• 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!

Obama Suggests Still Possible Hasan May Have Cracked Under Stress

Define "public"?

The civil courts are granted broad restrictions on media access.

The military courts are even more secure.

Not that it matters, the evidence makes this a slam dunk for the prosecution.

Then we hang the terrorist.

Question:

Why is it that all those people who bitch and moan about how racist the United States is in their eyes refuse to move to whatever country they feel is better? Lord knows that we racists don't want their useless asses around here, so why don't they go where they'll be more comfortable?

6th Amendment said:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

They can restrict what the jury sees, but the courtroom is generally open to the public at large. But I don't really know how Military Law works...
 
Last edited:
That's a good point, since this is technically wartime, can his trial (is it a Court Martial by the way?) be restricted to certain parties or is it still required to be a Public Trial?

When was war declared by Congress?
 
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

Didn't define "public".

It doesn't necessarily mean televised or broadcast.

Cameras in the court do weird things to people. Look at how Ito let OJ get off.

Now, mind you, I've no real objection to cameras and court rooms, but occasionally they get in the way. Especially for these high-media circus events.

If there's a chance the TV buffoons could cause a mistrial or otherwise prevent the just and propert guilty verdict for this terrorists, they shouldn't be allowed in the court.
 
When was war declared by Congress?

Isn't the 2001 War in Afghanistan still technically ongoing or did we not declare war there? I know it's more of an informal conflict...But I can't find any solid looking sources...would the Dept of the State have that info?
 
That's a good point, since this is technically wartime, can his trial (is it a Court Martial by the way?) be restricted to certain parties or is it still required to be a Public Trial?

It has nothing to do with it being wartime.

Normally, military trials are not open to the public, unless the public has a direct interest in the case.

In his case it's all military and no public interest, so I beliieve it may very well be closed to the public unless they give some courtesy considering he was a member of the Muslim community. Though, I do not believe he represents any real Muslim community in American society. Muslims in America are fairly well assimilated and they enjoy their lives here. I feel for them when a guy goes off like that.

Anyway.

If you are in the military, and are caught commiting a crime against the military, you will be tried in a military court of law. Yes, he will be court martialed; but I am not sure if that term is still in used by the military.

Now if a person is in the military, and they commit a crime against a community, they most likely will be tried within that community, if the community wants him, and most times tried again in a military court of law if the military deems it necessary.

Either way the miliitary will not let them get off easy.

The military has a very tough stance against military personnel who commit crimes.

Some may squark at the tough sentence he gets in the end, but trust that the military has given just as tough to guys who have done less than him.

The military doesn't care what color or reliigion you are - if you are in the military and you are caught commiting a crime............ just trust that Leavenworth is no fun for quite a few guys who are of all persuasions.
 
Last edited:
LOL - it's funny when the shoe is on the other foot - I remember when the liberals were ranting about Bush absorbing the moment when he was informed of 9/11 during a reading to school kids.

Bush didn't want to fly off and scare the kids, and news like that can momentarily stun a good man.

He did what was needed within minutes later.

NOBAMA has dithered since April with Gen. McChrystal's request, and we will never hear the truth told about the Fort Hood matter from him.

Fortunately for us, we have a brain of our own, and we know the truth of matters.

My only sad is the law didn't allow us to vote Bush in for another term.

Romney in 2012 is what this world needs.

Feel free to do a search and find where I have said anything l have aid anything like that. In point of fact, you will find that not only do I say that not only was 9/11 not Bush's fault, but that he handled it well. Don't go and make up crap to try and make your mindless anti rants seem of value. They are not, and once again, you take your post in a direction totally unrelated to the topic at hand. You don't like Obama, and you let it blind you.

The far right like to claim that any one who dares support Obama has "drank the koolaid", but the truth is, you and those like you who will use any excuse to mindlessly rant are much more the koolaid drinkers than those of us who sit back and actually think about things and judge each thing individually.
 
Isn't the 2001 War in Afghanistan still technically ongoing or did we not declare war there? I know it's more of an informal conflict...But I can't find any solid looking sources...would the Dept of the State have that info?

War has not been declared by Congress. It kinda is a nit picky thing but here is more info:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States]Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Feel free to do a search and find where I have said anything l have aid anything like that. In point of fact, you will find that not only do I say that not only was 9/11 not Bush's fault, but that he handled it well. Don't go and make up crap to try and make your mindless anti rants seem of value. They are not, and once again, you take your post in a direction totally unrelated to the topic at hand. You don't like Obama, and you let it blind you.

