Judge bans Fort Hood suspect’s ‘protecting Taliban’ defense strategy

The Washington Times ^ | June 14, 2013 | AP

[jazusamo]

FORT HOOD, Texas — A uniformed Army psychiatrist had no justification for gunning down U.S. troops and won’t be allowed to tell jurors that he was protecting Taliban leaders in Afghanistan, a military judge ruled Friday, appearing to clear the way for the Fort Hood murder trial to begin.

Maj. Nidal Hasan’s “defense of others” strategy fails as a matter of law, Col. Tara Osborn said during a 45-minute hearing. That strategy must show that a killing was necessary to prevent the immediate harm or death of others.

Osborn said no soldiers at the Texas Army post on Nov. 5, 2009, posed an imminent threat to anyone in Afghanistan and that the legitimacy of the Afghanistan war is not an issue at Hasan’s court-martial. She also ordered that Hasan not present any evidence or arguments about his claims that deploying U.S. troops posed an immediate threat to Taliban fighters.

[Terry L Smith]

jazusamo wrote, in response to me:
“I in no way disparaged that brave lady, she did her best.

There were many others there and one of them could have stood on Hasan’s throat while they bandaged him up to prevent further trauma.”

I give you a nod, a wink, an old man’s utterance of agreement, and, “Wish they’d had!”

[jazusamo]

Amen to that and thanks my FRiend!

[colorado tanker]

I don’t follow your question.

[null and void]

Are you afraid that the court would find that jihad is an acceptable defense against a murder charge?

[colorado tanker]

Absolutely not. That’s absurd.

[null and void]

So is spying on every single American’s phone calls, while specifically excluding mosques.

If you aren’t the slightest concerned that the jihad inspired murder defense will work, what harm comes from putting islam on trial?

It was the driving force behind the attacks.

[colorado tanker]

Your argument makes no sense. What the judge said is if Hasan could prove everything he said, that he committed these murders because Islam commanded him to do so to protect Taliban in Afghanistan, that could not be a defense to murder under American law and the UCMJ. There would be nothing for the jury to consider because this can't be a defense as a matter of law.

Under American law some issues are jury issues and some issues are judge issues. Whether something could, if proved, be a defense is a judge issue. If the judge rules something is a legally recognized defense, such as self-defense, then it is up to the jury to decide if the facts support the defense. Here, the judge ruled what Hasan proposed to prove is not, as a matter of law, a defense.

[null and void]

So there is no value to having a full public and well publicized verdict that explicitly states:

1) Islam requires its adherents to murder non-muslims.
2) That is not a legal defense.
3) Islam is a murderous suicide cult, an active, terrorism promoting, organized crime ring and an hostile political organization masquerading as a legitimate religion.

A quiet ruling, with no airing in open court and avoiding months of lively public discussion suffices.

I want Hasan hanged or shot, and I want that foul cult he loves exposed rooted out and burned.

You seem to be content if that little green leaf, Hasan, is plucked from the tip of a distant tendril, and the strangling vines it grew from remain fully intact and unexamined, as long as all the pro-forma minutia of the law are followed.

It's not allah 'bout Hasan. The root cause desperately needs to be addressed.

[colorado tanker]

American judges are bound by the law. This judge can't willy nilly open an investigation of the Islamic religion or all Islamic terrorists. And that is a good thing. That is up to elected representatives, such as Congress and the President, not unelected judges.

I don't know why you ascribe motives to me that I do not have. I have supported a global war on Islamic terror since 9-11. I am not one of the people dismantling that effort and I did not vote for them. I disagree with the Administration's refusal to label Hasan's murders an act of terrorism, which deprives victims and their families of compensation they should be entitled to. Your beef isn't with me or the presiding judge.

[null and void]

Please do not read me as saying you are supporting islam in any way shape or form! I recognize your interests and integrity in preserving the narrow scope of US law. In this case, I merely am seeing it differently than you do. The judge is not putting islam on trial, the defendant is.

I think the judge should allow Mr Hassan to damn all ummah in this trial. When your enemy is self-destructing, you shouldn’t stop them, you should at worst get out of the way, and at best aid them!

And when there are activist judges on the left, if you (not you personally, the generic you as our society) allow that on the left, out of fairness and a sense of survival, you should allow it on the right.

IOW, hold the left to their own rules, if they allow activism, they must allow activism!

YMMV, and that’s OK.

[colorado tanker]

I think we can agree on a couple of things.

One, this guy's islamic radicalization has made him crazy (although not in a legal sense). The defense he wants to present is not only an admission of guilt to murder, but terrorism.

Two, this guy is proving the old saying that anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for an attorney.

One other consideration I would offer is the judge can't stop him from representing himself, but if she doesn't keep a tight rein on him and strictly follow correct procedure she might introduce an error that would be grounds for reversal on appeal.

[null and void]

True that.