The military’s highest court ousted the judge in the Fort Hood shooting case Monday and threw out his order to have the suspect’s beard forcibly shaved before his court-martial.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that Col. Gregory Gross didn’t appear impartial while presiding over the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who faces the death penalty if convicted in the 2009 shootings on the Texas Army post that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others.
But the court said it was not ruling on whether the judge’s order violated Hasan’s religious rights. Hasan has argued that his beard is a requirement of his Muslim faith, although facial hair violates Army regulations.
Just give the asshole a webcam feed (one way, no feed from him…he doesn’t want to play) when the judge gives his sentence, and then give the prick the needle. This is nothing but making a mockery, and so many people who should know better are playing along.
He has rights, he’s waiving them. GOOD this makes our job easier. We know what he did, we know why he did it, and we have lots of witnesses to corroborate the whole thing. We also know this man has no respect for the military he abused and assaulted, nor the people who would lay down their lives to protect his worthless ass.
Just get him in the ground and quick fucking about!
Of course we know why he did it, he was a disgruntled employee!
No terrorism there.
Just put him on trial WITH the beard. Make him run laps at the parade ground or something as punishment for being out of uniform, THEN execute him
If this were 50-60 years ago, this bastard would have already been in the ground with a much longer neck. Fuck the PC bullshit. Try him, sentence him, execute him. Be done with it.
Even with little to no possibility that this guy won’t be convicted, a trial is still necessarily. Letting the government get away with executing (or punishing in any other way for that matter) someone without the benefit of a trial would be a slippery slope the likes of which nobody in their right mind would want to start down.
Personally, I think the drone attack/assassination and the killing of Ben Laden are putting us perilously close to that cliff as it is.
s
I’m no way saying he shouldn’t’ be tried, he can still be tried, just it will have to only be by proxy of his lawyer unless he plays by the army rules he agreed to when he first signed up.
Don’t touch the beard.
It’s evidence of his religion-based terrorist intent.
Stuart:
Wrong. If you go to war with the US, the US military has the duty to blow your stupid ass up or shoot your ass if at all possible.
This includes both Bin Laden, and that American goof who publicly joined AQ. If he had joined the Waffen-SS during WWII, and started making propaganda films, we would not be fretting if some GI or the Army air-corp had smoked his ass.
If you don’t want to be shot or blown up, there is a simple solution here: approach a US soldier or Marine with your hands high in the air, and surrender.
Kristopher,
There is a difference between military action and Assassination. Wartime killing is best left for the battlefield. Once it strays off the field of battle it becomes questionable.
The Ft. Hood shooter is in custody. To execute him without a trial spits in the face of our American ideals.
Drone attacks and assassinations that happen far from the field of battle are questionable. If Bin Laden had been found in a cave in Afghanistan and shot by a soldier, that would have been fine. Instead, American soldiers were sent into a country that is not involved (or at least pretends to be not involved), without permission, specifically for the purposes of killing him. That smells of assassination.
Do we really want our government to start down the path of assassinating those who disagree with us? As a US Marine, it saddens me to see it.
s
If the Army Air Corp had gotten a good lead to a location for Tokyo Rose, and had dropped a 2000 lb GP bomb on her and killed her, would this be an “assassination”?
Would FDR have been a war criminal for allowing it?
How about dropping a bomb on Adolph Hitler?
Or someone who was strictly a civilian, like Speer?
I must disagree with you. If you side with the enemy during a war, you are a legitimate target … and that includes people who make propaganda, or people who make munitions, or people who make food, manufactured goods, or recruits that can be used against you.
Bombing Nagasaki was not a crime … it was a damned good idea.
Dropping a drone launched missile on some puke who publicly, on the internet, turns traitor, and starts making enemy propaganda videos, is also just good tactics.
If he wants his fair trial, he needs to surrender, and become a POW first.
And I did not advocate executing the Fort Hood shooter. I was talking about Bin Laden and Al Amriki.
No where did I advocate simply executing the Ft Hood shooter without a trial. He was captured alive, so we have to play that ball where it lies.
Do not put words in my mouth.
Someone who openly shouts out that he is engaging in war against the US, actually carriers out acts of war (not just protests and sit-ins labelled “war against the Man”), etc., is a legitimate target, WHEREVER he happens to be sitting.
The offence against the territorial sovereignity of whatever nation he is sitting in is a wholly unrelated matter to the legitimacy of blowing away self-declared enemies, ESPECIALLY when their entire mode of operation is to hide amongst the civilian population in nations not actively at war with the target, SO THAT they will not be found and killed. The enemy THEMSELVES have decalred that the “battlefield” is the entire world — my response is, “OK, Burger King, you CAN have it your way.”
I have ZERO problem with the assassination of military enemies of the US, wherever they may be found abroad.
However, I DO object to assassination of ANYONE within the borders of the United States, simply because we DO have laws we can rely on to sort out civil parasites (“ordinary” criminals, regardless of nationality) from “enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic”, AND the ability to handle the cases in approriate manner, if we have the will to do so. (Criminals to be tried, convicted, and jailed/executed and or deported;domestic enemies to be tried, convicted, and jailed/executed; and foreign enemies to be screened for “lawful combatant” status, with lawful combatants getting full EPW treatment, unlawful combatants being contained and held, and convicted war criminals to be jailed/executed.)
Why isn’t this scumbag being charged with treason as one of the crimes. Or, at the least “aiding and abetting the enemy?”
Oh.
Wait.
Now I remember who the CINC is. Never mind.