• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood Suspect Wants to Represent Himself.....AP Newswire

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood attack wants to represent himself at his upcoming murder trial, which means he could question the nearly three dozen soldiers he's accused of wounding in the shooting rampage.

Maj. Nidal Hasan's request, announced Wednesday by Fort Hood officials, is to be considered at a pretrial hearing next week. The request prompted the military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to delay jury selection to June 5, about a week after it was scheduled to start.

Hasan, an American-born Muslim, faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the Nov. 5, 2009, attack on the Texas Army post, about 125 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

Military law allows defendants to represent themselves, but the judge will ask Hasan's attorneys to stay throughout the trial in case he asks for their help, according to court-martial guidelines. Two of Hasan's three Army attorneys have represented him since shortly after his arrest.

At a hearing earlier this month, Hasan told Osborn that he wanted to plead guilty. But Army rules prohibit a judge from accepting a guilty plea to charges that could result in a death sentence. Osborn also denied his request to plead guilty to lesser murder charges, citing legal issues that could have arisen because his death penalty trial still would have proceeded.....snip~

AP Newswire | Stars and Stripes

First he wanted the Judge to Allow him to Enter a Guilty Plea. Now he wants to Represent himself. Jury selection now has been delayed. He did fire one attorney. So not only is he getting paid. Defying court orders, refusing Military Orders.....but now will play with as much of the law as he can. Again why is this taking so long?

Why shouldn't this be considered an Act of Terrorism?
 
The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood attack wants to represent himself at his upcoming murder trial, which means he could question the nearly three dozen soldiers he's accused of wounding in the shooting rampage.

Maj. Nidal Hasan's request, announced Wednesday by Fort Hood officials, is to be considered at a pretrial hearing next week. The request prompted the military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to delay jury selection to June 5, about a week after it was scheduled to start.

Hasan, an American-born Muslim, faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the Nov. 5, 2009, attack on the Texas Army post, about 125 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

Military law allows defendants to represent themselves, but the judge will ask Hasan's attorneys to stay throughout the trial in case he asks for their help, according to court-martial guidelines. Two of Hasan's three Army attorneys have represented him since shortly after his arrest.

At a hearing earlier this month, Hasan told Osborn that he wanted to plead guilty. But Army rules prohibit a judge from accepting a guilty plea to charges that could result in a death sentence. Osborn also denied his request to plead guilty to lesser murder charges, citing legal issues that could have arisen because his death penalty trial still would have proceeded.....snip~

AP Newswire | Stars and Stripes

First he wanted the Judge to Allow him to Enter a Guilty Plea. Now he wants to Represent himself. Jury selection now has been delayed. He did fire one attorney. So not only is he getting paid. Defying court orders, refusing Military Orders.....but now will play with as much of the law as he can. Again why is this taking so long?

Why shouldn't this be considered an Act of Terrorism?

This whole process should have been over and done with already, but curtailing his rights is not the way to shorten it.

One of the problems we have with this war on terrorism is our near complete inability to actually complete a trial for anyone. After WW2 we managed to complete the Nazi trials by 1946, of course this is a different situation but hell there's no reason it should take as long as it does to try someone in court after we've capatured or arrested them.
 
The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood attack wants to represent himself at his upcoming murder trial, which means he could question the nearly three dozen soldiers he's accused of wounding in the shooting rampage.

Maj. Nidal Hasan's request, announced Wednesday by Fort Hood officials, is to be considered at a pretrial hearing next week. The request prompted the military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to delay jury selection to June 5, about a week after it was scheduled to start.

Hasan, an American-born Muslim, faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the Nov. 5, 2009, attack on the Texas Army post, about 125 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

Military law allows defendants to represent themselves, but the judge will ask Hasan's attorneys to stay throughout the trial in case he asks for their help, according to court-martial guidelines. Two of Hasan's three Army attorneys have represented him since shortly after his arrest.

At a hearing earlier this month, Hasan told Osborn that he wanted to plead guilty. But Army rules prohibit a judge from accepting a guilty plea to charges that could result in a death sentence. Osborn also denied his request to plead guilty to lesser murder charges, citing legal issues that could have arisen because his death penalty trial still would have proceeded.....snip~

AP Newswire | Stars and Stripes

First he wanted the Judge to Allow him to Enter a Guilty Plea. Now he wants to Represent himself. Jury selection now has been delayed. He did fire one attorney. So not only is he getting paid. Defying court orders, refusing Military Orders.....but now will play with as much of the law as he can. Again why is this taking so long?

Why shouldn't this be considered an Act of Terrorism?

This whole process should have been over and done with already, but curtailing his rights is not the way to shorten it.

One of the problems we have with this war on terrorism is our near complete inability to actually complete a trial for anyone. After WW2 we managed to complete the Nazi trials by 1946, of course this is a different situation but hell there's no reason it should take as long as it does to try someone in court after we've capatured or arrested them.
 
He was/is an active duty member of the US military. We can discuss terminology all day, but he killed US military personelle and he was one himself at the time, so one would really have to stretch to call it enemy fire. At this time I really dont see why what you call it makes any difference, but that always seems so important to some...
Because he attacked soldiers on a military base.
 
He was/is an active duty member of the US military. We can discuss terminology all day, but he killed US military personelle and he was one himself at the time, so one would really have to stretch to call it enemy fire. At this time I really dont see why what you call it makes any difference, but that always seems so important to some...

Then it's treason and murder. Attacking soldiers on a base can not be terrorism. Otherwise every base we've ever attacked ever was a terrorist attack.

D-Day assault on Normandy beach? TERRORISM!
 
It is murder. Treason is very hard to prove but I am all for it if they can. I dont know what you mean about every base we have ever attacked? DDay assualt was against hte Germans.
Then it's treason and murder. Attacking soldiers on a base can not be terrorism. Otherwise every base we've ever attacked ever was a terrorist attack.

D-Day assault on Normandy beach? TERRORISM!
 
Because he attacked soldiers on a military base.

Heya RA.
yo2.gif
While true how many Civilians were working in the medical facility on the base? Why did he target only those in Uniform then?

If it is not act of terrorism then it is an act of war.....is it not?
thinking.gif
 
It is murder. Treason is very hard to prove but I am all for it if they can. I dont know what you mean about every base we have ever attacked? DDay assualt was against hte Germans.

Of course it was. It was an attack on a military target for political reasons. By this definition, most of the people on these threads should see D-Day as a terrorist attack.

Heya RA.
yo2.gif
While true how many Civilians were working in the medical facility on the base? Why did he target only those in Uniform then?

If it is not act of terrorism then it is an act of war.....is it not?
thinking.gif

If he targeted only those in uniform then it is treason, an act of war, and or simply murder. Terrorism doesn't even remotely apply. People want it to be terrorism because he's muslim and shouted muslim bs. If he were only sociopathic like the Newton shooter, it wouldn't be terrorism in their eyes.
 
Of course it was. It was an attack on a military target for political reasons. By this definition, most of the people on these threads should see D-Day as a terrorist attack.



If he targeted only those in uniform then it is treason, an act of war, and or simply murder. Terrorism doesn't even remotely apply. People want it to be terrorism because he's muslim and shouted muslim bs. If he were only sociopathic like the Newton shooter, it wouldn't be terrorism in their eyes.

Well.....we know he tried to contact AQ. We know he blamed the Wars Afghanistan and Iraq. Also we know he did try to intentionally kill some as they hid behind and under tables. Wherein he reloaded and moved towards those concealed. We also have him believing he would have been killed in the attack.

So in determining.....All that is Needed. Is Purpose.....or if ya from New Jersey. That would be Poipose. Just kiddin. :lol:



:2razz:
 
Then it's treason and murder. Attacking soldiers on a base can not be terrorism. Otherwise every base we've ever attacked ever was a terrorist attack.

D-Day assault on Normandy beach? TERRORISM!

Alright RA.....like in the other thread we were in. What about this part of the FBI definition?

The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~

According to the FBI.....ANY segment of the government and or civilian population. So why shouldn't the grounds be Pressed for the issue to be declared an act of terrorism.
 
I would not be suprised if the US declares those killed and injured in this attack wounded and killed in action. After the courts-martial. I could agree with that, but at this time it truly is a workplace violence situation.
Alright RA.....like in the other thread we were in. What about this part of the FBI definition?

