Bill Lind responds to the Ft. Hood Shootings, link to article.
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/
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.
That reads like something written by the Onion. I'm reminded of this: http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...iracy_theories
Last edited by Schmedlap; 11-11-2009 at 03:40 AM.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by slapout9; 11-11-2009 at 06:36 PM. Reason: stuff
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.
The Moslem engineers and scientists I've worked with over the years were (and are) nothing like this loser.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
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
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.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
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.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.
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 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.
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.
Last edited by Boondoggle; 11-17-2009 at 12:01 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/offici...ory?id=9019904
Last edited by Boondoggle; 11-17-2009 at 02:43 AM. Reason: added link to ABC story
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.(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.
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
Last edited by jmm99; 11-17-2009 at 04:24 AM.
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.
It depends on the purpose for which the out of court statement is offered.
Here is the snip from MRE Rule 801, Definitions:
Now check out my question and note the bolded weasel words: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.
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.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 ?
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, 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):
So, it depends a lot on the judge.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.
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."
Last edited by jmm99; 11-17-2009 at 06:15 PM. Reason: add PS
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.
Last edited by slapout9; 11-17-2009 at 07:08 PM. Reason: stuff
As I understand it, MAJ Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 (snip from MCM IV-62-63):
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.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.
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.
Bookmarks