PDA

View Full Version : Gunmen attack Fort Hood, Texas



davidbfpo
11-05-2009, 09:06 PM
Just appeared on the UK news:
Under the sub-headline 'Gunmen have killed seven people and wounded 12 others in a rampage...' One gunman was in custody, but another remained on the loose on the sprawling base in Kileen, Texas, about 60 miles north-east of Austin. The base was on lockdown after it emerged that a second shooter was believed to be armed with a high-powered sniper rifle, according to a report on MSNBC television. Two nearby school districts were also reportedly on lockdown. John Carter, a local congressman, confirmed on MSNBC there had been a shooting at the base, saying the gunfire had erupted during a graduation ceremony.

From:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6510638/Seven-dead-in-Texas-military-base-shooting-US-media-reports.html

BBC has a slightly different report:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8345713.stm

jmm99
11-05-2009, 09:23 PM
from KCEN-TV via MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/), is ongoing.

reed11b
11-05-2009, 09:34 PM
I am not sure why, but part of me really hopes these guys were not soldiers.

Entropy
11-05-2009, 09:58 PM
Just heard the gunmen were soldiers on CNN from a Ft. Hood spokesman.

SWJED
11-05-2009, 10:21 PM
One of the suspected gunmen (if there was more than one - two other soldiers are in custody as "suspects") is identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.

IntelTrooper
11-05-2009, 10:23 PM
Just heard the gunmen were soldiers on CNN from a Ft. Hood spokesman.

@#$%* :mad: :(

stanleywinthrop
11-05-2009, 10:37 PM
CNN is now saying that the shooter was Maj. Maliq Nadal Hassan. Spelling is just a guess.

MikeF
11-05-2009, 10:43 PM
At least 12 dead and 31 wounded (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/us/06forthood.html)

One of my former medics emailed me and asked,


"How can you shoot your fellow brothers.......... I am lost for words sir."
I replied,


"I don't know brother. As I studied the female suicide bombers from Diyala, the emotions of hate, anger, and revenge overtook rational thought, and they just wanted to kill themselves and take as many with them as they could. All we can do right now is take a knee and pray."

That's about all we can do at this point until it's all sorted out.

slapout9
11-05-2009, 11:51 PM
NBC evening news just reported he was not only a an officer but he was a Doctor:confused:

MikeF
11-05-2009, 11:56 PM
He was a psychiatrist.

From one of my FSOs,


He is an army psychiatrist. my wife worked for him on the mental health floor at darnell medical center on post.

slapout9
11-06-2009, 12:04 AM
He was a psychiatrist.

From one of my FSOs,

NBC also said he specialized in Combat Stress Disorders?

MikeF
11-06-2009, 12:09 AM
NBC also said he specialized in Combat Stress Disorders?

Along with cops and soldiers, the burn out rates for pscyhs dealing with trauma is an astronomical rate. I'll just say this for now until we have time to let it all pass and grieve this tragedy. He probably hit a break point after listening to too many stories. LTG Bob Cone is right. This is an "isolated incident." I won't be suprised if they discover that doc did what he did at the SRC to "save" others from the anguish that he listened to so many others go through.

Either that or ideological reasons that had nothing to do with his job.

I'll be quiet now. That's my .02

omarali50
11-06-2009, 12:14 AM
This is shocking on so many levels. First of all just the horror of losing so many good men on a base in their home country. Then the shooter being an officer (OK, not from the fighting arms, but still wearing a uniform). a doctor for god's sake!
And I am sure just the names Fort Hood and Texas have some resonances of their own for a lot of people..
It looks right now like there was just one shooter, and he had some issue with being posted to iraq. I am sure that explains nothing, but that would point to "lone nut goes berserk". On the other hand, if it turns out to have any connection to spontaneous Jihad syndrome or even worse, if it was a planned act by more than one person then we will surely be talking about many other things.
Just shocking.

slapout9
11-06-2009, 12:19 AM
Speculation on the motive. Way to early to tell for sure but 3 persons were involved, 2 are in custody, that certainly has the makings of something else besides a rampage killing.
link to analysis by TV commentator.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/33691565#33691565

Uboat509
11-06-2009, 12:27 AM
Speculation on the motive. Way to early to tell for sure but 3 persons were involved, 2 are in custody, that certainly has the makings of something else besides a rampage killing.
link to analysis by TV commentator.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/33691565#33691565

Exactly what I was going to say.

SFC W

Schmedlap
11-06-2009, 12:28 AM
Special Twitter feed for this specific incident: http://twitter.com/fthoodshootings

omarali50
11-06-2009, 12:30 AM
I just heard the two other people have been released. It seems to me that any such event is followed by hours of confusion. I am guessing (hoping?) single gunman.
If 1 or 2 others are involved then its no longer a nutcase on the rampage, its a planned act of terror and in that case my guess would naturally be that they suddenly decided to give their lives for Islam or some such craziness. As a muslim, I hope that is not the case...

slapout9
11-06-2009, 12:37 AM
I just heard the two other people have been released. It seems to me that any such event is followed by hours of confusion. I am guessing (hoping?) single gunman.
If 1 or 2 others are involved then its no longer a nutcase on the rampage, its a planned act of terror and in that case my guess would naturally be that they suddenly decided to give their lives for Islam or some such craziness. As a muslim, I hope that is not the case...

It's still way to early to tell. I have seen primary witnesses detained (held in custody) for their own protection and yet when it is reported in the media they are called "suspects" for some reason, when that may not be the case at all. Time will tell.

MikeF
11-06-2009, 12:51 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/nadal-mailk-hasan-suspected-fort-hood-shooter-psychiatrist/story?id=9010466


Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan, the suspected shooter in the massacre at Fort Hood, was a psychiatrist at Darnall Army Medical Center on the base, according to records uncovered by ABC News.

Hasan, 39, received his training through the Defense Department's F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine in Bethesda, Md., according to the records.

A military source was quoted by the Air Force Times as saying Hasan had recently been reassigned to Fort Hood from Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. In 2009, sources tell ABC News, he completed a fellowship in Disaster and Preventative Psychiatry at the Center for Traumatic Stress there

slapout9
11-06-2009, 01:05 AM
Speculation on the motive. Way to early to tell for sure but 3 persons were involved, 2 are in custody, that certainly has the makings of something else besides a rampage killing.
link to analysis by TV commentator.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/33691565#33691565


Further details. The 2 "suspects" have been released. The Major was apparently against the Wars in Iraq and A'stan and wanted out of the Army. He was also taunted by family and friends when he wanted to join the Army after 911.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html?test=latestnews

slapout9
11-06-2009, 01:28 AM
Further details. The 2 "suspects" have been released. The Major was apparently against the Wars in Iraq and A'stan and wanted out of the Army. He was also taunted by family and friends when he wanted to join the Army after 911.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html?test=latestnews

More details. He had been put on probation for proselytizing about the Muslim faith to patients and colleagues.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120138496&ft=1&f=1001

jmm99
11-06-2009, 02:22 AM
This story may have some twists and turns. But for information that we do not know now, MAJ Hasan comes up pretty much All-American:

- graduate of Virginia Tech University (ironically) with a bachelor's degree in biochemistry in 1997, where he was ROTC.

- medical degree from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.

- Walter Reed, internship, residency and a fellowship.

US-born to Palestinian migrants who both came to the US when young. Both parents died before 9/11 - source (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2379606/posts):


OBIT
Roanoke Times, The (VA) - Saturday, April 18, 1998

HASAN , Malik Awadallah, 52, passed away Thursday, April 16, 1998, at his home in Vinton. He was born in Palestine on August 7, 1946, and emigrated to the United States at age 16, spending most of his life in Virginia. He moved to Roanoke in 1985 and began a successful business career. He is best remembered for his cheerfulness, honesty and kindness toward everyone. He owned the infamous Capitol Restaurant on the market for many years. Most recently, he established the Mount Olive Grill and Bar and was renovating the Community Grocery on Elm Avenue. He is survived by his wife, Hanan; three sons, Nidal , Anas and Eyad; a sister; four brothers; 33 nieces and nephews; 37 great-nieces and great-nephews, and scores of extended family. He will be deeply missed by all who knew him. Funeral services will be held at 10:30 a.m. Sunday, April 19, at Everly Funeral Home in Fairfax. Interment will follow in National Memorial Park in Falls Church. Friends may call the funeral home at (703) 385-1110.

OBIT - HASAN , HANAN ISMAIL, (NORA)
Roanoke Times, The (VA) - Thursday, May 31, 2001

HASAN , Hanan Ismail, (Nora), 49, passed away Wednesday, May 30, 2001, surrounded by her loved ones. She was born in Palestine January 15, 1952 and came to the United States as a young girl. She moved to Roanoke in 1986 after her husband, the late Malik Hasan , came here the year before to begin what would be a successful business venture for the entire family. Nora became infamous in Roanoke for her leadership in running the Capitol Restaurant, formerly located on the Market. She was known for her ability to keep sometimes rowdy customers out of trouble and always had a warm meal for someone who otherwise would not have anything to eat that evening. She was also a major figure at the Community Grocery Store and in the establishment of the Mount Olive Grill and Bar. She was preceded in death by her husband three years ago. She is survived by her three sons, Nidal , Anas, and Eyad; her parents; six sisters; two brothers; 29 nieces and nephews; 2 great-nieces; and scores of extended family. She will be greatly missed by all those who knew her. Funeral services and prayers will be held May 31 at Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church at 1 p.m. Interment will follow in National Memorial Park. Please send condolences to the Hasan Family c / o Community Grocery, 124 Elm Avenue, SW, Roanoke, Va. 24016.

So far, so good. Great gaps have to be filled in this puzzle

--------------------------
The rumors of MAJ Hasan's death seem to have been greatly exaggerated.

So, we may see a UCMJ case to follow - with sworn testimony and the rest of the elements of a court-martial.

slapout9
11-06-2009, 03:47 AM
Suspect appears to have popped up on FBI's radar 6 months ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html?test=latestnews


My hunch, within the next few days evidence will surface of a detailed plan of attack.

jmm99
11-06-2009, 04:47 AM
A “NidalHasan” wrote the following - secondary source (http://assme.org/tag/dr-nidal-malik-hasan/):


There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

primary source 1 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3989813/Martyrdom-in-Islam-Versus-Suicide-Bombing) and primary source 2 (http://www.scribd.com/NidalHasan).

Same guy ? - the Internet tracks and trails, and his computer (if still containing data), will tell the tale.

Still many large gaps in how we get from All-American Boy to mass killer.

----------------------------
PS: After watching a few hours of media on this, one concludes that firearms knowledge is not a requisite for TV reporters. My heavens, the man had a "semi-automatic pistol" which accounted for the large number of casualties. And so it goes .....

slapout9
11-06-2009, 05:15 AM
Go to the link below and click on Outlandish comments made. Appears he had been the subject of an unofficial Army investigation for comments about his opposition to the War according to a retired Lt. Col. who worked with the suspect.


http://www.foxnews.com/

jmm99
11-06-2009, 05:54 AM
I listened to LTC Lee's interview when it first aired. He seemed credible. He told of direct statements from MAJ Hasan - as well as second and third hand statements. All of those will have to be tracked back to the original sources.

Still many pieces missing.

PS: The pieces have little to do with the salient evidence of the crimes - that will be obvious and beyond a reasonable doubt. The pieces have to do with his motivation.

Tukhachevskii
11-06-2009, 11:14 AM
Hearing about this first thing this morning made me numb .. and reminded me of something I once read...



http://www.danielpipes.org/3450/sudden-jihad-syndrome-in-north-carolina

Greyhawk
11-06-2009, 05:43 PM
Longer bio.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/225310

MikeF
11-06-2009, 06:03 PM
Longer bio.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/225310

This quote jumped out at me:


While he worked to aid people scarred by war, that work in turn scarred Hasan.

It's eerily familiar to what I've read while studying the non-religious female suicide bombers in Diyala.

