Judge bars most motive evidence in Fort Hood trial

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-bars-most-motive-evidence-fort-hood-trial-153052308.html

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) — A military judge blocked several key pieces of evidence Monday that prosecutors said would explain the mindset of the soldier accused in the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, including his belief that he had a "jihad duty" to carry out the attack.

Prosecutors had asked the judge to approve several witnesses and various evidence to support what they allege motivated Maj. Nidal Hasan to kill 13 people and wound more than 30 others at the Texas military base. But the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, blocked nearly all of it.

Osborn barred any reference Hasan Akbar, a Muslim soldier sentenced to death for attacking fellow soldiers in Kuwait during the 2003 Iraq invasion. Prosecutors wanted to prove Hasan's attack was a "copycat," but the judge said introducing such material would "only open the door to a mini-trial" of Akbar.

She also said such evidence would result in a "confusion of issues, unfair prejudice, waste of time and undo delay."

The judge said prosecutors also couldn't introduce three emails, ruling that the needed redactions would make them irrelevant. The contents of the emails were never disclosed, but the FBI has said Hasan sent numerous emails starting in December 2008 to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

Fort Hood Shooter Wants Death Sentence: LawyerPlay video."Fort Hood Shooter Wants Death Sentence: Lawyer
The judge also told prosecutors that they couldn't cite Hasan's interest years ago in conscientious objector status and his past academic presentations. Osborn said such evidence was too old and irrelevant.

However, the judge will allow evidence about Internet searches on Hasan's computer around the time of the attack and websites that Hasan had listed as "favorites." Osborn said that information was more timely.

Military prosecutors opened the trial by saying they would show that Hasan felt he had a "jihad duty," referring to a Muslim term for a religious war or struggle. After calling almost 80 witnesses during the last two weeks, prosecutors said Friday that they would begin tackling the question this week.

Prosecutors indicated that they had between 15 and 25 witnesses left, though it wasn't immediately clear how Monday's ruling would shorten prosecutors' case. Either way, Hasan was expected to get his chance to defend himself as early as Tuesday.

But the Army psychiatrist — who is acting as his own attorney — has put up little in a way of a defense so far and remained largely silent during the first two weeks of his trial.

Leaked sanity board report blocked, autopsy testim …Play video."Leaked sanity board report blocked, autopsy testimony …
He signaled before trial that he had just two witnesses. And during a barely one-minute opening statement, he told jurors that evidence "will clearly show that I am the shooter," but he said it wouldn't tell the whole story.

Hasan faces numerous charges of murder and attempted premeditated murder. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

Personally I'm still disgusted that this is still categorised as work place violence as opposed to terrorism.

**xole**

While the workplace violence thing instead of terrorism is bad, and the time it took him to go to trial is bad, at this point there's no reason to add anything to the trial. He's guilty, they're just going through the motions.

**whembly**

Breaking...

Fort Hood shooting jury recommends death penalty for Nidal Hasan

Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- A military jury on Wednesday recommended the death penalty for convicted Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, for the 2009 massacre on the Army base that left 13 people dead and 32 others wounded.

The 13-member panel deliberated for 2½ hours, and the president of the jury -- or foreman-- announced the finding in open court with a clear voice, that Hasan "be put to death."

The convicted killer said nothing as the decision was announced, and had appeared emotionless earlier in the morning when dramatic closing arguments in the sentencing phased were held without his participation.

Hasan serves as his own attorney and his refusal to mount a vigorous defense, or to offer any mitigating evidence to blunt a capital sentence, may have made the panel's unanimous decision less complicated or agonizing.

The judge quickly accepted the verdict, and the matter now goes to the "convening authority" -- an Army general who will review the four-week court-martial proceedings and make the binding decision whether to accept the guilty verdict and capital sentence. It is a process that could take a few more months, and only then will the verdicts become official.

The convening authority has the option of reducing the sentence to life in prison without parole. The defendant will then have the right to appeal through the military justice system.

Hasan will at some point be transferred to military death row in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to join five other condemned prisoners. The president of the United States would sign any death warrant, and the execution would take place at a federal correctional facility in Terre Haute, Indiana.

The 13-member panel of senior officers heard 45 minutes of emotional closing arguments from the government, but Hasan, as he has throughout much of the proceedings, offered no justification or explanation, saying only, "I have no closing statement."

The prosecution lawyer presented personal vignettes of all 13 victims killed and urged the panel to ignore Hasan's earlier statement that he was willing to die in custody as a "martyr" for his faith.

