War on Terror

Fort Hood Shooter Defense: Preventing Harm from Coming to Taliban Fighters

|

but how the government use it to curtail rights?
Reason 24/7

Army Major Nidal Hasan wants to use the "defense of others" in his trial for the 2009 mass shooting at Ft. Hood.

From the AP:

An Army psychiatrist charged with gunning down Fort Hood soldiers said Tuesday his defense would show that he was compelled to do so because deploying U.S. troops posed an imminent danger to Taliban fighters.

The military judge asked Maj. Nidal Hasan if he has evidence to support his "defense of others" strategy, hinting that it could be thrown out.

Such a defense requires Hasan to prove the 2009 killings were necessary to protect others from immediate harm or death, and military law experts not involved in the case said the judge is unlikely to allow him to present that defense.

"A 'defense of others' strategy is not going to work when you're at war and the 'others' are enemies of the U.S.," said Jeff Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. "And what makes it more egregious is that he targeted medical personnel whose primary purpose was to heal, not to kill."

The Defense Department previously classified the Fort Hood shooting as an act of workplace violence.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

NEXT: Lindsay Graham Says It's Debatable Whether Bloggers Deserve First Amendment Protections

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It took an entire presidential term to prosecute this guy? WTF?

    1. Well, workplace violence has all these nuances and subtle gradations.

    2. His case is very embarrassing to Obama and the military. That is why. And God are they lucky this fuckwit is defending himself. He is not going to bring up a single fact that will embarrass the military the way any competent defense attorney would.

      1. Well, a singularly embarrassing fact is that he keeps labeling himself a terrorist, not a postal worker.

        1. True. That and the Army promoted him to major even though he has been obviously a dangerous nut for years.

          1. He was a good soldier — for someone else.

            1. Okay, so let’s think about all of this for a moment. If he’s fighting for the Taliban, he’s arguably fighting for a deposed government. So maybe he could insist on Geneva Convention treatment?

              1. Wearing a US uniform would make him a spy/guerilla and subject to summary execution IIRC.

                1. I assume the answer is yes, but was he in uniform when he did it?

              2. My understanding, jokes aside, is that where he’s kind of going. Or at least attempting to.

                1. Yes, he’s claiming to be fighting for the other guys. Brett’s point is probably a good one, though, in that he waives any special treatment in the international law sense by wearing our uniform. But he’s being tried as a criminal, so his point doesn’t necessarily disappear, though I doubt seriously anyone is going to let him off the hook.

        2. As a psychiatrist, Hasan is a kind of neuroscientist. I’ve been warning you about these monsters in these very comments since well before Hasan and his fellow neuroscientists Amy Bishop and James Holmes went on their murderous sprees.

    3. They should have shot him dead on the spot.

    4. Indeed, this should have been an open and shut case. Convict him of murder and treason and execute him.

    5. His defense should get him executed. On it’s face it is treason as a member of the US Military.

  2. I predict it will be as successful as the King Charles I defense (the court lacks jurisdiction over me). 😀

    1. I dunno, the Stuart monarchy was restored later on.

    2. Hasan has a good head on his shoulders.

  3. So a guy can basically walk around with a sign saying “Look at me! I kill people because I’m a jihadist!” and it’s still “workplace violence.”

    1. No shit. His “defense” basically amounts to confessing to treason!

      I still think thought that this whole thing is a big sham and that they have absolutely no intention of putting him on trial any time soon.

      1. If he’s not being tried for treason I don’t think they can convict him for it. They can certainly get him for murder. It’s obvious they have delayed his trial for so long to avoid the embarrassment of giving him a soapbox.

        But he is basically doing it anyway now. The prosecution tells the country: “this guy was jusy a crazy workplace shooter motivated by nothing more than PTSD.” He stands up and says, “no guys, I’m a terrorist and I am fighting against you.” Not only that, but he is using the trial to get the attention that they have tried for so long to deny him. He should be tried, and tried for murder. He is guilty, and deserves to be convicted. The administration would have served themselves so much better by quickly trying him rather than making up stories about his motivations that he will refute during his defense. What a train wreck. The folks who were killed and injured in his attack deserve better than the way this has been handled.

    2. So a guy can basically walk around with a sign saying “Look at me! I kill people because I’m a jihadist!” and it’s still “workplace violence.”

      There’s no gun control angle in his case. Nothing to see here, move along.

  4. What I find amusing about this is that he’s basically using Obama’s defense of droning people.

    “well, they were planning on attacking some people on my side sometime in the future, so I had to kill them before they could.”

  5. “…he was compelled to do so because deploying U.S. troops posed an imminent danger to Taliban fighters.”

    That’s why I shot my boss. And because I was a crazy muslim. (“I got better”)

  6. What’s funny, in the sense that the US degenerating into a third-world country is funny, are the consequences of this so-called act of “workplace violence.” The soldiers he injured aren’t eligible for the same benefits they’d receive if the same thing happened to them in the sandbox, and Hasan himself gets to keep cashing checks. Or at least, drawing checks.

    Sez the Mail, “Because the Army classified the shooting as workplace violence rather than being combat related, and refuses to call it a terrorist attack, the gunman’s victims have been denied benefits they would ordinarily be entitled to.”

    All this from the administration that will casually drone your ass if you’re overseas.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..trial.html

    1. I would sue.

  7. Hassan attack was workplace violence.
    Benghazi was attacked because of a bad movie trailer.
    Obamacare will make your premiums go down.
    The Tea Party is racist.
    We did not sell guns to Mexican murder gangs in hopes of drumming up support for gun control.
    It was two rogue agents in Cincinnati and I just found out about it like you did on the tv news.

    If I bothered to look some things up I could go on all day like this. Is there any lie, no matter how egregious, no matter how transparent, that these shitbags wont tell? Is there any lie they wont be given a pass on by the media and their supporters?

    Shitweasel doesnt really cover Obama, and cult doesnt really cover his supporters.

    1. Look, if we treated every attack or attempted attack by American citizens against their own military, motivated by loyalty to a foreign power we were at war with (or that power’s system of beliefs), as treason, then Obama might not even be president right now. So you can understand how he would be conflicted.

  8. Dude that is making a LOT of sense man!

    http://www.WorldPrivacy.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.