Mike

omarali50
11-06-2009, 06:14 PM
Hearing about this first thing this morning made me numb .. and reminded me of something I once read...

http://www.danielpipes.org/3450/sudden-jihad-syndrome-in-north-carolina

My take on spontaneous jihad syndrome in general:

1. Its not that sudden. I think there are usually warning signs. It seems like there were some signs here too.
2. MOST Muslims are not at some special risk of exploding all of a sudden. But loners and misfits who have joined a conservative/orthodox Islamic center or group and turned more religious ARE a high risk group. Those who are deeply religious but otherwise well adjusted are NOT a high risk group. But a turn towards orthodoxy could be a warning signal (sensitive, but not specific) because there IS a subtext of solidarity and religious conflict in the medieval theology of Islam (as there may have been in other medieval ideologies or even modern ones, the difference is that this "extremism" is still part of mainstream Muslim theology whereas it has already been pushed to the fringe in many other religious traditions...the saving grace is, the theology is not known to most mainstream muslims in any detail. sounds confusing, but its true).
3. But these signals may be ignored out of a concern not to appear "islamophobic".
4. The real "islamophobes" like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are correct in saying that literal adhesion to orthodox Islamic theology (not "extremist", just orthodox) is likely to include a mixture of Islamic solidarity, dislike for infidels, desire to fight in the way of Allah, etc. They are incorrect in assuming that all Muslims adhere to medieval injunctions about Jihad and fighting the infidels or that all Muslims are capable of ignoring more immediate secular interests and taking up the banner of jihad at a moment's notice. I suspect they are biased by their own agenda (usually pro-zionist, in some cases extremist Christian) and would like to advance particular foreign policy goals (like making the Israeli occupation permanent). but the bottom line is that while they are not unbiased messengers (who is?), they are closer to the truth when it comes to medieval Islamic theology than the Karen Armstrong types.
5. I guess what I am pushing is the idea that common sense CAN actually be a guide here. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and equally there is no need to be willfully blind to warning signs. And that biased agenda pushers on BOTH sides of this debate have obscured common sense options. Islamists operating out of Saudi supported Islamic centers are NOT a majority of American Muslims, but they have disproportionate share of media exposure as "muslim spokesmen". At the same time, people like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer have a definite foreign policy agenda and it suits them to malign all Muslims (no matter how "secular") as long as they suspect them of Palestinian sympathies. Their warnings need to be heard keeping this in view.
6. I am still hopeful that common sense will prevail.
7. All nutcases cannot be stopped beforehand. Some surprises will always happen. There is no risk-free society, with or without muslims.

(Added by moderator: Discussion on this is on: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8890 )

Greyhawk
11-06-2009, 06:26 PM
But I fear we're going to soon have something called "Pre-TSD" as an identified psychiatric condition.

MikeF, I think there will be much chicken/egg debate regarding the doc. But I'd like to hear more about the suicide bomber angle. I take it you're saying a "caregiver" instinct was exploited to actually influence behavior towards something counter to the expected norm.

slapout9
11-06-2009, 06:35 PM
just follow the rings. Pay attention to ring 2....belief system.

goto my post #18.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8773

MikeF
11-06-2009, 06:55 PM
But I fear we're going to soon have something called "Pre-TSD" as an identified psychiatric condition.

MikeF, I think there will be much chicken/egg debate regarding the doc. But I'd like to hear more about the suicide bomber angle. I take it you're saying a "caregiver" instinct was exploited to actually influence behavior towards something counter to the expected norm.

This dude is not a victim, and I think that we hamper ourselves with all these labelings about disorders. In some ways, modern pyschology is about as modern as the army personnel system.

The caregiver instict is not valid. We have countless nurses, cops, and soldiers that are care-givers and don't snap and go postal.

I've been sorting through some thoughts about the suicide-bomber stuff. I may eventually incorporate it into an article. Right now, I'm probably gonna read up on some SBW and see how it fits.

Mike

Boondoggle
11-06-2009, 07:08 PM
Questions I have after reflecting for a day:

1. His Chain of Command. Why was he being forced to deploy when (already in hindsight) their were numerous signals he was unfit, and a danger to other troops? It flows into the larger issue of the stress placed upon the services, particulary the USMC and Army, to provide the forces necessary for two wars, plus our other ongoing responsibilities. While I've seen this occur with rifle units, where Marines on the edge, who really shouldn't go back, do because there is no magic "Dr's note" and the units are under stress to find the bodies to flesh out their numbers. Haven't seen/heard it as much as a few years ago. But few realize it spreads beyond just the grunts. Two years ago, a Navy psychiatrist gave me the percentage of doctors the Navy was short in his profession. I don't want to quote the percentage because I can't recall the exact number, but it was shockingly, shockingly low. They did not have the bodies to offer the necessary services. Whether the Army psychiatry corps was similiary understaffed, and whether that caused them to cut corners and force this person to deploy when he should have been seperated from service is a question that needs to be asked.

2. Was this jihadist/religious/political statement, a result of the mental trauma from working with (it appears, but not confirmed by any means) numbers of troops with PTSD, another mental condition, or a combination of these factors? I've seen first hand how draining it is, both mentally, morally and physically on the providers who help these soldiers, sailors and Marines. It is not a figment of imagination or "physcho babble" as some idiot JAG was referring to last night on Larry King. It's real. But whether that was a contributing factor should be of interest if no other reason than...

3. What will be his reply to whatever charges are brought in court (military or civilian TBD)? If he really has been working for an extensive period of time with PTSD troops, undoubtably he has heard some disturbing, highly disturbing stories. Would he seek to introduce evidence of this as some sort of mental capacity defense or as mitigation at any sentencing. Beyond the legal questions of his doctor/client relationship, what if he uses a trial to turn the "issue" somehow to the conduct of our troops during the war?

So early, but this could turn a truely awful event and drag it through all kinds of worse. I hope not.

Schmedlap
11-06-2009, 08:39 PM
My only confusion on this issue is why it has prompted discussion of suicide, PTSD, and stress on our military.

From what I've gathered, this is a guy who never deployed and then went on a murderous rampage.

At least I haven't heard anyone blame Bush or the NRA... yet.

slapout9
11-06-2009, 08:47 PM
It is not PTSD.....it is his Belief System. And that has nothing to do with Islam. Whenever a personal believes that violence is an acceptable solution to a problem..... an attack will occur unless the original motive is dealt with. That is why after all the backround work is done it will be obvious:eek: that an attack was coming but no one did anything.....most organizations never deal with the Original Motive For War as CvC would say......that was for you Wilf;)

Rank amateur
11-06-2009, 09:06 PM
At least I haven't heard anyone blame Bush or the NRA... yet.


Ask and yea shall receive.

Seriously, I think he "switched sides." I think he felt - and I'm just talking about his thoughts in his mind, not saying I or anyone else agree with them - that he believed he had to choose between his religion and his country. A choice he tried to avoid by getting out of the Army, and by asking not to be deployed.

Based on some of the articles I've read, it appears as though he used to go to the Mosque in his uniform. Then he switched to wearing what for lack of the correct term I'll call "Islamic attire" around the base. A clear statement on his part.

(I could be wrong. I haven't heard much about his victims. Might change my mind if it turns out he went after people who he personally had trouble with as opposed to soldiers about to deploy.)

Anyway, that's why I always thought "You're for us or against us" was a dumb idea. "Don't kill us and we won't kill you" seems like a much better message. Keep the people who don't like us or BinLaden on the sidelines. There's enough of us already. Even one more of them is too many.

jmm99
11-06-2009, 09:16 PM
but as to this:


from Slap
And that has nothing to do with Islam.

"nothing to do with Islam" is not something we should assume. See above post by omarali50 , which is excellent.

The simplest explanation is that the man was quite sane, spent time and meditation in developing the concept of defensive jihad (preventing non-Muslim troops from setting foot in Muslim lands) ala the extreme Salafists (e.g., AQ), and put that developed concept into practice.

Some (many ?) will not be able to handle that explanation if it turns out to be so. It would be a case of absolute betrayal by a field grade officer - treason in a very real sense even though he is unlikely to be charged with that.

An easier explanation for many to handle is the nutjob who snapped. Boondoggle (nice to see a post from you, ancient JA :)) is not endorsing that, but he does explain how that explanation could be developed.

I am waiting for the CID and FBI folks to complete their investigation - and I expect we will also have tons of media investigation and the inevitable punditry.

-------------------------

Nicely paragraphed. Now if you would put a space between the paragraphs, they would even be kinder on my old eyes. :)

slapout9
11-06-2009, 09:22 PM
The simplest explanation is that the man was quite sane, spent time and meditation in developing the concept of defensive jihad (preventing non-Muslim troops from setting foot in Muslim lands) ala the extreme Salafists (e.g., AQ), and put that developed concept into practice.


1-Islam as a religion had nothing to do with it......as a belief system to justify his actions had a lot to do with it. See the difference?

SWJED
11-06-2009, 09:34 PM
Hasan’s Officer Record Brief was posted at This ain't hell, but you can see it from here (http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#1bZzJx/thisainthell.us/blog?p=15460/).

slapout9
11-06-2009, 09:55 PM
Hasan’s Officer Record Brief was posted at This ain't hell, but you can see it from here (http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#1bZzJx/thisainthell.us/blog?p=15460/).

Under Religion it states no religious preferance.

safaa
11-06-2009, 10:05 PM
I am not sure why, but part of me really hopes these guys were not soldiers.

we hope too but it happens that they are members of the army. but i think that their mentality is not good

Schmedlap
11-06-2009, 10:15 PM
Hasan’s Officer Record Brief was posted at This ain't hell, but you can see it from here (http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#1bZzJx/thisainthell.us/blog?p=15460/).
Can anyone's ORB be obtained and placed into the public domain legally (assuming the individual is in a coma and not in a position to give his approval)?

175 months of dwell time. Never seen that before.

MikeF
11-06-2009, 10:16 PM
The simplest explanation is that the man was quite sane, spent time and meditation in developing the concept of defensive jihad (preventing non-Muslim troops from setting foot in Muslim lands) ala the extreme Salafists (e.g., AQ), and put that developed concept into practice.


Slap and JMM got me thinking. I was wrong on the irrational part. I'll update my initial thoughts, blend in their observations, and we can see how it pans out. Like JMM suggested, this theory may be hard for some to accept.


1. Actor was Rational.

2. Actor had perceived grievances, or motive, or emotions.

3. Actor justified his actions through rational thought, decision making, and in belief that means justified the ends.

Actor could be this clown at Ft. Hood or a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Mike

slapout9
11-06-2009, 10:38 PM
The simplest explanation is this guy wanted out of the Army and he apparently had some legitimate claim to this, up to and including hiring an attorney to support his claim. When that failed and he was sent to Ft. Hood to be deployed somewhere......the path to murder became what he perceived as his only way to solve his problem. The 5 Rings of violence don't miss.

Entropy
11-06-2009, 10:39 PM
Col. Patrick Lang has the best analysis I've seen yet. (http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/11/major-hasans-alienation.html)


It is sadly amusing how much people do not want this to be about the man's religion or his Palestinian ancestry.

His relatives understandably want other Americans to believe that he was traumatized by listening to soldiers' stories about the wars. They certainly don't want people to think that there was anything about the atmosphere in his father's house that caused this man to reject the land of his birth and the obligations of his oath.

The media flacks have now been conditioned into political correctness to such an extent that they can't bring themselves to suggest that his Islam or his sense of grievance about American wars in the Islamic World had anything to do with what he did.

Read the whole thing.

slapout9
11-06-2009, 10:43 PM
Col. Patrick Lang has the best analysis I've seen yet. (http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/11/major-hasans-alienation.html)



Read the whole thing.

I did and did you see the part about wearing strange clothes and being caught on a surveillance camera.

slapout9
11-06-2009, 10:45 PM
Actor could be this clown at Ft. Hood or a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Mike

Absolutely, their is little difference except for the location.

SWJED
11-06-2009, 11:13 PM
Can anyone's ORB be obtained and placed into the public domain legally (assuming the individual is in a coma and not in a position to give his approval)?

175 months of dwell time. Never seen that before.

Good question for which I don't know. I think someone with access probably sent it to the blog or to someone else who did. It has a SSN (the blogger blacked it out after a few people requested such in the comments). I'd like to think such records are not in the public domain but with FOIA and people seeking 15 minutes of fame when a big story breaks I think we will see more of this rather than less.

Entropy
11-06-2009, 11:20 PM
Good question for which I don't know. I think someone with access probably sent it to the blog or to someone else who did. It has a SSN (the blogger blacked it out after a few people requested such in the comments). I'd like to think such records are not in the public domain but with FOIA and people seeking 15 minutes of fame when a big story breaks I think we will see more of this rather than less.

It is clear violation of the privacy act.

Schmedlap
11-06-2009, 11:47 PM
Slap and JMM got me thinking. I was wrong on the irrational part.

I think state of mind and intent will be the big issues. How those are defined will be determined by what jurisdiction he is tried in, assuming he emerges from his coma.

MikeF
11-07-2009, 12:00 AM
Don't ever mess with girls from Carolina with guns. You'll lose. Hopefully, she'll recover from her wounds soon. My mom told me that Hoggard High School is recognizing her tonight at the varsity football game.

Officer who shot suspect is a firearms expert (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07police.html)


The police officer who brought down a gunman after he went on a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army base was on the way to have her car repaired when she heard a report over a police radio that someone was shooting people in a center where soldiers are processed before they are deployed abroad, authorities said on Friday.

As she pulled up to the center, the officer, Kimberly Munley, spotted the gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, brandishing a pistol and chasing a wounded soldier outside the building, said Chuck Medley, the director of emergency services at the base.

Sergeant Munley bolted from her car and shot at Major Hasan. He turned toward her and began to fire. She ran toward him, continuing to fire, and both she and the gunmen went down with several bullet wounds, Mr. Medley said...

Sergeant Munley comes from North Carolina, where her father owns a hardware store in Carolina Beach and is a former mayor. She attended Hoggard County High School.

slapout9
11-07-2009, 01:07 AM
Just caught the tail end of a tv report and Col. Jack Jacobs was talking about how the number of wounds and bullets don't seem to add up? He then remarked some injuries may have been due to friendly fire? Anybody else heard anything like this?

Schmedlap
11-07-2009, 01:10 AM
I heard the term "friendly fire" used on the radio. I think it was referring to the possibility that the police officer's hail of bullets could have struck individuals other than the shooter. Unfortunate, if true, but excusable.

jmm99
11-07-2009, 02:38 AM
if he wanted out of the Army, was simply to refuse the deployment order; at which point he would be charged under the UCMJ for refusal of a lawful order and the process would have gone from there - probably ending up in some sort of compromise plea bargain . In any event, no killings.

No, much more than that was involved here. You don't take down the equivalent of 1-1/2 platoons without very strong convictions about your "right" to do so. In the abstract, that "right" could be irrational or rational. In the fact, it was either one or the other.

Perhaps, we have a problem with the concept that a native-born American (a field grade officer at that) can rationally reject loyalty to the US for what that person considers a higher loyalty ? So, the impetus to find the "real underlying motive", with MAJ Hasan using religion as an external justification as cover for that "motive" ?

In listening to that argument, I think of the SovComs finding that executions and gulagings were not the best way to handle dissidents. They eventually felt that mental hospitals were the better way - given the wonders of the Soviet system, anyone rejecting those wonders had to be insane. That in the end did not change the reality that their dissidents were not nutjobs.

We have had much higher ranking traitors than MAJ Hasan - e.g., Alger Hiss in the US; Kim Philby in the UK. Between them, they killed more people (albeit indirectly) than did MAJ Hasan.

Maybe the CID and FBI investigations will prove that he was a nutjob. If so, then we will be looking at the UCMJ provisions governing mental capacity. BTW: UCMJ has exclusive jurisdiction.

Let's see where the facts lead us.

And, another BTW: no legal justification should exist for the murders - except for classic legal insanity (e.g., he thought he was shooting Martian invaders).

---------------------------

This exact situation came up at K.I. Sawyer during the Vietnam War - refusal by an INCONUS officer to deploy to Vietnam.

Entropy
11-07-2009, 03:11 AM
I heard the term "friendly fire" used on the radio. I think it was referring to the possibility that the police officer's hail of bullets could have struck individuals other than the shooter. Unfortunate, if true, but excusable.

Must be very difficult to tell who is who with everyone, including the shooter, in the same uniform.

Greyhawk
11-07-2009, 03:54 AM
Caption: A first responder to a lone gunman's attack at Fort Hood Nov. 5 renders honors at retreat after aiding his fellow soldiers. U.S. Army photo.

slapout9
11-07-2009, 04:18 AM
Must be very difficult to tell who is who with everyone, including the shooter, in the same uniform.

Maybe a lot more to this. I just watched Anderson Cooper do a telephone interview with a Sgt. Todd of the Ft. Hood PD who also responded with Sgt. Munley, he also stated he engaged the suspect with his service weapon and saw the suspect go down and then advanced to the suspect and made sure he was no longer a threat. Who's bullets from who's weapon actually hit the suspect is still to be determined.


Also saw a press conference at FT. Hood where an Army Colonel reported that the suspect fired over 100 rounds.

slapout9
11-07-2009, 04:31 AM
if he wanted out of the Army, was simply to refuse the deployment order; at which point he would be charged under the UCMJ for refusal of a lawful order and the process would have gone from there - probably ending up in some sort of compromise plea bargain . In any event, no killings.



Why didn't the attorney he hired to advise him tell him that? jmm call some of your lawyer buddies and find out what happened. This part of the case really interest me, although details are sketchy from that point on a lot of the major events started happening.

Schmedlap
11-07-2009, 05:05 AM
if he wanted out of the Army, was simply to refuse the deployment order; at which point he would be charged under the UCMJ for refusal of a lawful order and the process would have gone from there - probably ending up in some sort of compromise plea bargain
. In any event, no killings.


Why didn't the attorney he hired to advise him tell him that? jmm call some of your lawyer buddies and find out what happened. This part of the case really interest me, although details are sketchy from that point on a lot of the major events started happening.

I don't think that a lawyer can advise his client to deliberately break the law.

slapout9
11-07-2009, 05:55 AM
Secret Service Manual for Threat Assessment Investigations read and you will see a lot of similarities to the Ft. Hood Shooting. To me it is the bible and during my LE career I had cause to interact with some of the folks that wrote it and they are grade A just like the material. SWC own Randy Borum was/is one of them. Randy where you at man?


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/170612.pdf

jmm99
11-07-2009, 06:32 AM
from Schmedlap
I don't think that a lawyer can advise his client to deliberately break the law.

but, a lawyer can advise his client not only of the legal option (here obey the order), but also the maximum consequences, the minimum consequences and the probable consequences of not taking the legal option. It's up to the client to make his choice - call me (the lawyer) after you make your decision.

I have no idea of who represented MAJ Hasan and am not inclined to find out by calling some of my "lawyer buddies" or anyone else. That lawyer is not likely to say what he did or did not advise his client.

Going to the guts of the matter, a claim of CO status could also have been made based on his religious belief that non-Muslim forces should not place a foot down in Muslim lands - lots of Sharia authority for that. And, that would be a good time to advise the client of the consequences of refusing the order if the CO defense failed.

Guys, MAJ Hasan's classmate on Anderson Cooper (CNN 360, a few hours ago) told of Hasan's powerpoint presentations about Islamic doctrine, etc., in classes having nothing to do with Islam. I'm curious whether they found the AQ Reader among his possessions. Anyway, this guy's extreme Salafist views were not something recent but go back to Walter Reed classes. I expect that like statements are going to multiply as more and more people take their 15 minutes at the mic.

Uboat509
11-07-2009, 06:44 AM
My 2 cents based on what is available right now, which isn't much. Something to consider, in my, admittedly anecdotal, experience a good many of those who go into the mental health profession do so because they have, or think that they have some type of problem which they think that they will learn how to fix. An anesthesiologist that I worked with once told me that the two medical specialties with the highest rates of drug abuse were anesthesia and psychiatry. All the reports about him seem to lend some credence to this. He had few friends and felt as if he "didn't fit in." All of the reports about him seem to point to him being very socially awkward and rather cold. None of this proves anything but I am leaning toward Omareli's theory. The more I hear about this guy, the more he sounds like McVeigh. McVeigh was not turned into a ticking time bomb by the ideology he encountered, rather he was already a ticking time bomb in search of an ideology.

On another note, I am really starting to dislike the less than subtle undertones of the reporting of this case. The USA Today, for instance, mentioned several times how many soldiers at Fort Hood had served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan even though that has absolutely nothing to do with Hasan, who never even served one tour. On NPR a guest host who was filling in for Diane Riehm asked some expert that she was interviewing if he thought that this would effect President Obama's decision on how many troops to send to Afghanistan, because clearly our soldiers are way overstressed, again, even though Hasan had never deployed. All this kind of rhetoric lends undeserved credence to the idea that some have that every soldier is a ticking time bomb. It never ceases to amaze me how many people already believe that every servicemember who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan is emotionally destroyed. This is not helping.

SFC W

jmm99
11-07-2009, 06:58 AM
but here are Selected Works of Randy Borum (http://works.bepress.com/randy_borum/).

From Preventing Targeted Violence Against Judicial Officials and Courts (http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=randy_borum):


Assassination myths and ECSP findings

There are three beliefs about assassination that have been widely held and perpetuated in the popular culture: (1) there is a profile of “the assassin,” (2) assassinations are the result of mental illness or derangement, and (3) those who make threats pose the greatest risk. These beliefs, however, were largely unsupported by data from the ECSP and do not withstand critical thinking about assassination behaviors. Because these beliefs are untrue, they are now known to be myths.

Much fuller explanation in article. And some key observations:


Key observations on assassinations and attacks

A number of key observations about assassins and their behaviors have emerged from the ECSP. The first is that targeted violence is the end result of an understandable, and often discernible, process of thinking and behavior. Assassinations, attacks, and near-attacks, almost without exception, were neither impulsive nor spontaneous acts. The notion of attacking a public official or public figure did not leap into the mind of a person standing, for example, at a political rally attended by the president. Assassins were not impelled into immediate violent action by sudden new thoughts that popped into their heads. Rather, ideas of assassination developed over weeks and months, even years. For some would-be attackers, such thinking organizes their lives, providing a sense of meaning and purpose or an ending point when they believe their emotional pain will cease. For others, thinking about assassination is compartmentalized.

Some potential assassins engage in ongoing internal discussions about their attacks while maintaining outward appearances of normality and regularity. In every case, however, assassination was the end result of an understandable process involving the attacker’s pattern of thoughts, decisions, behaviors, and actions that preceded the attack (Fein and Vossekuil 1998, 1999).

More in the article.

slapout9
11-07-2009, 07:49 AM
jmm99, that is right a lot of what this guy did happened in my own situation when I was ambushed at my house. The guy had started giving away his personal belongings and moving out some of his furniture just like Nasan a lot of other behvioral indicators are present to. In my case he had a shotgun, a .44 magnum, and a colt .380 mustang and he just opened up on me while I was walking to my front door of my house with my wife. I posted an article about it from a Police Magazine a few years back, it is on SWC somewhere I guess. All this happened after a 6 month stalking episode so a lot of what happend at Ft. Hood is pretty close to how these incidents happen. The Pathway to murder is the pathway to murder. As awful as it is there just isn't really that much mystery to them IMO.

omarali50
11-07-2009, 04:35 PM
jmm99, ..The Pathway to murder is the pathway to murder. As awful as it is there just isn't really that much mystery to them IMO.

You remind me of the dialogue from "the usual suspects" where Verbal Kent says "to a policeman, things are not that complicated..." or words to that effect.

The immediate outbreak of Oprah style mumbojumbo on every network (including FOX where one cannot think it is motivated by fear of Islamophobia) shows that this goes beyond political correctness ...This is a culture wide phenomenon and its decadent and disturbing.

EVERY event seems to be followed by instant groupthink about "stress" and the emotional toll of tours of duty without even the most cursory attempt at some kind of logical connection. As an immigrant who supposedly moved here by choice, this is one of the things that sets my teeth on edge....is this terminal decline? I certainly hope not. But its shockingly common and almost automatic.

MikeF
11-07-2009, 04:42 PM
jmm99, that is right a lot of what this guy did happened in my own situation when I was ambushed at my house. The guy had started giving away his personal belongings and moving out some of his furniture just like Nasan a lot of other behvioral indicators are present to. In my case he had a shotgun, a .44 magnum, and a colt .380 mustang and he just opened up on me while I was walking to my front door of my house with my wife. I posted an article about it from a Police Magazine a few years back, it is on SWC somewhere I guess. All this happened after a 6 month stalking episode so a lot of what happend at Ft. Hood is pretty close to how these incidents happen. The Pathway to murder is the pathway to murder. As awful as it is there just isn't really that much mystery to them IMO.

The LE and lawyers analysis from Schmedlap, Slap, JMM, and others is quickly overcoming my social scientist background. Words mean things and motive seems the appropriate term to capture perceived grievances, disgruntled emotions, and ideology as I'm considering this case and suicide bombers in general.

I had a sociologist brief a provactive lecture that the 21st century is going to be the century of the empowered individual. Not really anything new (John Brown comes to mind), but with the advances in technology in media, he suggested that we will see a rise in aggravated sensational murders in a twisted way to make a statement or influence policy.

I would suggest that we minimize this dude as a traitor and murderer. If we overeact and tighten security measures on bases, start broadcasting that soldiers are victims, or change policy in A'stan/Iraq, then he wins.

