks for pointing this out in a civilized manner.

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
09-09-2013, 01:51 PM
Pullinteeth the questions were directed at you! Once again you just can not seem to comprehend a simple written post. Go back to what ever institution of learning you attended and demand a refund because it appears as if you got ripped off.

Always,
Wildman

You are saying I directed this question at myself?


What disiplinary action could you possibly think would force someone facing the needle to shave if they don't want to?

Not too bright are you?

wildman
09-09-2013, 05:37 PM
You are saying I directed this question at myself?



Not too bright are you?

Really Pullinteeth it is I who am not bright? It couldn't be that you have absolutely no ability to comprehend anything that does not fit into your preconceived narrow minded brain? Wait perhaps this is all an act on your part and the only way you can get your jollies off is by acting in this manner. I admit I make mistakes and my spelling and grammar is not that good but I do manage to get my point across to most people of course you appear to not be one of them.

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
09-10-2013, 01:14 AM
Really Pullinteeth it is I who am not bright? It couldn't be that you have absolutely no ability to comprehend anything that does not fit into your preconceived narrow minded brain? Wait perhaps this is all an act on your part and the only way you can get your jollies off is by acting in this manner. I admit I make mistakes and my spelling and grammar is not that good but I do manage to get my point across to most people of course you appear to not be one of them.

Always,
Wildman

Sooooo....still no answer? i'm shocked....



What disiplinary action could you possibly think would force someone facing the needle to shave if they don't want to?

wildman
09-10-2013, 02:42 AM
What disciplinary action could you possibly think would force someone facing the needle to shave if they don't want to?

Is this the question you want me to answer? Oh by the way I corrected your spelling of disciplinary! Ya plant a boot in his ass and shave the son of a bitch! Now if you care to go back and read what I have posted you will see I said that. Don't much care whether he wants to be shaved or not. He is in prison not some day camp etc. This answer it for you?

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
09-11-2013, 03:55 PM
You must LOVE saluting these guys....3357

wildman
09-12-2013, 03:15 AM
3358

Now that is more like it!

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
09-12-2013, 02:02 PM
Sikhs are badass....I'd be honored to salute them. Except I think one is enlisted

Nope. Both are medical officers.

Capt. Kamaljit Singh Kalsi (Doc) & Capt Tejdeep Singh Rattan (Dentist). Apparently it wasn't until 1984 when Gen Wickham barred them from service due to their "conspicuous items of faith".

http://www.army.mil/article/36339/sikh-soldiers-allowed-to-serve-retain-their-articles-of-faith/