"He will never be a martyr, because he has nothing to give," Col. Michael Mulligan said in an even voice. "He is a criminal, a cold-blooded murderer. He is not giving his life; we are taking his life."

Inside the courtroom, widows and mothers wiped tears from their eyes throughout. Hasan remained emotionless, looking mainly at photos of victims on his monitor during closing, occasionally glancing at Mulligan addressing the panel.

He stroked his beard and wiped his nose repeatedly with a tissue.

Outside of brief comments at the beginning of the court-martial four weeks ago, where he admitted being the lone gunman that left 13 people dead and 31 others wounded, the defendant has not put on much of a case.

That left the government alone Wednesday to summarize the incident and the impact on the survivors, families of victims, and Fort Hood community.

"Death. He was trained as doctor to save lives, but on 5 November 2009, he only dealt in death," Mulligan said. The prosecutor tied the narrative together with a unifying theme: the separate teams of two officers in Class-A uniforms who knocked on the doors of the victim's families across the country to deliver the sad news.

Mulligan also recounted graphic details of the carnage inside Station 13, Room 42003 of the medical readiness center, where the victims were preparing for their military deployments overseas.

Lt. Col. Juanita Warman, 55, was shot four times and, from her nursing training, knew she was dying from internal bleeding. "She had just a few minutes to pass on one final message: 'Tell my family I love them.'"

For the widow of Spc. Jason Hunt, the subsequent emotional pain has been tough. "Grief is a personal emotion," Mulligan said. "Hers led her to the depths of suicide and back." Jennifer Hunt told the panel Monday she is raising her three children alone.

Hasan had indicated he wanted his service record, his lack of a previous criminal record and his psychological evaluations kept under wraps. Speaking in a clear voice from his wheelchair, Hasan dismissed the ex parte actions by his "overzealous defense counsel."

After weeks of mostly silence in his defense, Hasan had little more to say this week in the capital sentencing phase of his court-martial, telling the jury panel Tuesday three short words: "The defense rests."

His brief remarks produced a gasp in the courtroom.

The panel of senior officers last week convicted the defendant on all counts of premeditated murder from the incident at the deployment processing center on this sprawling U.S. Army base. Hasan was wounded in the attacks and remains a paraplegic.

The bearded defendant called no witnesses and presented no documentary evidence on why he should not die for his crimes. He also offered no explanation for his refusal to mount any defense in either the trial or sentencing phases. Judge Tara Osborn, an Army colonel, reluctantly granted his wishes, again telling Hasan, "You're the captain of your own ship."

The prosecution noted the heroism of three victims, whose despite their wounds, tried to charge the gunman. Civilian employee Michael Cahill was shot six times but managed to fling a chair at Hasan before succumbing. Capt. John Gaffaney, 54, and Spc. Frederick Greene, 29, were also cited.

Greene was shot a dozen times, more than any victim. "What infuriated his murderer so much that he nearly emptied half his clip" on one soldier, Mulligan said. "He died in dynamic engagement."

Greene leaves behind a wife and two daughters.

**Dreadclaw69**

Good riddance.

**Ouze**

Honest question - does the motive evidence matter in this case? He's said up front that he is the shooter. He does not deny it. He's not mounting any sort of justified homicide or self defense or any other such defense where the motive is even really relevant. He pretty unambiguously wants to be found guilty, wants death, and wants to die; and it appears we're more than happy to accommodate him.

Since he's apparently not incapable mentally of making those decisions, do his motives really matter at all?

Where it might matter - and maybe this is where you're going with it - is the travesty that it's been classed as workplace violence, which precludes the victims from benefits.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
Where it might matter - and maybe this is where you're going with it - is the travesty that it's been classed as workplace violence, which precludes the victims from benefits.

Other than the tragic deaths that is the most disgusting part of this saga.

**djones520**

I think the block of motive was a political move. They don't want to paint Hassan as a jihadist, but just simply as a criminal.

If this becomes an action of war, things start getting real gray. That's why all of the victims have been denied Purple Hearts, and all the benefits that come with being wounded by enemy action.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Honest question - does the motive evidence matter in this case? He's said up front that he is the shooter. He does not deny it. He's not mounting any sort of justified homicide or self defense or any other such defense where the motive is even really relevant. He pretty unambiguously wants to be found guilty, wants death, and wants to die; and it appears we're more than happy to accommodate him.

Since he's apparently not incapable mentally of making those decisions, do his motives really matter at all?

Not really... but, remember, this is a military judicial system (holds true for civies). The system needs to be re-affirmed that EVERYONE goes through this process.