The best thing we can do is mourn the victims, praise the first responders as heroes, and get back to our normal lives.

Mike

MikeF
11-07-2009, 04:49 PM
The immediate outbreak of Oprah style mumbojumbo on every network (including FOX where one cannot think it is motivated by fear of Islamophobia) shows that this goes beyond political correctness ...This is a culture wide phenomenon and its decadent and disturbing.

Omarali,

I have been considering your comments over the last several days, and I can only think of the damage that Major has done for American Muslims and Islamophobia in general. Last night, clips of radical Islamists in NYC were shown over and over praising this idiot.

My suggestion to Islamic leaders would be to have an IO message clearly stating to it's followers what a selfish and unIslamic act that major did.

I certainly hope that his actions are minimized. I heard an articulate Army Major (who happened to be Muslim) on NPR yesterday rightly state that Islam had been in America since we first introduced slavery and Muslims had been fighting in the Army ever since the Revolutionary War.

slapout9
11-07-2009, 04:50 PM
You remind me of the dialogue from "the usual suspects" where Verbal Kent says "to a policeman, things are not that complicated..." or words to that effect.




Thank You, I take that as a compliment, because things are not that complicated. If you remember the end of the movie where they go through the whole process and discussion of Kaiser Soze (Kevin Spacey) he used a lot of lies and mumbo jumbo to cover up the fact that he was just a plain old criminal. A little smarter than most but still just a criminal.
Major Nasan hijacked a religion to justify his criminal action, just like David Karesh did in Waco Texas but that was Christianity not Islam, nothing but a vehicle of justification for a criminal act.

Dr. C
11-07-2009, 06:00 PM
I would suggest that we minimize this dude as a traitor and murderer. If we overeact and tighten security measures on bases, start broadcasting that soldiers are victims, or change policy in A'stan/Iraq, then he wins.

The best thing we can do is mourn the victims, praise the first responders as heroes, and get back to our normal lives.

Mike

Mike: I hesitated to comment in the forum because I'm not sure what words are really best.

I have a few questions.

1. What is the correct leadership response? Isn't it possible that the Soldiers who were in the room and were shot at might need or want some time or help to heal emotionally before deploying to Iraq, or just Soldiering on?

2. How will the Army investigate itself about the career track of the shooter? Was the investment of tax dollars in his training and education worth the risk of keeping him in if there were any signs of trouble?

I grieve what's happened at Hood. It's obviously shocked a lot of people that a brother could kill his own. To be honest, I went through the grieving stages a while ago when these mass shootings started, especially at places like schools where classmates can kill people they sit side by side with on a daily basis. The response is usually more security, when I believe it's about individuals listening and paying more attention to their gut instincts. How can that be taught so people aren't just filed through the system if there are red flags?

One thing that has struck me as a civilian with no prior military experience is the assumption from military personnel, especially if they've lived most of their lives on Army posts, that civilians aren't used to being shot at or that we're so different we don't know how to be empathetic about their combat experience, for those in the military who have combat experience.

jmm99
11-07-2009, 06:24 PM
not necessarily "minimize" - and definitely do not "maximize".

Mike, you gave the example of an Army O-4 (a Muslim officer).

Last nite, I listened to a Navy (ret.) O-4 (also a Muslim officer), who has formed an organization aimed at separation of Mosque and State (as he put it). More broadly, he sees American values not only in accord with Islamic values, but as providing the best way for Muslims to practice their religiion freely.

And, we have another Navy O-4 (a Muslim officer), Youssef Aboul-Enein, who co-authored Islamic Rulings on Warfare, which you will find discussed in this post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=85791&postcount=52).

Tim McVeigh and MAJ Hasan are good comparatives (credit: Uboat509). Whether the man hijacked the ideology or whether the ideology hijacked the man becomes a chicken-egg question. At some point, the two began working together and, in those two individuals, resulted in lethal mixes. Can lethal mixes be predicted and prevented ? I doubt it. Thousands of people read the Turner Diaries. Very few acted them out and none went so far as Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

MikeF
11-07-2009, 07:17 PM
Michelle,

First, you should grieve. It's healthy. This was a tragedy, and it's sad. My heart broke when I heard about it. For many of us, it is frustrating b/c we can't do anything (lack of control).

Second, take my responses with a grain of salt. It's just the way my brain works. For the moment, with this specific case, JMM, Schmedlap, and Slap are more appropriate. I tend to analyze and consider many things at once (ie suicide bombers and this dude). There will be many times that I have to say I was wrong:confused:.



1. What is the correct leadership response? Isn't it possible that the Soldiers who were in the room and were shot at might need or want some time or help to heal emotionally before deploying to Iraq, or just Soldiering on?

Most definitely yes, and from what I understand, we have already sent crisis response teams to Fort Hood. A combination of medical assistance, collective community grievance, and soldiering on is highly effective. For example, look at the differences in the gov'ts response to the Oklahoma City bombing and Hurricane Katrina. Over time, the resiliance of the people of OK can be perceived as a direct correlation to the initial response. It's the same response we take with combat stress teams in Iraq/A'stan. At one point, I observed a company collectively quit and refuse mission after they suffered severe casualties to include the company commander. After the crisis teams were brought in, and the unit was giving time to grieve, they were able to continue mission.


2. How will the Army investigate itself about the career track of the shooter? Was the investment of tax dollars in his training and education worth the risk of keeping him in if there were any signs of trouble?


If I was king, I'd be closely examining his chain-of command. There would probably be a lot of people fired.

MikeF
11-07-2009, 07:44 PM
and something that i'm working on towards a paper on martyrdom. As uncomfortable as this stuff is, Wilf and the Good Book constantly remind us that there is nothing new under the sun.


Remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me. I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of my enemies for my two eyes. Let me die with the infidels!

The military officer planned his final attack. During the last days, he took careful consideration and meticulous care in preparation for his decisive action. He would free his people. He was extremely bright, calculating, and highly successful. To some, he was considered awkward and aloof. He was deeply thoughtful, spiritual, and religious, and he knew that God had left him at times in his life as he struggled with women, power, and life. In those final days, he abstained from impurities, cleansed himself, and prayed for discretion and discernment. His motive was pure. The grievances of his people from the infidels was unbearable. His anger, frustration, disenchantment demanded action. God demanded revenge. That morning, he struck killing his enemies and sacrificing his own life for the greater good.

In the Jewish and Christian faith, his name is Samson, and he is celebrated as an epic hero of Herculian proportions. To the Philistines, he was a terrorist. It has nothing to do with religion, ideology, or the so called post-modern world.

slapout9
11-07-2009, 08:13 PM
Time for some music. Going way back to Sam Cooke and The Souls Stirrers-If I Could Just Touch The Hem Of His Garment


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFnF1yn6jfI

M Davis
11-08-2009, 02:14 AM
Caption: A first responder to a lone gunman's attack at Fort Hood Nov. 5 renders honors at retreat after aiding his fellow soldiers. U.S. Army photo.

That's my medic from my last deployment. I talked to him yesterday. He pulled 3 casualties out under fire. Not the first time he's put his life on the line. He's an outstanding medic and an outstanding soldier. Questionable taste in music.

MikeF
11-08-2009, 03:43 PM
Army Releases List of Fort Hood Shooting Fatalities (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125763279691636145.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopSto ries)

One comment is that many of the victims were mental health care specialists. As the LE officials are studying targeting, it will be interesting to figure out if they determine the attack to be a target of opportunity, high-payoff target, or targeted assassinations.

I'm not a LE guy, but we tried to conduct the same types of investigations in Iraq in order to try to understand the enemies decision making process in order to counter these threats in the future.

Mike

slapout9
11-08-2009, 03:49 PM
Army Releases List of Fort Hood Shooting Fatalities (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125763279691636145.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopSto ries)

One comment is that many of the victims were mental health care specialists. As the LE officials are studying targeting, it will be interesting to figure out if they determine the attack to be a target of opportunity, high-payoff target, or targeted assassinations.

I'm not a LE guy, but we tried to conduct the same types of investigations in Iraq in order to try to understand the enemies decision making process in order to counter these threats in the future.

Mike

Mike, it is really the same thing you did in Iraq LE just uses different words.
Gimme a minute to find something.


Short paper on Threat Assessment, preferably you do BEFORE the attack in order to prevent it and targeting is a big consideration, Taget shifting is very strong attack related behavior. That is why my Ring 5 has primary and secondary targets.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/threat.pdf

MikeF
11-08-2009, 04:08 PM
Mike, it is really the same thing you did in Iraq LE just uses different words.
Gimme a minute to find something.


Short paper on Threat Assessment, preferably you do BEFORE the attack in order to prevent it and targeting is a big consideration, Taget shifting is very strong attack related behavior. That is why my Ring 5 has primary and secondary targets.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/threat.pdf

Thanks Slap. Yeah, we just watched episodes of the Shield and NCIS to figure it out:D.

slapout9
11-08-2009, 04:31 PM
http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/115/index.jsp

This used to be my favorite. Wire In The Blood on BBC America but it must have been cancelled:(

davidbfpo, is this show still on the air in the UK?

omarali50
11-08-2009, 05:11 PM
When I first started arguing about these things on the internet I used to insist that no one has hijacked Islam or misused Islam. Islam (and Christianity and Judaism and whatever) are not persons or single objects, they are social and historical phenomenons which have evolved and developed over time and by now there are as many Islams and Christianities as there are Muslims and Christians. To say its been "hijacked" is to assume that there is a "correct" version which Mr. X is misusing. But there is no reference version. There are only versions. And so on.

Now, I dont take that line as much, not because I no longer believe in it but because I can see that it is itself an expression of a certain secular philosophical viewpoint that everyone simply does not share. I still regard it as "correct" but I am less dogmatic about it in debate. I think its better to focus on fair-mindedness. I see Christians whose firmly held beliefs would place them far away from my worldview, yet who are so scrupulously fair-minded I am awed. I want to try to be fair and want others to be the same and I think things can be worked out. Or not. In which case, "the law will takes its course"..not just the law on a small scale, but law as in "natural law".

Finally, a couple of quotes:
Everything is placed in pledge, and a net is spread over all the living. The store is open, the storekeeper extends credit, the account-book lies open, the hand writes, and all who wish to borrow may come and borrow. The collection-officers make their rounds every day and exact payment from man, with his knowledge and without his knowledge. Their case is well founded, the judgement is a judgement of truth, and ultimately, all is prepared for the feast. (Rabbi Akiva)

But a more pessimistic take:

Could man be drunk for ever
With liquor, love, or fights,
Lief should I rouse at morning
And lief lie down at nights.

But men at whiles are sober
And think by fits and starts,
And if they think, they fasten
Their hands upon their hearts (Housman)

Bill Moore
11-08-2009, 05:30 PM
On another note, I am really starting to dislike the less than subtle undertones of the reporting of this case. The USA Today, for instance, mentioned several times how many soldiers at Fort Hood had served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan even though that has absolutely nothing to do with Hasan, who never even served one tour. On NPR a guest host who was filling in for Diane Riehm asked some expert that she was interviewing if he thought that this would effect President Obama's decision on how many troops to send to Afghanistan, because clearly our soldiers are way overstressed, again, even though Hasan had never deployed. All this kind of rhetoric lends undeserved credence to the idea that some have that every soldier is a ticking time bomb. It never ceases to amaze me how many people already believe that every servicemember who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan is emotionally destroyed.

Since most Americans are reportedly conservative in their views, how did we as a people let these unethical wackos take over our media? If the overwhelming market share is truly conservative and it is a business driven by profit, then it seems to me that we could unite (maybe on twitter) to boycott stations and/or shows that continuously misrepresent the truth. Opposing ideas are encouraged, but what was mentioned above isn't an opposing idea, it is completely misleading. We need a national movement to bring common sense and honesty back to the media.

MikeF
11-08-2009, 05:32 PM
Now, I dont take that line as much, not because I no longer believe in it but because I can see that it is itself an expression of a certain secular philosophical viewpoint that everyone simply does not share. I still regard it as "correct" but I am less dogmatic about it in debate. I think its better to focus on fair-mindedness. I see Christians whose firmly held beliefs would place them far away from my worldview, yet who are so scrupulously fair-minded I am awed. I want to try to be fair and want others to be the same and I think things can be worked out. Or not. In which case, "the law will takes its course"..not just the law on a small scale, but law as in "natural law".

Omarali,

Every religion has its share of radicals that hijack or distort the message for their own personal plight (anger, pride, greed, whatever). Where I'm from, my people used to burn crosses and lynch men and women based on race. Today, extreme radicals attack abortion clinics.

