• 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

It is a military target on a military base occupied by soldiers, therefore it is not terrorism.

Would it be terrorism if one of our soldiers screamed "praise jesus!" as he shot or dropped a bomb on an enemy combatant?

A military target on a military base is included in the definition of.....or any segment of a government or civilian population. Again, this guy's motives, actions and words, all show his purpose.
 
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?

What will the Army will allow him next? Maybe a short term relationship with Jodi Arias...
 
In no way am I trying t reduce Hasan's crimes, a strawman, I aint falling for it.

Intellectually I know the death penalty is wrong, occassionally emotionally I wish someone would get it. Never said I was perfect...

How do you intellectually twist your brain into being pro-abortion, but against killing an axe murderer. LOL, biggest hypocrisy in a long list of liberal hypocrisies.
 
I am not pro abortion. In fact, I am very anti abortion. Partisan hacks dont realize some people think for themselves. LOL as you say.
How do you intellectually twist your brain into being pro-abortion, but against killing an axe murderer. LOL, biggest hypocrisy in a long list of liberal hypocrisies.
 
I am not pro abortion. In fact, I am very anti abortion. Partisan hacks dont realize some people think for themselves. LOL as you say.

Well, I appreciate you for that.
 
A military target on a military base is included in the definition of.....or any segment of a government or civilian population. Again, this guy's motives, actions and words, all show his purpose.

Attacking military targets is not terrorism. It doesn't matter what your motivation was.
 
Attacking military targets is not terrorism. It doesn't matter what your motivation was.

Heya Duece. :2wave: Not according to the FBI.....that's why the Definition is written that way. All one has to do is take a Look at how the attack on the USS Cole was assessed.
 
Heya Duece. :2wave: Not according to the FBI.....that's why the Definition is written that way. All one has to do is take a Look at how the attack on the USS Cole was assessed.

If attacking military targets counts as terrorism, better arrest basically the entire US military structure.
 
Or perhaps motive also plays a part in the accusation.

A motive like "kill the enemy because I want my side to win this war?"

Motive is a component, but so is the action.
 
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.

Hey, it's ONLY been three years!
 
A motive like "kill the enemy because I want my side to win this war?"

Motive is a component, but so is the action.

He apparently had ties to terrorist groups but so long as this guy is made an example of, it really doesn't matter to me.
 
He apparently had ties to terrorist groups but so long as this guy is made an example of, it really doesn't matter to me.

Right. Murder, treason, war crimes. Can the charges really get any more severe? Simply being a radical muslim attached to/turned by a terrorist group doesn't magically turn all of your actions into terrorism. Osama Bin Laden taking out the trash doesn't make trash disposal terrorism, because if you call it that suddenly there's a lot of terrorists driving around in dump trucks in the US.

In my personal opinion, attacking military targets just doesn't count as terrorism, because that's how war works. Your soldiers shoot their soldiers. We're still calling this a war, right?

That doesn't make Hasan's actions justified: it's freaking mass murder, treason, and probably a war crime or two. He was apparently radicalized and driven to action through communication with other extremists. Also not terrorism, when the CIA does it we usually call it espionage or something.
 
Right. Murder, treason, war crimes. Can the charges really get any more severe? Simply being a radical muslim attached to/turned by a terrorist group doesn't magically turn all of your actions into terrorism. Osama Bin Laden taking out the trash doesn't make trash disposal terrorism, because if you call it that suddenly there's a lot of terrorists driving around in dump trucks in the US.

In my personal opinion, attacking military targets just doesn't count as terrorism, because that's how war works. Your soldiers shoot their soldiers. We're still calling this a war, right?

That doesn't make Hasan's actions justified: it's freaking mass murder, treason, and probably a war crime or two. He was apparently radicalized and driven to action through communication with other extremists. Also not terrorism, when the CIA does it we usually call it espionage or something.

He shot unarmed people not 'military targets' and, if it was war, whose side did he represent?
 
He shot unarmed people not 'military targets' and, if it was war, whose side did he represent?

Soldiers on a military base are a military target even if weapons aren't in their hands. American airstrikes have killed plenty of insurgents who happen to not be holding weapons. You're not calling our fighter pilots terrorists, are you?
 
If attacking military targets counts as terrorism, better arrest basically the entire US military structure.

Not really.....the issue with the USS COLE would be classified as an act of terrorism. Military targets attacked by civilians would be classified as so. Despite Clinton doing all he could to prevent the knowledge of the US being attacked by Terrorists. Later they would classify the Cole as an Act of Terrorism.
 
Are any soldiers who lose it and shoot a fellow soldier on base terrorists?

Is a crack addict who shoots a soldier at an ATM a terrorist?

Some of the logic in this thread is faulty, more like "he was a muslim who shot a soldier, of course he's a terrorist".

Beware the rights of others that you volunteer to give up. Our legal system, your legal system, is based on those rights. Terrorism is a crime and, when the terrorist is caught, should be tried as such.
 
Soldiers on a military base are a military target even if weapons aren't in their hands. American airstrikes have killed plenty of insurgents who happen to not be holding weapons. You're not calling our fighter pilots terrorists, are you?

No, i am not because there have been plenty of warnings prior to any strikes.

Thanks for responding to the first part of the question but you never responded o the second part as to whose side he represented in the war.
 
No, i am not because there have been plenty of warnings prior to any strikes.

Thanks for responding to the first part of the question but you never responded o the second part as to whose side he represented in the war.

Plenty of warning prior to strikes against insurgents? Right. I'm sure they drive by with a loudspeaker and shout "ATTENTION AL-QAEDA GUYS! THE BUILDING YOU ARE IN IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE."

Whose side? I'd say the extremist group that recruited him.
 
Plenty of warning prior to strikes against insurgents? Right. I'm sure they drive by with a loudspeaker and shout "ATTENTION AL-QAEDA GUYS! THE BUILDING YOU ARE IN IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE."

Whose side? I'd say the extremist group that recruited him.

You said it is a war so you must know the participants. Who are they?
 
Back
Top Bottom