Oooh! Good idea! Make it hurt a lot!
Posted on 08/18/2012 2:37:31 PM PDT by PROCON
Court proceedings against accused Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan were halted by an order issued Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The order came as Col. Gregory Gross, the judge presiding over Hasan's court-martial, announced that Hasan would be forcibly shaved if he did not comply with Army regulations and shave his beard himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
We are still paying him his officers’ salary. His ass belongs to us.
It would seem that this decision would help the case go forward sooner, we can hope.
Oooh! Good idea! Make it hurt a lot!
Thank you for this detailed explanation! Love the part where the case is on the docket every day going forward... tick...tick...
Don’t forget the aftershave.
Precisely.
Not if you're Irish it shouldn't.
"Myself" should be "me" in the third paragraph.
How about, "The court reporter and I..."
Straight rubbing alcohol. By mouth.
ping
Stop compromising Justice!
GET the biggest and most damning enabler of this Islamist creep, OUT OF OUR WHITE HOUSE!
Stop compromising Justice!
GET the biggest and most damning enabler of this Islamist creep, OUT OF OUR WHITE HOUSE!
Well, to be completely honest, I don't know all of the ins-and-outs of the interplay of jurisdiction between State, Federal, and in-State locations under Federal supervision.
Normally, if a solder commits an offense on-post, whether it be against another soldier or a civilian, the Army takes jurisdiction. If a soldier commits an offense off-post, the State gets to make first call if they want to prosecute or not. Depending on the status of the "victim" (was it another soldier, a civilian, or an off-post business), the severity of the crime, and how the County/City prosecutor views the outcome in civilian court versus the possible result in military court, the State will either keep or surrender jurisdiction.
Now, since the offense took place on post and was committed by a soldier, my guess is that the State wasn't given the option of asserting jurisdiction. If the "civilian" victims of the shooting had any connection with the military .. such as being a retiree, an on-post civilian employee, a dependent wife or husband .. that bolsters the military's assertion of jurisdiction.
Now, that doesn't necessarily negate the possibility of civil court action against MAJ Hasan for the killings. I am out of my league there. I was a military court reporter for 18 years (having been an infantryman/M60 gunner for my first three years in the Army until my promotion to SGT) and have been the civil service court installation court reporter on Fort Hood since 1994. My expertise, such as it is, is strictly within military court parameters.
I have no experience with military courts.
But the actions of the court clearly tell me that this is not just another case. It is being directed by political forces. Those are coming through the chain of command from the White Hut and the Liar-in-Chief.
This is not how military justice is normally handled.
Makes me wonder if there is a political connection between Obozo and Hassan that has not previously been exposed. He was on the transition team, what else?
However, I haven't seen any wide variance between how this case has been handled .. on the basic in-the-courtroom level .. and that of any other case of a similar nature. Now, I will grant you that we haven't had another mass killing like this on any post to the best of my knowledge. However, we have had serious murder cases here on Fort Hood, without the sheer number of victims and masses of evidence, that have taken a lengthy time to get to trial.
The Article 32 requirement for a pretrial trial (akin to a grand jury on steroids), the multiple victims, the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of pieces of documentary and physical evidence all go to stretching out the timeline. I know the military judge personally and can tell you that he is being very very careful to ensure that all of legal dotted-I's and crossed-T's are made to alleviate the possibility of a successful appeal at the conclusion of the proceedings.
With the public opinion status of military justice being what it is (ie, military justice is to justice as military music is to music), everything needs to go right down the line according the Manual for Courts-Martial to ensure that no legal loophole exists at the end of the trial that could give the accused an escape-line.
It may seem to be an open-and-shut case but the legal rights of the accused as delineated by the Constitution and the Manual for Courts-Martial must be met .. and, in this case, exceeded .. to ensure that the accused gets what is coming to him in the end.
I am glad it is in capable hands.
The military justice system does not have a reputation of the PC disease that has become normal in our civilian court system.
BUT, I have seen evidence of the infecting the Officer ranks in the military. Classic example: Weasely Clark
We all want justice. This case screams for it.
Since he is still in the Army, give the guy an Article 15 and forfeit all pay for each month he refuses to shave.
-
Hassan was a member of Obama’s Transition Team
White House spinner Stephanie Cutter (of “Romney killed this woman!” reknown) was the chief spokesperson for Obama’s Transition Team
Do I need to diagram this?
-
Nope
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.