I heard a good sermon today about Stephen's frustration with "friendly fire." The analysis concluded,


Therefore he broke off, and by the Spirit of wisdom, courage, and power, sharply rebuked his persecutors. When plain arguments and truths provoke the opposers of the gospel, they should be shown their guilt and danger. They, like their fathers, were stubborn and wilful. There is that in our sinful hearts, which always resists the Holy Ghost, a flesh that lusts against the Spirit, and wars against his motions; but in the hearts of God's elect, when the fulness of time comes, this resistance is overcome. The gospel was offered now, not by angels, but from the Holy Ghost; yet they did not embrace it, for they were resolved not to comply with God, either in his law or in his gospel. Their guilt stung them to the heart, and they sought relief in murdering their reprover, instead of sorrow and supplication for mercy.

Bottom line is one of the wonderful things about our country is religious freedom, and we cannot let hate, fear-mongering, or radicals take that away.

Mike

omarali50
11-08-2009, 08:33 PM
Since most Americans are reportedly conservative in their views, how did we as a people let these unethical wackos take over our media? If the overwhelming market share is truly conservative and it is a business driven by profit, then it seems to me that we could unite (maybe on twitter) to boycott stations and/or shows that continuously misrepresent the truth. Opposing ideas are encouraged, but what was mentioned above isn't an opposing idea, it is completely misleading. We need a national movement to bring common sense and honesty back to the media.

Bill, would you regard FOX as a generally honest network, brimming with common sense?
In my opinion, the rot runs deeper than conservative or liberal. I dont want to start an endless argument, but I can think of many areas where Rush Limbaugh is not an honest reporter and shamelessly spins the news to suit a particular agenda...and I do think his agenda is NOT Christian or conservative, at least not in the sense in which either Christianity or conservatism have been understood by many of their most fervent and sincere adherents (of course, my own point about there being no reference version, only versions, comes in the way of my making too much about how this or that person is not "really Christian"..).

tequila
11-08-2009, 08:57 PM
Since most Americans are reportedly conservative in their views, how did we as a people let these unethical wackos take over our media? If the overwhelming market share is truly conservative and it is a business driven by profit, then it seems to me that we could unite (maybe on twitter) to boycott stations and/or shows that continuously misrepresent the truth. Opposing ideas are encouraged, but what was mentioned above isn't an opposing idea, it is completely misleading. We need a national movement to bring common sense and honesty back to the media.


I find it funny that you seem to correlate political conservatism with ethical behavior or journalism.

Also the idea that PTSD had nothing to do with this shooting incident is likely true, it does not appear to be the same with this case (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html), which oddly has not been commented on at all in the media in the wake of the recent shooting.

Ops-n-Intel
11-08-2009, 09:35 PM
I do not agree poor marksmanship is excusable.

There is a widely accepted practice of limited and sporadic live-fire and situational training for law enforcement.

To volunteer for a profession where it is known there is a high probability of returning fire in close proximity to civilians brings with it the obligation (both of the department and of the officers) to train and prepare for it.

Bill Moore
11-08-2009, 09:41 PM
Bill, would you regard FOX as a generally honest network, brimming with common sense?
In my opinion, the rot runs deeper than conservative or liberal.

Fair comments, actually I dislike Fox News spin as much as I dislike the spin on MSNBC and CBS. Instead of debating left and right wing politics I need to do a better job at framing my actual argument.


I find it funny that you seem to correlate political conservatism with ethical behavior or journalism

Based on the way I wrote that post I guess you wouldn't have much choice but to make that correlation, but that wasn't my intent. My point is why don't see public backlash against bad reporting (liberal or conservative?). In this case recent polls indicate that most Americans are conservative (what does that really mean?), so why do leftist shows tend to garner most of the market? Seems to be a disconnect there.

In Iran and Indonesia we have seen recent social movements against the government/media on twitter and facebook. Social movements that in the U.S. could allow the market to mandate more honest reporting, undo excessive political correctness laws (such as tossing a kid out of school because he brings a pocket knife to school), pushing books into our grade schools that promote certain types of behavior, etc. The majority react in shock to this type of Nazi like thought control, but they don't organize to counter it.

Schmedlap
11-08-2009, 10:17 PM
My point is why don't see public backlash against bad reporting (liberal or conservative?).

Because the target audience for those programs is largely composed of people who are willfully ignorant or dishonest. Lots of left-leaning individuals are happy to have a blatantly biased left-leaning "news" source. Lots of right-leaning individuals are happy to have a blatantly biased right-leaning "news" source. Most of the people who don't have strong left or right views just watch their local news to stay abreast of weather, local construction, sports scores, and other non-alarmist issues.

There was a great quote in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574513721398614840.html)c riticizing Glenn Beck (but it is applicable to all jerk-offs on the left and right, on radio and cable news, on network news and in the pages of various rags)...


These are postulates that it is only possible to believe after you have utterly closed yourself off to conventional ways of knowing, after you have decided that the reporting and analysis and scholarship on these subjects are not worth reading, and that you will choose ideological fairy tales over reality...

... a new kind of ignorance, a coming high-tech dark age in which people can choose to blow off professional standards of inquiry; in which they can wall themselves off with cable TV and friendly Web sites, dismiss what displeases as ... bias...

slapout9
11-08-2009, 11:20 PM
In Iran and Indonesia we have seen recent social movements against the government/media on twitter and facebook. Social movements that in the U.S. could allow the market to mandate more honest reporting, undo excessive political correctness laws (such as tossing a kid out of school because he brings a pocket knife to school), pushing books into our grade schools that promote certain types of behavior, etc. The majority react in shock to this type of Nazi like thought control, but they don't organize to counter it.

Bill, you make an important point here.

Ops-n-Intel
11-09-2009, 02:34 AM
I do not agree poor marksmanship is excusable.

There is a widely accepted practice of limited and sporadic live-fire and situational training for law enforcement.

To volunteer for a profession where it is known there is a high probability of returning fire in close proximity to civilians brings with it the obligation (both of the department and of the officers) to train and prepare for it.

This is Sgt Todd's account (officer with Sgt Munley) of the incident:

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1963257-Texas-officers-partner-describes-gun-battle-with-Fort-Hood-shooter/

Ops-n-Intel
11-09-2009, 03:40 AM
Bill, would you regard FOX as a generally honest network, brimming with common sense?
In my opinion, the rot runs deeper than conservative or liberal. I dont want to start an endless argument, but I can think of many areas where Rush Limbaugh is not an honest reporter and shamelessly spins the news to suit a particular agenda...and I do think his agenda is NOT Christian or conservative, at least not in the sense in which either Christianity or conservatism have been understood by many of their most fervent and sincere adherents (of course, my own point about there being no reference version, only versions, comes in the way of my making too much about how this or that person is not "really Christian"..).

For the record:

Rush Limbaugh is not a part of Fox News. (Rush's agenda is Rush.)

Please define really Christian.

Whatever they are talking about on TV/Radio, they are talking about money.

The Bible speaks to money more than any other topic.

Whatever turns out to be Hasan's core motivation, there should zero tolerance for those who "sleep in the bunk house, but won't ride for the brand."

Valin
11-09-2009, 05:55 AM
My point is why don't see public backlash against bad reporting (liberal or conservative?).

No backlash?
see
Freerepublic (http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm)
Lucianne (http://www.lucianne.com/)
From the Right

Democrat Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/)
Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/)
From the Left

You'll find plenty of backlash.

Also the Blogasphere (both left center and right.

I would also point out there's a reason why subscription rates, advertising revenues for all major newspapers (with the exception of the WSJ) are falling like a rock.
People are voting with their feet

MikeF
11-09-2009, 02:45 PM
Since most Americans are reportedly conservative in their views, how did we as a people let these unethical wackos take over our media?


My point is why don't see public backlash against bad reporting (liberal or conservative?). Seems to be a disconnect there.

Bill

Here's some interesting articles sent from a group that conducts micro-conflict resolution with Jews and Palestinians that address your questions. This research is important for small wars as well. It shows that the people rising up is not solely based on the perception of security.


Why do good people do nothing, in the presence of that which breaks their hearts, violates their souls, threatens the planet and our children's children? And why do some people step forward to dazzle us with awesome vision and heroism? Weakness in numbers
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

October 29, 2009, National Public Radio hosted Harvard's Professor Mahzarin Banaji to explain why good people have bystander behavior -- passively observing unspeakable violence and other tragedies.
What Bystanders Do When They Witness Violence
STORY
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114287592
AUDIO
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=114287592&m=114287588

DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY occurs in larger groups of people when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. With more people present -- caught in group-think -- one is less likely to identify that there is a problem or feel a sense of responsibility to respond. With more people in a group, the individual becomes less responsiblle. Women and men are equally passive or brave in responding to emergencies, showed researchers Latane and Darley.

Their study revealed a 75% chance one observer would respond to a crisis dropping to a 10% likelihood of intervening with six onlookers gathered around.

Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility B. Latane and J.M Darley
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. 1968.
http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/0155060678_rathus/ps/ps19.html


ILLUSION OF COURAGE

People falsely imagine that others have more courage and are less vulnerable to social embarrassment. This ILLUSION OF COURAGE in others strongly diminishes individual social responsibility. Also related fear of embarrassment is a potent determinant of in non-intervention in emergency situations. Sadly, inaction is often perceived as the safer personal choice of bystanders to tragedy.

THE ILLUSION OF COURAGE IN SOCIAL PREDICTIONS:
Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people
Leaf Van Boven a,¤, George Loewenstein b, David Dunning c
Published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 96 (2005) 130–141
http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/media/pdfs/loewenstein/IllusionOfCourage.pdf



We are learning about our human fears and courage.
1. In large groups, individuals are less likely to feel responsible.
2. Smaller groups encourage individual participation and creative initiative.
3. People who are bystanders project onto others exaggerated courage and less fear of social embarrassment.

Great courage is required for a person to step forward from the group -- beyond embarrassment and old, collective thinking. Beneath embarrassment is terrifying fear of exclusion -- social or even physical death. This begins to explain why good people do nothing, and why people find it easier to disengage, blame, and kill -- including risking their physical lives in battle -- than to step out of their clan to engage an adversary face to face. Let us each overcome the "diffusion of responsibility."

omarali50
11-09-2009, 03:26 PM
For the record:

Rush Limbaugh is not a part of Fox News. (Rush's agenda is Rush.)

Please define really Christian.

Whatever they are talking about on TV/Radio, they are talking about money.

The Bible speaks to money more than any other topic.

Whatever turns out to be Hasan's core motivation, there should zero tolerance for those who "sleep in the bunk house, but won't ride for the brand."

I think I tried to hint that based on my own previous comments, I couldnt really take this "really Christian or not" argument too far.
True, Rush is not on Fox. I should have picked on O'Riley or (god forbid) Glenn Beck.
I agree one thousand percent with your last comment. All murders are murders, but this particular outrage is ESPECIALLY outrageous because the bastard put on a uniform, served with these people and then turned around and killed them in cold blood. That is just heinous, dishonorable, totally f-ed up and utterly unexcusable. I am generally not in favor of the death penalty, but in this case, that would be the minimum punishment.

jmm99
11-09-2009, 06:22 PM
In 1998, MAJ Hasan's dad died with funeral services held at the funeral home. In May 2001, his mother died with funeral services held at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church. See this post for the parents' obits (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=86363&postcount=22). Nothing much in this, in and of itself - the family had found a mosque.

What is of more potential import is that Anwar al-Awlaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) became the imam of that mosque in Jan 2001. He was a very young Yemeni immigrant to the US and is well educated in secular studies as well as Islamic studies. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University, an M.A. in Education Leadership from San Diego State University and was working on a Doctorate degree in Human Resource Development at George Washington University. During his tenure as imam, two of the 9/11 conspirators were members of the congregation; and he was well acquainted with one of them in both San Diego and Virginia. After 9/11, he was investigated by the FBI, but no charges re: 9/11 or any other jihadist activities were brought against him. He then departed for Yemen, where he now lives.

Today, he issued a tribute to MAJ Hasan, Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing (http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=228), in which he explains at length why MAJ Hasan should have done exactly what he did. Imam al-Awlaki has written extensively about jihad and has summarized his views in a pamphlet, 44 Ways to Support Jihad (http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefaawlaki44wayssupportjihad.pdf).

As I've said, we must keep this event in perspective - and recognize that we are dealing with an American Muslim minority. That fact, al-Awlaki was forced to admit in these two paragraphs (JMM emphasis added):


The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.