Where it might matter - and maybe this is where you're going with it - is the travesty that it's been classed as workplace violence, which precludes the victims from benefits.

Yep... it's just appalling that Hasan continued to receive benefits/paycheck and yet the victims don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
I think the block of motive was a political move. They don't want to paint Hassan as a jihadist, but just simply as a criminal.

Political motive for whom? That's what I'm having a hard time grasping...

If this becomes an action of war, things start getting real gray. That's why all of the victims have been denied Purple Hearts, and all the benefits that come with being wounded by enemy action.

He would've been tried as a traitor then...right?

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
Yep... it's just appalling that Hasan continued to receive benefits/paycheck and yet the victims don't.

I'd forgotten about that part....

djones520 wrote:
I think the block of motive was a political move. They don't want to paint Hassan as a jihadist, but just simply as a
If this becomes an action of war, things start getting real gray. That's why all of the victims have been denied Purple Hearts, and all the benefits that come with being wounded by enemy action.

Serious question - what makes Hassan different to foreign fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan who killed and injured US service personnel there? They both have the same ideology and motive. Are those killed by foreign fighters also recorded as violence in the workplace?

**djones520**

IMO, there is nothing. Hassan is no differant then Sammi Jihad in Iraq who'd run at a FOB gate with a bomb strapped to his chest.

But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant), so they've got to treat him as a regular US criminal, thereby denying all of his victims what they truly deserve.

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
IMO, there is nothing. Hassan is no differant then Sammi Jihad in Iraq who'd run at a FOB gate with a bomb strapped to his chest.

But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant), so they've got to treat him as a regular US criminal, thereby denying all of his victims what they truly deserve.

We're on the same page

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
IMO, there is nothing. Hassan is no differant then Sammi Jihad in Iraq who'd run at a FOB gate with a bomb strapped to his chest.

But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant), so they've got to treat him as a regular US criminal, thereby denying all of his victims what they truly deserve.

Oh... I didn't know that the Obama admin was the one that refused to label him "enemy combatant". For some reason, I thought that the military investigative team would ascertain that (JAGs?).

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant), so they've got to treat him as a regular US criminal, thereby denying all of his victims what they truly deserve.

First, if Obama made any comment on this case as far as how it should be handled (at the very least), he'd be getting crucified in this thread for undue command influence - you guys need to pick one or the other.

Second, I'm not in favor of any US citizens being classified as enemy combatants regardless of what they did. I'm not in favor of the previous president, the current president, or any subsequent president being able to wave his hand (with zero oversight) and poof, there go their constitutional rights because it's politically expedient. That's a much bigger threat to our freedom than this asshat.

Finally, I don't see see a distinction between domestic terrorists and criminals. There is not some kind of magic tag over their head that means we all need to loose our gak and reach for extrajudicial remedies. He's not a existential threat to our way of life - he's a Jeffrey Dahmer, a Charles Whitman, an Ed Gein. he's a mass murdering criminal, and we try plenty of mass shooters, spree killers, and so on without any real problem. Classify it as terrorism so these people can get their combat benefits and purple hearts, find him guilty of whatever terrorism statutes you like - plenty to pick from - give him the needle we all want him to get, him included - and move on.

"Just because the fether's got a library card doesn't make him Yoda!"

**whembly**

But Ouze... would you not consider Hasan's action traitorous?

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.

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1

If that isn't what he did, then I don't know what it is....

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Oh... I didn't know that the Obama admin was the one that refused to label him "enemy combatant". For some reason, I thought that the military investigative team would ascertain that (JAGs?).

You didn't know that because he didn't, it was the Pentagon (and local LEO's according to some articles). There isn't anything to suggest Obama intervened in any way, and as Ouze pointed out, hasn't made any declarations on the subject.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Oh... I didn't know that the Obama admin was the one that refused to label him "enemy combatant". For some reason, I thought that the military investigative team would ascertain that (JAGs?).

You didn't know that because he didn't, it was the Pentagon (and local LEO's according to some articles). There isn't anything to suggest Obama intervened in any way, and as Ouze pointed out, hasn't made any declarations on the subject.

I was following up another poster's "But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant)"... thang.

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
I don't know what it is....

Since you aren't an experienced criminal defense attorney specializing in breaches of Constitutional Law, I am going to guess this would be the accurate assessment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I was following up another poster's "But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant)"... thang.

And I was following up on your and Ouze's follow up.

**djones520**

whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Oh... I didn't know that the Obama admin was the one that refused to label him "enemy combatant". For some reason, I thought that the military investigative team would ascertain that (JAGs?).