The far right like to claim that any one who dares support Obama has "drank the koolaid", but the truth is, you and those like you who will use any excuse to mindlessly rant are much more the koolaid drinkers than those of us who sit back and actually think about things and judge each thing individually.

OK, I will chalk it up to my bad - and I agree - Bush handled it very well - he's the man - I only wish we could have voted him in for another four.
 
Feel free to do a search and find where I have said anything l have aid anything like that. In point of fact, you will find that not only do I say that not only was 9/11 not Bush's fault, but that he handled it well. Don't go and make up crap to try and make your mindless anti rants seem of value. They are not, and once again, you take your post in a direction totally unrelated to the topic at hand. You don't like Obama, and you let it blind you.

The far right like to claim that any one who dares support Obama has "drank the koolaid", but the truth is, you and those like you who will use any excuse to mindlessly rant are much more the koolaid drinkers than those of us who sit back and actually think about things and judge each thing individually.
This guy was his own little terrorist group, and you don't want to face it. The guy even had business cards. Keep your head in the sand.
 
War has not been declared by Congress. It kinda is a nit picky thing

It's not nit picky at all, it's called the War Powers Act and it's engaged right now in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There are three ways in which this nation can enter military conflict, I would highly suggest we all make the effort to learn all three.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Nothing nit picky whatsoever about it, in fact, it's quite clear.
 
Isn't the 2001 War in Afghanistan still technically ongoing or did we not declare war there? I know it's more of an informal conflict...But I can't find any solid looking sources...would the Dept of the State have that info?

If yer running for President, you should already know this, your look for solid sources just ended.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes (sic) any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
This guy was his own little terrorist group, and you don't want to face it. The guy even had business cards. Keep your head in the sand.

Where have I said he is not? Keep trying to put words in my mouth, see how well that works for you.
 
I do not believe it will be on TV. It will be held in a military court of law, afterall he was in the miltary and commited crimes against the miltary.

As far as it being open to the public - I doubt it - and if it is obviously it will have to be limited.

As for the evidence - guilty as charged - they have more than enough to find him guilty, and obviously, that's because he is guilty.

Like they say - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I think he was charged by the Army Jag with 13 counts of homicide, so definitely, military trial.
 
This guy was his own little terrorist group, and you don't want to face it. The guy even had business cards. Keep your head in the sand.

This guy was a mass murderer with religious tendencies. There's a difference. He's as much a terrorist as the guy who shot up the gym in Pittsburgh.
 
This guy was a mass murderer with religious tendencies. There's a difference. He's as much a terrorist as the guy who shot up the gym in Pittsburgh.

If he was really planning a terrorist act, he had the opportunity to do far worse damage. Majors are not frisked, their cars are not inspected. He could have detonated a device near a large gathering of troops, a meeting of general staff, or a presidential visit. How much planning does it require to walk into a room with guns blazing?
 
If he was really planning a terrorist act, he had the opportunity to do far worse damage. Majors are not frisked, their cars are not inspected. He could have detonated a device near a large gathering of troops, a meeting of general staff, or a presidential visit. How much planning does it require to walk into a room with guns blazing?

Acts of terrorism are not relegated to only detonating bombs... what he might have done differently to maximize damage is irrelevant. Legally Title 18 USC Section 2232(b) identifies what constitutes such an act of terrorism.

Whether or not we believe it is or is not depends on our personal definition of terrorism is/is not. Given the evidence so far, his actions were motivated at least in part by his religious views. I have seen no PTSD evidence other than talking heads on television and reporters making that claim. That his "Jihad" and Islamic views were in direct conflict with his military service, and that one's motivation for easily gaining access to weapons he already had in his possession, seems reasonable in carrying out the act. Him screaming Allah Ackbar as reported, signifies and provides weight that his Islamic views were part of his motivation --- the question is: Was this act of killing 13 and wounding 29 an act to strike fear and intimidate into the U.S. Government, the U.S. military or the citizens of the United States?

The FBI defines terrorism as:

"The unlawful use of force or 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."

Again, given the public information, the act does seem to fit an act of terrorism - and yes, that would mean the guy who shot up the Jewish location could also be an act of terrorism. Frequently the Oklahoma City Bombing is characterized as an act of domestic terrorism, so why wouldn't this act? I'm not following this whole apologist track... and it may be that his mental instability LED him to the jihadist view which eventually motivated the killings.

I'm still more upset that the warning signs were there, were ignored, and this unstable person was promoted --- all because of perceived sensitivities to Muslims. I find that unacceptable and his chain of command need a good shellacking.
 
The FBI defines terrorism as:

"The unlawful use of force or 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."