The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

and so it goes in the media from our enemies' side of the ledger.

davidbfpo
11-09-2009, 11:57 PM
FRom:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907136.ece


Asked his views on the killings at Fort Hood, he said: “Killing military members is all right. If you are killing people who are fighting against Muslims then that’s okay.”

I prefer the following viewpoint:
If an individual walks into a facility where people are unarmed and opens fire indiscriminately, that’s an act of terrorism.

Mr Zeeshan Hashmi said most Muslims would react to the atrocity with horror, but also with concern that it would be used to sow division.
“People will feel they’ve got to justify their existence all over again and that’s not fair. Remember Columbine? That was terrible too, but it didn’t make us distrust all schoolchildren, did it?”

Mr Hashmi is the brother of the Jabron Hashmi, from Birmingham, who was the first UK Muslim soldier to be killed in Afghanistan.

davidbfpo

Presley Cannady
11-10-2009, 12:12 AM
Omarali,

I have been considering your comments over the last several days, and I can only think of the damage that Major has done for American Muslims and Islamophobia in general. Last night, clips of radical Islamists in NYC were shown over and over praising this idiot.

Three years (http://arabsandterrorism.com/resources/Restrictions_on_Civil_Libe.pdf) on from 9/11, almost half of Americans favored curtailing American Muslim civil liberties to some extent. Doesn't tell us much about undecideds on this matter, but as a matter of political practicality Hasan could hardly do much more damage than Islamic jihadists have already done.


My suggestion to Islamic leaders would be to have an IO message clearly stating to it's followers what a selfish and unIslamic act that major did.

Problem is there is no leadership per se, particularly in the foreign-born Muslim community, and what national organizations there are have tainted reputations stemming from ties between their staffs, affiliates and terrorist organizations. Moreover, Islam world-wide today has a heavy investment in a number of matters of a political nature; analogous to the pro-life movement but tarnished by activists with a far worse capability and reputation for malevolent violence. I fear that we've seen the politics here crystallize to the point where we've a zero-sum game between the West and the landscape of Muslim aspiration.

MikeF
11-10-2009, 12:47 AM
[url=http://arabsandterrorism.com/resources/Restrictions_on_Civil_Libe.pdf]
Problem is there is no leadership per se, particularly in the foreign-born Muslim community, and what national organizations there are have tainted reputations stemming from ties between their staffs, affiliates and terrorist organizations. Moreover, Islam world-wide today has a heavy investment in a number of matters of a political nature; analogous to the pro-life movement but tarnished by activists with a far worse capability and reputation for malevolent violence.

Excellent point, and it leads into the on-going debate between centralized/de-centralized efforts in COIN. Studying through gangs and insurgencies, even when the national level efforts are failing, local leaders can influence their people on the village level. In this case, local imams or respected leaders in the community must emphasize to population that these actions are murder and illegal.



I fear that we've seen the politics here crystallize to the point where we've a zero-sum game between the West and the landscape of Muslim aspiration.

I don't think we're there yet (at least I hope not). We haven't seen the masses protesting in the street or significant anti-Muslim violence.

jmm99
11-10-2009, 07:43 PM
The slides mentioned in today's WP article, Fort Hood suspect warned of threats within the ranks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110903618_pf.html), are here - The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military (http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/MAJ%20Hasan%20Slides.pdf).

Please note the last slide (p.50).

slapout9
11-10-2009, 11:12 PM
For all the Soldiers, Police, Family and Friends at Ft. Hood who weren't afraid to face the devil.

Go Rest High On That Mountain by Vince Gill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRyKg5xMaXA&feature=fvw

Majormarginal
11-11-2009, 02:25 AM
Bill

Here's some interesting articles sent from a group that conducts micro-conflict resolution with Jews and Palestinians that address your questions. This research is important for small wars as well. It shows that the people rising up is not solely based on the perception of security.

One of the points of the research mentioned is that people will disengage due to fear of embarrassment etc. I have observed that cops and soldiers will sometimes engage in a face to face confrontation fearing embarrassment if the don't.

Schmedlap
11-11-2009, 03:37 AM
No backlash?
see
Freerepublic (http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm)
Lucianne (http://www.lucianne.com/)
From the Right

Democrat Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/)
Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/)
From the Left

You'll find plenty of backlash.

I don't think that is a backlash. I think it is part of the problem. The sites that you linked to choose to consume more biased reporting and/or to engage in an echo chamber of like thinking people. They are not looking for objective reporting or dispassionate analysis. They demand agreement with their point of view and demonize those who disagree. Sure, the lefties point out biased reports from Fox and the righties point out biased reports from everyone else. They both turn a blind eye to bias that they find agreeable.


Imam al-Awlaki has written extensively about jihad and has summarized his views in a pamphlet, 44 Ways to Support Jihad (http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefaawlaki44wayssupportjihad.pdf).

That reads like something written by the Onion. I'm reminded of this: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories

slapout9
11-11-2009, 12:17 PM
Bill Lind responds to the Ft. Hood Shootings, link to article.

http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/

Jedburgh
11-11-2009, 01:10 PM
Bill Lind responds to the Ft. Hood Shootings, link to article.

http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/
A whackjob loser, who happens to be Muslim but whose profile is all too-predictable - failing in his career, failing in his personal life, recently underwent major situational change, is facing a feared life-changing event and goes off the deep-end in a horribly violent manner. Now its 4GW?

Lind is pathetic.

MikeF
11-11-2009, 02:18 PM
One of the points of the research mentioned is that people will disengage due to fear of embarrassment etc. I have observed that cops and soldiers will sometimes engage in a face to face confrontation fearing embarrassment if the don't.

My guess would be the indoctrination, training, discipline, and unit mentality helps soldiers/police overcome natural tendacies to not stick out from the group. What I found fascinating about the research is that it helps (at least helps me) to better understand why so many Iraqis did so little for so long. I used to bang my head against the wall wondering why it seemed many were apathetic. The current accepted theory of FM 3-24 suggest that the dependent variable to action is security. This research counters that to suggest there are many variables. That makes a bit more sense to me.

slapout9
11-11-2009, 06:35 PM
A whackjob loser, who happens to be Muslim but whose profile is all too-predictable - failing in his career, failing in his personal life, recently underwent major situational change, is facing a feared life-changing event and goes off the deep-end in a horribly violent manner. Now its 4GW?

Lind is pathetic.

Yes, If I am not mistaken it was a Muslim who first confronted Nasan and told him" he had a problem" and also declined his request to be a Religious leader for a Ft. Hood Muslim outreach program! But you don't read much in the press about that.... Tried to find some video but no luck, but I saw it on TV when they interviewed the leaders at the Mosque near Ft. Hood that Nasan attened.

J Wolfsberger
11-11-2009, 07:31 PM
A whackjob loser, who happens to be Muslim but whose profile is all too-predictable - failing in his career, failing in his personal life, recently underwent major situational change, is facing a feared life-changing event and goes off the deep-end in a horribly violent manner. Now its 4GW?

Lind is pathetic.

I avoid d-n-i for the same reason I've avoided the associated CDI since the 1970s. There's too much shovel work involved with only the weakest hope of finding a pony. :D

The Moslem engineers and scientists I've worked with over the years were (and are) nothing like this loser.

Tom Odom
11-12-2009, 07:18 AM
Agree on Lind. Just a key indicator is his use of Islamic--an adjective meaning of Islam or related to Islam--as a noun to mean a follower of Islam. The proper word is Muslim or Moslem.

Lind deals increasingly in screed, skewed to support 4GW. He and Walid Phares should get a room.

Slap you are correct on the local mosque official who rejected Hassan as a mosque leader. That is getting drowned out as time goes by.

Tom

Rifleman
11-13-2009, 07:21 AM
We know that war against the recognized establishment by networks, tribes and other "non-state" actors has always existed. But, in spite of reading Lind's defintions several times, I just don't understand how it's "generational."

I think Lind looks at the world wearing 4GW glasses, so everything is interpreted in light of his ideas and definition of 4GW. He goes too far, but just because he goes too far is that to say that he isn't right about some things?

According to law, Major Hasan commited murder. That's the way I see it too. But in Hasan's mind, he was a Soldier of Allah. So, some will see it an act of war against the state by a non-state entity. Or, 4GW as Lind defines it.

Tukhachevskii
11-16-2009, 10:16 AM
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091111_hasan_case_overt_clues_and_tactical_chall enges?utm_source+SWeekly&utm_medium+email&utm_campaign=091111&utm_content=readmore

jmm99
11-16-2009, 08:21 PM
According to law, Major Hasan commited murder. That's the way I see it too. But in Hasan's mind, he was a Soldier of Allah. So, some will see it an act of war against the state by a non-state entity.

It will be interesting to see what primary defense will be raised. I expect some sort of mental capacity plea will be made, although that seems a hard sell under the UCMJ.

A very interesting plea would be to plead combatant immunity (Soldier of Allah, etc.). I can think of many reasons why that won't work - which is probably why it has not been pleaded by any of the Gitmo detainees. To my knowledge, none of them has formally claimed GC III protections as an enemy combatant entitled to EPW treatment; except for some rumblings about that by a defense expert witness in the Hamdan trial. A combatant immunity claim under the Hasan facts would be a real case of "first impression".

To make that plea, the defense would have to lay out all of MAJ Hasan's AQ connections (if any). So, a nutjob defense seems most likely.

Regards

Mike

Scorpion10
11-16-2009, 11:45 PM
I agree with the posts that say, 4GW is used as a catch all that makes it pretty much useless as a theory. A few years back I was researching a paper and ran across a white supremacist goon quoting a COL Ulius Louis Amoss and his theory of leaderless resistance. It was interesting, but off my topic. My understanding of his basic theory is that any network can be infiltrated and subsequently rolled up (e.g. French Paratrooper’s success in Algiers). Amoss’ answer to that dilemma was to do away with the network, believing that the ideology of the resistance could guide their attacks in place of a command structure. I didn’t (and still don’t) see how a resistance movement made up like that would ever defeat a functional central government. And after a few half hearted attempts of finding a copy of Amoss’ writings that weren’t tainted by the aforementioned racist thug, I gave up and moved on. But the number of acts of violence perpetrated against the US, by individuals claiming to be motivated by islam made me come back to it as a possible answer. If their desired end state was not political overthrow, but rather instilling fear in their enemy and achieving their own martyrdom, their actions might not seem hopeless. A thought, I'm not well versed enough in the theory to defend it to far, but was wondering if anyone else had come across it elsewhere?
Two other points:
I’m not sure I’m tracking on the backlash though, how is that defined? Because I don’t see it, but work has been busy so maybe I missed all the stories about angry American vigilantes in Peoria burning mosques. If a few firebrands write articles asking pointed questions or at worst exercise their right to be misinformed blowhards, welcome to the First Amendment folks. Unless of course you think that Islam should be afforded a special status and not be subjected to the same scrutiny that every other religion is placed under. In that case, welcome to dhimmitude.

Finally as adults we should be able to point out his obvious religious motivation with out tarring the entire religion for the actions of an individual or accusing those who dare broach the subject as narrow minded islamophobes. The only motive that matters is the motive of the man pulling the trigger and given the reports that Hassan initiated his shooting spree with shouts of “Allah u akbar”, I’m guessing he wasn’t upset about Brett Farve coming to Lambeau in a Purple jersey and sweeping the Packers. The question of what role his faith played in his actions, directly impacts how the government’s planners could properly employ elements of national power, strategic communications and other non-lethal assets to counter the ideology that wants to destroy our country and way of life.

Boondoggle
11-16-2009, 11:59 PM
It will be interesting to see what primary defense will be raised. I expect some sort of mental capacity plea will be made, although that seems a hard sell under the UCMJ.

A very interesting plea would be to plead combatant immunity (Soldier of Allah, etc.). I can think of many reasons why that won't work - which is probably why it has not been pleaded by any of the Gitmo detainees. To my knowledge, none of them has formally claimed GC III protections as an enemy combatant entitled to EPW treatment; except for some rumblings about that by a defense expert witness in the Hamdan trial. A combatant immunity claim under the Hasan facts would be a real case of "first impression".

To make that plea, the defense would have to lay out all of MAJ Hasan's AQ connections (if any). So, a nutjob defense seems most likely.

Regards

Mike

I inferred this in my (much) earlier post, but Brian Ross has reported tonight on ABC that the Major repeatedly asked that soldiers he was "treating" be charged with war crimes. His "defense", really I would call it another front opened by someone who finds himself as a "soldier of allah", may very well be to put the conduct of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on trial. "Why put me to death when I repeatedly tried to report soldiers who expressed to me they killed men, women and children because they were bored?"