The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~

According to the FBI.....ANY segment of the government and or civilian population. So why shouldn't the grounds be Pressed for the issue to be declared an act of terrorism.
 
I would not be suprised if the US declares those killed and injured in this attack wounded and killed in action. After the courts-martial. I could agree with that, but at this time it truly is a workplace violence situation.

Heya Mak. :2wave: Either way he should be Labeled an Enemy Combatant.....despite him being a US Citizen. Even those in uniform would be less off guard while on post. So this guy knew what he was doing.
 
Couple of items left out of this conversation:

First, the DoD (Obama admin) classified this as *workplace violence*

Secondly, He was shouting "Allah Akbar" (God is Great) as he was committing these acts. That would be religious (Radical Jihadist) in nature, not political.

Yesterday, a couple of young men hacked to death a soldier near a military barracks in England then explained why they did it on tape.

Was this not terrorism as it was described by David Cameron?
 
Alright RA.....like in the other thread we were in. What about this part of the FBI definition?

So why shouldn't the grounds be Pressed for the issue to be declared an act of terrorism.

Same reason the Admin. didn't want Benghazi classified as terrorism.

It doesn't fit the agenda.
 
He cant be called an enemy combatant, he is one of us, no matter how much we hate it. To be an enemy combatant he would have had to steal the uniform or lie to get in to trick the military with the intent of causing harm. Unfortunately the uniform has been his for years. I dont know, just guessing but a Major probably has 15+ years so it was years in the making. I also, from what I had read, believe he was radicalized at some later point, so he might have enlisted and sworn in with good intentions.
Heya Mak. :2wave: Either way he should be Labeled an Enemy Combatant.....despite him being a US Citizen. Even those in uniform would be less off guard while on post. So this guy knew what he was doing.
 
One thing we know for sure is, it was workplace violence. It might be changed to something else later, but one thing it is and will always be, is work place violence. The Major was at work and it was violent.
Couple of items left out of this conversation:

First, the DoD (Obama admin) classified this as *workplace violence*

Secondly, He was shouting "Allah Akbar" (God is Great) as he was committing these acts. That would be religious (Radical Jihadist) in nature, not political.

Yesterday, a couple of young men hacked to death a soldier near a military barracks in England then explained why they did it on tape.

Was this not terrorism as it was described by David Cameron?
 
One thing we know for sure is, it was workplace violence. It might be changed to something else later, but one thing it is and will always be, is work place violence. The Major was at work and it was violent.

For the sake of an agenda...sure.
 
One thing we know for sure is, it was workplace violence. It might be changed to something else later, but one thing it is and will always be, is work place violence. The Major was at work and it was violent.

Reminds me of John Heilemann on Morning Joe this morning.
He was so desperate to defend Obama in the IRS scandal he was flailing and frantically saying silly things too.
 
Yes it was serial murder on an Army post. But it was perpetrated by muslim jihadist. That seems to fit the current definition of terrorism. But that's only a question of terminology. In the end he needs to be tried and executed.
 
A declared war.

:agree: How is equating what happened at Fort Hood even remotely similar to Normandy Beach? That spin has got to be the oddest comment we're likely to see today. Were our military personnel yelling "Allah Akbar" as they started shooting people? :bs:

Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:
 
I was not defending Obama or anyone, just stating the facts. That is why you have to come up with the ad hominem. Try harder. Facts are not liberal or conservative, they are simply facts.
Reminds me of John Heilemann on Morning Joe this morning.
He was so desperate to defend Obama in the IRS scandal he was flailing and frantically saying silly things too.
 
He was/is an active duty member of the US military. We can discuss terminology all day, but he killed US military personelle and he was one himself at the time, so one would really have to stretch to call it enemy fire. At this time I really dont see why what you call it makes any difference, but that always seems so important to some...

Unless you decide to call it workplace violence, then it does matter.
 
Last edited:
He was/is an active duty member of the US military. We can discuss terminology all day, but he killed US military personelle and he was one himself at the time, so one would really have to stretch to call it enemy fire. At this time I really dont see why what you call it makes any difference, but that always seems so important to some...

It makes a difference to the victims. Compensation to them is different under workplace violence than act of terrorism.
 
Back
Top Bottom