Senate faults Army, FBI for missing signs before Ft Hood attack
The full WaPo title was 'Senate probe faults Army, FBI for missing warning signs before Fort Hood attack':http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020301899.html
For an outsider I noted these points:
Quote:
..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:
Quote:
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...l?hpid=topnews
Which one day I may read in full.
Lack of command leadership
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
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:
1 Attachment(s)
Ah Bear, a return to the Good Old Days ...
of Tony Waller (of our own) and 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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Hasan's Defense - Combatant Immunity ?
From CSM, Why military judge has hands full with Nidal Hasan court-martial (by Patrik Jonsson, June 4, 2013):
Quote:
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
Candor in the Courtroom, Sans Defense Counsel
CSM: Fort Hood suspect tells court he 'switched sides' in America's war (6 Aug 2013).
Quote:
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