His best defense (his best to avoid death) will not be mental capacity, it will be the stories he carries with him, told to him by the very people he was there to "help". Call it 4GW, whatever, but that military courtroom, and the press, will become another battlefield in this war. Using our very own cherished institutions of a right to a fair trial and freedom of speech to wage war upon their very foundations. I worried this could become all kinds of worse, and we're one step closer to that it appears.

slapout9
11-17-2009, 12:20 AM
His best defense (his best to avoid death) will not be mental capacity, it will be the stories he carries with him, told to him by the very people he was there to "help". Call it 4GW, whatever, but that military courtroom, and the press, will become another battlefield in this war. Using our very own cherished institutions of a right to a fair trial and freedom of speech to wage war upon their very foundations. I worried this could become all kinds of worse, and we're one step closer to that it appears.

Since those stories were made to a Doctor (which would be confidential) they my not be able to use them. Even if they could use them the person who actually made the statement would be subpoenaed to testify in which case he could just invoke the 5th. Which would in effect nullify testimonial evidence. maybe jmm99 can comment on that legal aspect when he gets a chance.

Boondoggle
11-17-2009, 02:35 AM
Since those stories were made to a Doctor (which would be confidential) they my not be able to use them. Even if they could use them the person who actually made the statement would be subpoenaed to testify in which case he could just invoke the 5th. Which would in effect nullify testimonial evidence. maybe jmm99 can comment on that legal aspect when he gets a chance.
While its a great question, that JMM could answer much better than I could though I once did have to go through the process of subpoening mental health records for a criminal trial, I think it may be somewhat irrelevant to Hasan. If he intends to make a trial, or the lead up to a trial or plea, into a platform for his views, he'll use every avenue to get out his story, whether it helps his defense may be secondary to his purposes. IIRC, the military courts have a much tighter control over information released through the press than federal courts so if this becomes Hasan's intent, it could put his attorneys in a bit of a bind if they can't find an avenue through the court, either through motions or at trial, to disseminate this information.

Edit: link to story here... http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/officials-major-hasan-sought-war-crimes-prosecution-us/story?id=9019904

jmm99
11-17-2009, 04:16 AM
MRE Rule 513. Psychotherapist-patient privilege, governs (snip from a 2 page rule)


(a) General rule of privilege. A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication made between the patient and a psychotherapist or an assistant to the psychotherapist, in a case arising under the UCMJ, if such communication was made for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s mental or emotional condition.
.....
(c) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the patient or the guardian or conservator of the patient. A person who may claim the privilege may authorize trial counsel or defense counsel to claim the privilege on his or her behalf. The psychotherapist or assistant to the psychotherapist who received the communication may claim the privilege on behalf of the patient. The authority of such a psychotherapist, assistant, guardian, or conservator to so assert the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Probably testimony as to a specific patient could be kept out, if that patient authorizes trial counsel (prosecutor) to assert the personal privilege.

But, what if the line of questioning never mentions the patients' names ? E.g., MAJ Hasan would you please relate to us, without mentioning names or any other details which would identify the patients, the 101 instances which caused you to form the belief that the armed conflicts in Astan and Iraq were immoral and illegal under the tenets of your religion and Sharia law, as well as the Hague and Geneva Conventions ?

I dunno; I suppose it would depend on the judge. The judge has vast discretion to enter protective (gag) orders, etc., as Boondoggle correctly says.

Regards

Mike

slapout9
11-17-2009, 04:29 AM
MRE Rule 513. Psychotherapist-patient privilege, governs (snip from a 2 page rule)



Probably testimony as to a specific patient could be kept out, if that patient authorizes trial counsel (prosecutor) to assert the personal privilege.

But, what if the line of questioning never mentions the patients' names ? E.g., MAJ Hasan would you please relate to us, without mentioning names or any other details which would identify the patients, the 101 instances which caused you to form the belief that the armed conflicts in Astan and Iraq were immoral and illegal under the tenets of your religion and Sharia law ?

I dunno; I suppose it would depend on the judge. The judge has vast discretion to enter protective (gag) orders, etc., as Booindoggle correctly says.

Regards

Mike

In LA(lower Alabama) I am pretty sure that would be considered "hear say" evidence and hence not admissible unless that person was available for cross examination to verify he/she said what was heard. At which time the person could invoke the 5th(at least I would think they would)since they are not the one on trial. But........I don't know enough about the UCMJ to know if the same rules apply.

jmm99
11-17-2009, 06:06 PM
It depends on the purpose for which the out of court statement is offered.

Here is the snip from MRE Rule 801, Definitions:


The following definitions apply under this section:
.....
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Now check out my question and note the bolded weasel words:


E.g., MAJ Hasan would you please relate to us, without mentioning names or any other details which would identify the patients, the 101 instances which caused you to form the belief that the armed conflicts in Astan and Iraq were immoral and illegal under the tenets of your religion and Sharia law, as well as the Hague and Geneva Conventions ?

For example, let's say that the 101 instances are stories related to Hasan by patients that they (patients) shot women and children. If those statements are submitted to prove as fact that 101 patients actually shot women and children, those statements are hearsay. But, if they are submitted to prove the basis of MAJ Hasan's belief that US troops shot women and children, they would not be hearsay. Beliefs (and intent) may be formed on the basis of asserted facts which are untrue or complete fantasies.

Another area where this could come up are the emails with Anwar al-Awlaki (the Yemeni cleric, etc.), which according to al-Awlaki responded by telling Hasan that it was permissible for him to wage violent jihad against US troops. Again, it depends on who seeks to introduce those statements and for what purpose.

Let's say the defense seeks to introduce them to establish a basis for MAJ Hasan's belief that he was a Soldier of Allah and that his jihadic actions were sanctioned by Sharia law. We probably could find any number of Islamic scholars who would testify that al-Awlaki's extremist Salafist views are contrary to sound Islamic principles. But, the point is not to prove that al-Awlaki's views are true or false, but to prove that Hasan formed a belief based on those views that caused him to act.

All of this is subject to other evidentiary rules. The emails exist (in FBI hands) and say what they say. Hence, the only issue is for what purpose they are introduced. But, what about the 101 interviews ? If MAJ Hasan testifies to them from memory, a definite credibility issue exists. But, what if there are interview notes by him, or recorded interviews, that substantiate his claims ? Can those be used to "refresh recollection" ?

To summarize, not all out of court statements are hearsay. Usually, their admissibility hinges on the purpose; that is, to establish belief, intent, motive for the act; but non-hearsay could also be a prior statement by a witness (that impeaches his testimony), or an admission by a party-opponent (such as a confession or statements proving a conspiracy).

Then, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule; that is, where out of court statements are offered to prove the truth of what is stated in them (and thus are hearsay), but where policy reasons have created a host of exceptions. There are dozens of them; and that critical facet of trial practice and tactics is covered by MRE Rules 801-806.

You might want to download the 2008 Manual for Courts-Martial (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf), which has all of this in Chapter III (Military Rules of Evidence).

Finally, there is MRE 807, Residual Exception, which is the MRE's equivalent of "conduct unbecoming" (it also allows admission of some "battlefield hearsay", a key point in the Gitmo detainee hearings):


Rule 807. Residual exception.

A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.

So, it depends a lot on the judge.

PS: the non-heasay use of statements to prove a belief is particularly pertinent to mental capacity.

"Objection, your honor, Mr McCarthy is attempting to introduce statements which are pure fantasies and he knows it."

"Quite true, your honor, the statements are pure fantasties. My client is nuts. His beliefs are founded on pure fanasties. That's why he is nuts."

"Objection overruled. The jury will consider what weight, if any, to be given the statements in regard to the defendant's mental capacity."

slapout9
11-17-2009, 07:08 PM
But, if they are submitted to prove the basis of MAJ Hasan's belief that US troops shot women and children, they would not be hearsay. Beliefs (and intent) may be formed on the basis of asserted facts which are untrue or complete fantasies.



jmm99, you might be right. I was thinking something along those lines last night.......genrally motive only has to be established.......it does not have to be proven! method/means and opportunity do but that is usually done with physical evidence, the gun with his fingerprints on it and the shell casings, opportunity he was found bleeding at the scene not much problem with any of these IMO.

jmm99
11-17-2009, 08:24 PM
As I understand it, MAJ Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 (snip from MCM IV-62-63):


43. Article 118—Murder

a. Text of statute.

Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he—

(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
.......
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

b. Elements.

(1) Premeditated murder.

(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had a premeditated design to kill.
.....
c. Explanation.
.....
(2) Premeditated murder.

(a) Premeditation. A murder is not premeditated unless the thought of taking life was consciously conceived and the act or omission by which it was taken was intended. Premeditated murder is murder committed after the formation of a specific intent to kill someone and consideration of the act intended. It is not necessary that the intention to kill have been entertained for any particular or considerable length of time. When a fixed purpose to kill has been deliberately formed, it is immaterial how soon afterwards it is put into execution. The existence of premeditation may be inferred from the circumstances.

(b) Transferred premeditation. When an accused with a premeditated design attempted to unlawfully kill a certain person, but, by mistake or inadvertence, killed another person, the accused is still criminally responsible for a premeditated murder, because the premeditated design to kill is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.

While the word "motive" is not mentioned above, the need to prove a "premeditated design" makes a "motive" a nice thing to be able to prove.

That being said, the "premeditated design" is simply "the formation of a specific intent to kill someone and consideration of the act intended." The killing could be totally motiveless ("...just cuz I wanted to do Bubba with a .45, just cuz"), and still meet the elements.

slapout9
11-17-2009, 08:39 PM
" The killing could be totally motiveless ("...just cuz I wanted to do Bubba with a .45, just cuz"), and still meet the elements.

I'm a cop man....to me that is a motive and an all to common one in this day an age;)

slapout9
11-17-2009, 08:45 PM
Call it 4GW, whatever, but that military courtroom, and the press, will become another battlefield in this war. Using our very own cherished institutions of a right to a fair trial and freedom of speech to wage war upon their very foundations. I worried this could become all kinds of worse, and we're one step closer to that it appears.


Boondoggle, to continue with your Line of reasoning, I think you will really see this happen with the upcoming trial in New York. Since the whole city was affected by 911 it is going to be near impossible to find an impartial jury and I imagine his lawyers who will wage Lawfare will bring that up right from the start.

MikeF
11-17-2009, 08:49 PM
Boondoggle, to continue with your Line of reasoning, I think you will really see this happen with the upcoming trial in New York. Since the whole city was affected by 911 it is going to be near impossible to find an impartial jury and I imagine his lawyers who will wage Lawfare will bring that up right from the start.

You're assuming that he will plead not guilty. Putting on my jihad hat, I'd plead guilty b/c I knew my means justified the ends. That goes for Maj Hasan and the 9/11 clowns.

davidbfpo
02-04-2011, 07:13 PM
The full WaPo title was 'Senate probe faults Army, FBI for missing warning signs before Fort Hood attack':http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020301899.html

For an outsider I noted these points:
..the FBI had compelling evidence of extremism that should have led to Hasan's military discharge and made him the subject of a counterterrorism investigation....higher-ups wrote his officer evaluation reports in a way that "sanitized his obsession with violent Islamist extremism into praiseworthy research on counterterrorism."

And for the lawyers:
Hasan's attorney, reacted to the latest report with outrage, saying the FBI and the Pentagon continue supplying e-mails and personnel files for such investigations but have withheld them from Hasan's defense in the course of the legal discovery process.

The report itself:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/fthoodsenatereport.html?hpid=topnews

Which one day I may read in full.

jmm99
02-05-2011, 01:53 AM
Solely in answer to your question regarding discovery by defendants under the UCMJ.

1. The UCMJ has liberal (pro-defendant) discovery provisions which are comparable to those under the Federal or Michigan Criminal Rules.

2. That being said, the defense lawyer has to ask in the correct way under the applicable law.

A good outline of UCMJ discovery and production starts at p.J-1 (p.255 pdf) of the 2010 Crim-Law-Deskbook_V-1.pdf (download link (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Criminal-Law-Department.html)):


DISCOVERY AND PRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. REFERENCES - 1

II. INTRODUCTION - 1

III. GENERAL - 2

IV. GOVERNMENT DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITIES AND REQUESTS - 3

V. DEFENSE DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITIES AND REQUESTS - 15

VI. REGULATION OF DISCOVERY - 18

VII. PRODUCTION - 23

VIII. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE TIPS - 32

IX. APPENDIX - 34

The Appendix outlines the several dozen rules applicable.