You didn't know that because he didn't, it was the Pentagon (and local LEO's according to some articles). There isn't anything to suggest Obama intervened in any way, and as Ouze pointed out, hasn't made any declarations on the subject.

I was following up another poster's "But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant)"... thang.

Notice how I said administration, not Obama. Yet they keep focusing on Obama.

The SecDef is a part of the administration. The SecArmy is a part of the administration.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
I don't know what it is....

Since you aren't an experienced criminal defense attorney specializing in breaches of Constitutional Law, I am going to guess this would be the accurate assessment.

Yep... I don't know jack.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I was following up another poster's "But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant)"... thang.

And I was following up on your and Ouze's follow up.

Fair enough...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Oh... I didn't know that the Obama admin was the one that refused to label him "enemy combatant". For some reason, I thought that the military investigative team would ascertain that (JAGs?).

You didn't know that because he didn't, it was the Pentagon (and local LEO's according to some articles). There isn't anything to suggest Obama intervened in any way, and as Ouze pointed out, hasn't made any declarations on the subject.

I was following up another poster's "But the Obama admin refused to label him as such (an enemy combatant)"... thang.

Notice how I said administration, not Obama. Yet they keep focusing on Obama.

The SecDef is a part of the administration. The SecArmy is a part of the administration.

Okay... I see that now.

Yeesh.

**Ahtman**

djones520 wrote:
Notice how I said administration, not Obama. Yet they keep focusing on Obama.

The SecDef is a part of the administration. The SecArmy is a part of the administration.

You don't don't evoke his name incidentally, you do it to attach stigma to it. You have no evidence the President had any role in the decision at all, but instead of taking the people you know did to task, you invoke the name Obama. You could have blamed SecArmy, who also has an administration, but chose not to, as your personal political predilections makes you head toward more partisan pastures.

**djones520**

Ahtman wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Notice how I said administration, not Obama. Yet they keep focusing on Obama.

The SecDef is a part of the administration. The SecArmy is a part of the administration.

You don't don't evoke his name incidentally, you do it to attach stigma to it. You have no evidence the President had any role in the decision at all, but instead of taking the people you know did to task, you invoke the name Obama. You could have blamed SecArmy, who also has an administration, but chose not to, as your personal political predilections makes you head toward more partisan pastures.

Lets just call it intuition based on the culture that I've seen pervading throughout the military the last 5 years.

You're right, there is no concrete proof that this is what happened. If it makes you happy, I'll say it's nothing more then my feelings on the matter. But it's feelings built off what I have seen from within the military.

**whembly**

I've been doing some reading on this case...

What pisses me off more than anything, is this:

The FBI intercepted correspondence between Hasan and a known terrorist leader a YEAR BEFORE he went postal.

This man is a commissioned officer in the United States army, with security clearance, reportedly ASKING a terrorist leader if it's okay to murder civilians... you know... seeking this terrorist's wisdom to kill his enemies...

And the FBI, and the Pentagon, chose to ignore this...

I refuse to believe that the FBI/Pentagon disregarded this because they WANTED this to happen... this occurred because of the rampant POLITICAL CORRECTNESS that is infesting our society.

And yet some of us have no fething problem the NSA spying on everyday citizens...

o.O

**Peregrine**

Alternatively, like many of these things, the evidence wasn't clear at the time and it is only "obvious" in hindsight. Which makes quite a bit more sense than the government wanting people to get murdered.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

And yet some of us have no fething problem the NSA spying on everyday citizens...

What separates Hasan, absent the massacre, from an "everyday citizen"?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

And yet some of us have no fething problem the NSA spying on everyday citizens...

What separates Hasan, absent the massacre, from an "everyday citizen"?

Lemme refresh your memory...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=213394671

...but the FBI has said Hasan sent numerous emails starting in December 2008 to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

What do you think?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
What do you think?

That you're trying to avoid my question because you don't know how to answer it without compromising your stated position.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:
What do you think?

That you're trying to avoid my question because you don't know how to answer it without compromising your stated position.

Ha ha... nope.

Try again.

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Ha ha... nope.

Try again.

So are you saying at some point you actually will answer the question then? That will be nice.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ha ha... nope.

Try again.

So are you saying at some point you actually will answer the question then? That will be nice.

Nope... giving dogma a taste of his own medicine.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Ha ha... nope.

Try again.

Alright, then answer the question without compromising your stated position. Because right now it seems to me that you are willing to accept the investigation of Hasan for no reason aside from his faith and complexion; things which apparently set him apart from an "everyday citizen".