Gunmen attack Fort Hood, Texas

[Rifleman]

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]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091...ntent=readmore

[jmm99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/offici...ory?id=9019904

[jmm99]

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]

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]

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]

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:

..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...l?hpid=topnews

Which one day I may read in full.

[AdamG]

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/1...8.html?ref=618

[jmm99]

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 (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