All that being true, the USG is an octapus, whose multiple hands do not necessarily communicate. The largest discovery and production problems in the DC District and Circuit Gitmo cases (whose Federal judges have more practical clout than military judges with USG agencies) came about because consolidated databases did not exist for each detainee. The first octapus hand did not know what the eighth hand held.

So, the defense attorney may just be blowing smoke; or, he screwed up (asked the wrong question); or, the FBI and DoD are not communicating well. An intentional failure to disclose (in violation of the UCMJ) is unlikely; though, of course, "possible".

Regards

Mike

gute
02-24-2011, 12:27 AM
Has a report come out on the shooting itself and the effectiveness of the 5.7x28 round?

AdamG
03-11-2011, 01:49 PM
Has a report come out on the shooting itself and the effectiveness of the 5.7x28 round?

No, but there's one on the ineffectiveness of some officers.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nine Army officers are being reprimanded for leadership failures in connection with the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, and their failure to detect and report problems with the accused shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, as he moved along in his medical career.

Saying that although no single event directly led to the tragedy, Army Secretary John McHugh found that certain officers failed to meet expected standards, an Army statement said Thursday. The officers - all lieutenant or above - will receive punishments ranging from an oral reprimand to the far more serious written letter of censure that is considered a career-ender.

Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the November 2009 shooting spree on the Texas military post.

A Pentagon review last year found that Hasan's supervisors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center where he worked expressed serious concerns about his questionable behavior and poor judgment but failed to heed their own warnings. It said the Army psychiatrist's supervisors continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving up through the ranks despite worries about his strident views on Islam and worries about his competence.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FORT_HOOD?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

AdamG
07-20-2011, 04:00 PM
There were indications Wednesday morning that Maj. Nidal Hasan’s lawyer could withdraw from his position as lead defense counsel for the man accused of murdering 13 people on Ft. Hood at a pending arraignment hearing.

http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/125883618.html?ref=618

jmm99
12-05-2012, 02:18 AM
In a fractured version of the Dirty Dozen script, the military judge sought to emulate Robert Ryan's character.

AP: Court ousts judge, shaving order in Fort Hood case (http://news.yahoo.com/court-ousts-judge-shaving-order-fort-hood-case-080506525.html) (4 Dec 2012):


Hasan appealed after Gross ordered that he must be clean-shaven or be forcibly shaved before his military trial, which had been set to begin three months ago. It has been on hold pending the appeals.

An Army appeals court upheld the shaving requirement in October. But Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said the command, not the judge, is responsible for enforcing grooming standards.

Gross had repeatedly said Hasan's beard was a disruption to the court proceedings, but the military appeals court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that was true.

Gross found Hasan in contempt of court at six previous pretrial hearings because he was not clean-shaven, then sent him to a nearby trailer to watch the proceedings on a closed-circuit television. The appeals court's ruling also vacated the contempt of court convictions.

If the defendant wants to appear as a combatant in "God's Army", so what. The evidence needed to convict appears to be more than adequate.

Why do some judges allow themselves to be diverted by collateral issues ? The need to assert their authority, I'd posit - but to what end when justice is delayed ?

Regards

Mike

Polarbear1605
12-05-2012, 08:33 PM
But Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said the command, not the judge, is responsible for enforcing grooming standards.

I have to agree with the court on that one...that is a command responsibility and in this case it means the convening authority is not doing their job. The defendent should be ordered to shave and if not, a charge added to the court martial for failure to obey an order from his commanding officer. This is another example of a commander deferring his command responsibility (lack of leadership) to the lawyers. :mad:

jmm99
12-06-2012, 03:08 AM
I agree with your technical legal reasoning:


The defendent should be ordered to shave and if not, a charge added to the court martial for failure to obey an order from his commanding officer.

and also that, when a commander defers what should be his or her decisions to his or her lawyers, IMO: the lawyers have a fool for a client.

But, you wouldn't seriously prefer a charge for failure to obey a shaving order if you were his CO, would you ?

I mean, the guy is faced with a baker's dozen of death penalty charges. An added charge for failure to obey an order would be meaningless to what happens to him on the capital charges - and would itself be a diversion.

Ironically, this SOB could have avoided the whole shooting spree by simply refusing the order to deploy to a Muslim country (his initial stated reasoning against the deployment order). He then would have been prosecuted for failure to obey an order, where the sentencing guidelines would have been relatively generous.

No, instead he decided to be a jihadist, etc - for reasons that had to go well beyond his initial stated reasoning.

Regards

Mike

Polarbear1605
12-06-2012, 09:50 PM
Agree with everything you say...but I can still complain...right?
First and foremost they need to be talking to one another and it appears they are not. In this case, the judge initiated the issue with the “forced shaving” ultimatum setting off a long delay for the appeal process. Second, if the commanding officer does not have the authority to “force shave” than neither does the military judge. There should have been an immediate after conversation (before would have been better) initiated by the commander/CA with the judge...Subj: WTF!, Over. And OH!..BTW…let me get ahead of the appeal court…your fired, judge.

If I were the commander/CA, I would be very upset about the appeal delay. This multi-murder happened, what, three years ago? Shaving, IMHO, is clearly a command issue getting back to “good order and discipline” command authority. If, I were commander/CA, and I wanted to avoid the appeal delay, I would have either told the judge …to not worry about the beard or I would appear at the brig with both sets of lawyers (defense and prosecution) order this guy to shave and when he refused add a charge. The add the charge part is in case he decided to shave before he appeared at the court martial. Not shaving is not going to help this guy before a sitting court of his peers.
The next reason these two need to be talking is the whole plea bargaining thing that may or may not happen. I cannot recall a plea bargaining paragraph in the UCMJ or the MCM…in my mind that clearly makes plea bargaining a command responsibility.

Another issue is that any finding by a court martial is essentially a recommendation because the commander/CA can accept, reject or modify.

Let’s talk about another case where the CA didn’t do their command job. Yep! Haditha…you knew I had to go there. One of the defendants in the Haditha case was a LT, intell type. The Lt was attached from 2MARDIV (Camp Lejuene) to the 1MARDIV Bn while both were in Iraq. Consequently, the court martial was held by 1MARDIV CA at Camp Pendleton. The LT was basically charge with obstruction of justice because he ordered his E-5 intell chief to destroy a set of photos of the Iraqi dead. He gave this order in accordance with standing orders that no pics of Iraqi dead were authorized and subsequently, found not guilty.

At one point in the pretrial proceedings, the Lt was actually discharged from the Maine Corps by his battalion commander back in Camp Lejeune. The prosecutor immediately added a charge to the Lt’s court martial for illegally discharging himself from the Marines. At the court martial, the defense attorney called the Lt’s 2MARDIV battalion commander and asked him why he discharged the LT. Answer: Because I am required by law to discharge him at the end of his contract. I can, however, place him on legal hold at the request of the CA. The prosecutor never requested or sent a legal hold letter to 2MARDIV. The prosecutor was charging the LT for his mistake. If I were the CA, I would have taken a considerable amount of both the prosecutor’s and judge’s time immediately after the charges were written up.

Commanders are turning their responsibilities over to the lawyers turning many of these show trials into clown schools.

jmm99
12-07-2012, 03:15 AM
of Tony Waller (of our own) and Daniel Greysolon, sieur du Lhut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Greysolon,_Sieur_du_Lhut) (of the French Colonial Marines, in the late 1600s in my own UP of Michigan). The latter, in truth (my opinion thereof), did a better job of it than did Waller in a very similar situation. Perhaps, because du Lhut was not burdened with lawyers at all. :)

In neither case did the "separation of the convening authority and the court-martial" exist - and the commander was solely responsible for whatever decision was reached (even if, as in du Lhut's case, he elected to bring the prosecution before separate military and civilian panels). Brief note (http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?id_nbr=824):


The last of these nations [JMM: Chippewa, Ojibwe] was especially difficult to manage as was demonstrated in 1684 when four of its warriors murdered two French traders. When one of the culprits appeared at the Jesuit mission of Sault Ste Marie the staff of 12 on duty there did not dare to arrest him, fearing the reprisals of his tribe. Dulhut, as soon as he learned of the incident, hurried to the mission, rounded up the suspects, including the chief Achinaga and his two sons, and put them on trial. Achinaga was acquitted and his younger son pardoned, but the two others who had been found guilty were executed before 400 Indians.

However, we don't live in 1902 or 1684 - even if some of us wouldn't mind returning to some aspects of those eras.

So, in the event(s) today, you as a smart bear (and convening authority) would consult all of the pitfalls of "Undue Command Influence" - attached as pdf - and wouldn't contact judge, counsel or anyone else involved in courts-martial in your command sphere.


THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE

COMMANDMENT 1: THE COMMANDER MAY NOT ORDER A SUBORDINATE TO DISPOSE OF A CASE IN A CERTAIN WAY.

COMMANDMENT 2: THE COMMANDER MUST NOT HAVE AN INFLEXIBLE POLICY ON DISPOSITION OR PUNISHMENT.

COMMANDMENT 3: THE COMMANDER, IF ACCUSER, MAY NOT REFER THE CASE.

COMMANDMENT 4: THE COMMANDER MAY NEITHER SELECT NOR REMOVE COURT MEMBERS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A PARTICULAR RESULT IN A PARTICULAR TRIAL.

COMMANDMENT 5: NO OUTSIDE PRESSURES MAY BE PLACED ON THE JUDGE OR COURT MEMBERS TO ARRIVE AT A PARTICULAR DECISION.

COMMANDMENT 6: WITNESSES MAY NOT BE INTIMIDATED OR DISCOURAGED FROM TESTIFYING.

COMMANDMENT 7: THE COURT DECIDES PUNISHMENT. AN ACCUSED MAY NOT BE PUNISHED BEFORE TRIAL.

COMMANDMENT 8: COMMANDERS MUST ENSURE THAT SUBORDINATES AND STAFF DO NOT “COMMIT” COMMAND INFLUENCE” ON THEIR BEHALF.

COMMANDMENT 9: THE COMMANDER MUST NOT HAVE AN INFLEXIBLE ATTITUDE TOWARDS CLEMENCY.

COMMANDMENT 10: IF A MISTAKE IS MADE, RAISE THE ISSUE IMMEDIATELY.

BTW: What was your last post - a test of my ability to do basic seamanship on UCI, or what ?

:)

Regards

Mike

jmm99
06-06-2013, 01:28 AM
From CSM, Why military judge has hands full with Nidal Hasan court-martial (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0604/Why-military-judge-has-hands-full-with-Nidal-Hasan-court-martial) (by Patrik Jonsson, June 4, 2013):


After determining that Hasan is mentally and physically fit to defend himself, the military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, is now weighing the extent to which she’ll allow him to pursue his main defense: that he was justified in killing US soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan to prevent the imminent deaths of Taliban soldiers.

I'd like to see more on this defense - It looks to be some form of RCM 916 justification.

Regards

Mike

carl
06-06-2013, 03:05 AM
Mike:

If he did that would he be admitting treason?

jmm99
06-06-2013, 03:26 PM
I'd say that (admitting treason) would be a definite drawback to the defense. :D

But, that being said, and all kidding aside, the guy knows he won't "get off" and probably will get a death sentence anyway. So, why not go down in a blaze of Islamist glory - as a warrior for global jihad ?

In essence, that is what KSM and his compatriots expressly stated in 2009 (my 2009 post, KSM's Islamic Response (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=67972&postcount=215); and their manifesto, “The Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/03/10/gitmofiling.pdf)”); they sum their argument as follows:


With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God. In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites. Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites,and their religion as a whole.

The specifics of their argument prove that they consider themselves to be lawful combatants under the only law that counts to them - the Koran. Hague-Geneva are not material to them because those are man-made laws. National citizenship is also immaterial to them because only religious citizenship counts. Zawahiri, UBL and Maj. Hasan's mentor al-Awlaki all made these points very clearly.

So, it is scarcely surprising that Maj. Hasan is trying to follow their playbook.

Regards

Mike

jmm99
08-07-2013, 03:57 PM
CSM: Fort Hood suspect tells court he 'switched sides' in America's war (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0806/Fort-Hood-suspect-tells-court-he-switched-sides-in-America-s-war) (6 Aug 2013).


Maj. Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009, said the evidence will show 'I am the shooter.' The trial will be important, even if the verdict seems certain.

And, the point of dragging this on for months is exactly what ?

Regards

Mike

jmm99
08-28-2013, 09:29 PM
Nidal Hasan sentenced to death for Fort Hood shooting rampage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nidal-hasan-sentenced-to-death-for-fort-hood-shooting-rampage/2013/08/28/aad28de2-0ffa-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story_1.html) (Wash. Post).

Regards

Mike