But was that his motive, to shift government policies? I don't think it was. I think his motive was PERSONAL. He was acting out his personal rage and angst at the circumstances of his life, which included being muslim and being deployed to perform work that caused him ethical issues. This is the (admittedly subtle) different between mass murder and terrorism...Columbine High School versus blowing up a bus full of Jewish people in the west bank. Hasan was expressing his PERSONAL rage and pain against those he saw as causing the pain.

I don't see that his motive, as stated above, differed substantially from the motives of George Sodini.

Here's a blog post from George Sodini, dated 5 Nov 2008:

Planned to do this in the summer but figure to stick around to see the election outcome. This particular one got so much attention and I was just curious. Not like I give a flying fcuk who won, since this exit plan was already planned. Good luck to Obama! He will be successful. The liberal media LOVES him. Amerika has chosen The Black Man. Good! In light of this I got ideas outside of Obama’s plans for the economy and such. Here it is: Every black man should get a young white girl hoe to hone up on. Kinda a reverse indentured servitude thing. Long ago, many a older white male landowner had a young Negro wench girl for his desires. Bout’ time tables are turned on that ****. Besides, dem young white hoez dig da bruthrs! LOL. More so than they dig the white dudes! Every daddy know when he sends his little girl to college, she be bangin a bruthr real good. I saw it. “Not my little girl”, daddy says! (Yeah right!!) Black dudes have thier choice of best white hoez. You do the math, there are enough young white so all the brothers can each have one for 3 or 6 months or so.

Was George Sodini's act political, or personal? Was Hasan's act political, or personal? In both cases, it appears to me that they were PERSONAL. Their mass murders were PERSONAL expressions of rage directed at those who became identified in the murderers' heads as being responsible, somehow, for their pain & suffering. Ditto, Columbine.

Frequently the Oklahoma City Bombing is characterized as an act of domestic terrorism, so why wouldn't this act

Because their motives were political, and not personal.

I'm still more upset that the warning signs were there, were ignored, and this unstable person was promoted --- all because of perceived sensitivities to Muslims. I find that unacceptable and his chain of command need a good shellacking.

This is the real issue, IMO.
 
Last edited:
This guy was a mass murderer with religious tendencies. There's a difference. He's as much a terrorist as the guy who shot up the gym in Pittsburgh.

I guess it's just a coincidence that he glorified and justified suicide bombings. That he carried around business cards with Soldier of Allah inscribed on them. That he said that Muslims should murder Americans. That he stood up and yelled the Jihadist battle cry of Allahu Akbar before he began opening fire. I guess, also, that it's just a coincidence that two of the 9-11 hijackers attended the same Mosque as Nidal under the tutelage of the radical wahhabist Imam Anwar al Awlaki who himself was under investigation by the FBI before he fled to Yemen. This is the same Imam who has since praised the fort hood attacker as a "a hero," and that he "is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people." And that's not all folks, this is the very same Imam who Nidal emailed up to 20 times before the deadly attack. It should be clear to anyone by now that this was a Jihadist attack inspired by radical Islamist ideology and not simply a guy who snapped.
 
According to liberlism, terrorism doesn't exist. So, thus the arguing over whether Hasan was a terrorist. We say he is, they say he isn't.
 
I guess it's just a coincidence that he glorified and justified suicide bombings. That he carried around business cards with Soldier of Allah inscribed on them. That he said that Muslims should murder Americans. That he stood up and yelled the Jihadist battle cry of Allahu Akbar before he began opening fire. I guess, also, that it's just a coincidence that two of the 9-11 hijackers attended the same Mosque as Nidal under the tutelage of the radical wahhabist Imam Anwar al Awlaki who himself was under investigation by the FBI before he fled to Yemen. This is the same Imam who has since praised the fort hood attacker as a "a hero," and that he "is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people." And that's not all folks, this is the very same Imam who Nidal emailed up to 20 times before the deadly attack. It should be clear to anyone by now that this was a Jihadist attack inspired by radical Islamist ideology and not simply a guy who snapped.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Columbine happened on National "Get High" Day...Klebold and Harris must have been pro-pot activists.
 
According to liberlism, terrorism doesn't exist. So, thus the arguing over whether Hasan was a terrorist. We say he is, they say he isn't.

Except, I'm not a liberal. I fully believe that terrorism exists, and that radicalized Islam is a huge problem. I just don't think that this incident meets the litmus test. But thanks for trying.

:2wave:
 
Except, I'm not a liberal. I fully believe that terrorism exists, and that radicalized Islam is a huge problem. I just don't think that this incident meets the litmus test. But thanks for trying.

:2wave:
Well he didn't get outside the post gates, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom