Fort Hood Suspect Charged With Murder

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 November 2009 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1258079380' post='2001641']
"Terrorism" is what a person would be charged with. They would not be charged with holding an ideology. Presumably, when Major Hasan is put on trial, the word "Islamic" will not appear in the charges against him. The word "terrorist" may appear in the charges, but not the word "Islamic."
[/quote]

The kind of terrorism he committed is important, and that type of terrorism will come up in court somehow if he is to be tried. They may not use the word "Islamic" but that does not mean they could not. He is after all a Islamic Terrorist. [url="http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm"]The 9-11 Commission Report[/url] and other legal documents about Terrorism are filled with references to Islamic Terrorists, Muslim Militants, etc. So I am not at all convinced this court could not use similar language.

[Saint Therese]

I think this would be a case that would justify the death penalty. Also, I think this is clearly a case of terrorism, and the military officials who did not prevent this should be held accountable.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='12 November 2009 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1258064388' post='2001457']
Based on his violation of allegiance toward the United States.
[/quote]


Fortunately our constitution has a different, slightly less opaque definition of treason.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Hassan' date='12 November 2009 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1258064191' post='2001455']
What do you base the treason charge on?

Terrorism is defensible (although most here certainly won't approve of such a charge, otherwise they'd have to revisit their positions on hate crimes).


From what I've seen he should be charged with murder.
[/quote]

He violated the oath he took as an officer in the Army of the United States of America. He vowed to uphold our Constitution and defend our people from enemies both foreign and domestic.

trea⋅son
  /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn]

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
[b]2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.[/b]

Without a doubt this man DID commit an act of treason.

[Hassan]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='12 November 2009 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1258087296' post='2001844']
He violated the oath he took as an officer in the Army of the United States of America. He vowed to uphold our Constitution and defend our people from enemies both foreign and domestic.

trea⋅son
  /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn]

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
[b]2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.[/b]

Without a doubt this man DID commit an act of treason.
[/quote]

The constitutional definition of treason implies giving material aid to a concrete enemy of the United States. Betraying an oath he took as an Army officer is not treason. Unless going AWOL is also treason.

He should be charged with murder. If the courts can establish that his acts constitute terrorism them he should be charged with that too. There is plenty of solid legal ground to put this man away forever or kill him. Expanding the definition of treason in such a way as to make it so opaque and wide ranging is neither wise nor needed.

[CatherineM]

I think what I'm really shocked about is how did he stay in the Army? They put him through school and he rose to the rank of Major, acting in strange ways on many documented occasions, but no one pulled his security clearance. I find that really hard to believe. Someone should be disciplined for that as well. Had he been cashiered, this couldn't have happened on the base.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Hassan' date='13 November 2009 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1258087568' post='2001859']
The constitutional definition of treason implies giving material aid to a concrete enemy of the United States. Betraying an oath he took as an Army officer is not treason. Unless going AWOL is also treason.

He should be charged with murder. If the courts can establish that his acts constitute terrorism them he should be charged with that too. There is plenty of solid legal ground to put this man away forever or kill him. Expanding the definition of treason in such a way as to make it so opaque and wide ranging is neither wise nor needed.
[/quote]

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Given the reports of his repeated communications with a radical Muslim leader who encouraged encouraged Muslims to attack/kill our soldiers I'd say the evidence is leaning pretty strongly towards "adhering to [our] enemies."

[CatherineM]

He certainly gave aid and comfort to the enemy. They must have loved it. He killed more American soldiers that day than the enemy did, so I'd say he went to war against us as well.

[HisChild]

[quote name='nunsense' date='12 November 2009 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1258063638' post='2001452']
Yes, yes, yes, I agree, but my point here is that we are talking about charging him with the murder of an "unborn" child. Are there already precedents that say killing an unborn child is murder or not? Is so, why is there even any debate about abortion at all? If not, then this is pretty important stuff!
[/quote]


Most states already allow for the charging of two murders if someone kills a pregnant woman. The defense is it's now a child because she wanted the baby. So I'm sure that's the defense they're using here.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='12 November 2009 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1258087718' post='2001867']
I think what I'm really shocked about is how did he stay in the Army? They put him through school and he rose to the rank of Major, acting in strange ways on many documented occasions, but no one pulled his security clearance. I find that really hard to believe. Someone should be disciplined for that as well. Had he been cashiered, this couldn't have happened on the base.
[/quote]
because they didn't want to be guilty of "discrimination." Because political correctness matters more than the safety of our soldiers. I heard a general speak last week, don't know which one it was, perhaps Casey, and he mentioned he hoped this incident doesn't destroy "diversity in the military." Really General, is that what we need to be worried about right now???

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='13 November 2009 - 07:44 AM' timestamp='1258119841' post='2002078']
because they didn't want to be guilty of "discrimination." Because political correctness matters more than the safety of our soldiers. I heard a general speak last week, don't know which one it was, perhaps Casey, and he mentioned he hoped this incident doesn't destroy "diversity in the military." Really General, is that what we need to be worried about right now???
[/quote]
That makes complete sense, but would never have occurred to me. Security clearances used to be about if you posed a security risk to the country, not about worrying about lawsuits or looking bad. My dad wouldn't be able to recognize his Army today, and I'm not talking about the uniforms or new hardware.