Patterico's Pontifications

11/9/2009

Hasan to be Tried in Military Court

Filed under: Terrorism — DRJ @ 7:26 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Multiple sources report Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be tried in a military court. In addition, from the same Houston Chronicle link, Hasan has reportedly refused official interviews and requested an attorney. His family has hired John P. Galligan, a Texas lawyer with experience in other high-profile military court cases (reports on those cases are here and here).

In addition, ABC says the victim toll has risen to 43. The number of victims increased because some did not initially report their injuries.

— DRJ

UPDATE: Hot Air quotes an LA Times Top of the Ticket report that the DOJ may take jurisdiction if this is labeled a terrorist event.

20 Responses to “Hasan to be Tried in Military Court”

  1. Normally I would think this is appropriate (active duty officer, on a military installation, in an assault on other US soldiers), but with the current administration I find it hard to believe there isn’t a “catch”. I guess the downside of a military trial with this case is that some of what is known about the threat in our midst may stay classified, when it is exactly the klind of information the US public should know. We’ll see.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  2. I’ve updated the post with more on the jurisdictional issue. The reports I’ve read say the military has a poor track record at getting death penalty verdicts and that may be true, but I doubt many of those cases were like this.

    DRJ (dff2ca)

  3. I should prefer the DOJ not to be taking jurisdiction please I think. That Holder person is kind of sketch I think.

    happyfeet (f62c43)

  4. I’ll be very surprised if this is allowed to process under UCMJ. This has to be spun as a law enforcement matter and Eric Holder must be allowed to get his hands on it. Otherwise, BHO will have some splainin to do about his overall stance within the military as to actual threats and the desire for PC-infected protocols within our armed forces.

    Ed from SFV (1333b1)

  5. It is very irresponsible to engage in such reckless speculation and bigotry about this topic. You prolly shouldn’t even discuss it, given the track record of wild over-the-top speculation and racism found here.

    JD (a71690)

  6. The military has such a good record with politically touchy prosecutions.

    Mike K (addb13)

  7. I sure hope this post … doesn’t become a reason for Gleenwald to find fault with this … site.

    steve miller (81db43)

  8. I don’t know if it’s true, but there’s no double jeopardy as applies to the UCMJ. Most of the time, the Military takes advantage of this, by letting the civilians get first crack, and if the military isn’t happen they follow up with additional charges.

    Like I said, I don’t know if it’s true, but our first sergeants had a habit of repeating that opinion a great many times to let us know not to screw up.

    Douglas (2c3ce5)

  9. Holder is already scheculed to apologize to CAIR and if the case is transferred to the DOJ the idiot will release the murder to appease his (Holders) god, President O’Dumbo.

    While the ‘world leaders’ gathered in
    Berlin American’s half Arab AH president was waffling on Afghanistan.

    Scrapiron (4e0dda)

  10. That’s an interesting question, Douglas, and the issue arose in a recent Washington state case involving Ehren Watada. The Army decided not to pursue Watada’s second discharge and discharged him instead. In any event, it’s possible the District Court decision in Watada’s case (that double jeopardy can attach in a military proceeding) may be the only non-military controlling authority.

    DRJ (dff2ca)

  11. If this is transfered to DoJ, there will be a stink.
    How can the military enforce discipline if they aren’t allowed to prosecute officers that go around killing their fellow officers and enlisted men and women?
    Such a decision will spur a lot of “retirements”.

    BTW Mike_K, your link doesn’t work…Was it to “The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell“?

    AD - RtR/OS! (7c0a4b)

  12. Wot ? You think our esteemed Mr Holder would be other than just and impartial, given his track record …

    Well, d’uhhhh !

    Alasdair (205079)

  13. try him, convict him, sentence him to death by being devoured by hungry pigs.

    john (4146d2)

  14. if Ear Leader has the DOJ intervene, that could be seen as undue command influence, and could quite possibly be a violation for Ear Leader.

    besides, there are so many fun codes you can charge shitbird with under UCMJ.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  15. The LATimes has this story, and interestingly, the illustration is a photo of a military rider at Fort Hood, his horse’s neck brought into a graceful curve by a martingale halter. The image harks back to the Greeks, had the rider only been naked. Well, that halter says something about restraint of the wild forces of nature. And that is what law, judiciously applied, is all about. That an officer, an American major of one of the many religions which flourish in multicultural America, should be tried by his peers in the US Army is fitting. Politics may rear its head like a wild horse, but this crime took place as an act which I recall Chris Matthews seemed unable to name, something he believed lacked a name. But there is a name for it. It is perfidy. Perhaps its roots were in mental illness, but the objective act was one of treachery against one’s own, in a military setting. Its victims were not civilians (except for one), they were military. Because no civilians were found to be involved in the crime, this is where it must be tried.

    musings (73d11c)

  16. Actually, the name for the act is treason, not perfidity.

    Article III, Section 3 – Treason

    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.

    Mark L (9f9fc9)

  17. I cannot imagine a scenario where Barcky would want to take this over via DOJ. Why would he? That would require them to acknowledge that a terrorist act happened, it happened on their watch, and that they are approaching it from an after-the-fact law enforcement perspective. None of these are winning ideas for Teh One.

    JD (959071)

  18. He’s military, the civ courts should have no jurisdiction until the appeals phase.

    mojo (8096f2)

  19. Normally I would think this is appropriate (active duty officer, on a military installation, in an assault on other US soldiers), but with the current administration I find it hard to believe there isn’t a “catch”. I guess the downside of a military trial with this case is that some of what is known about the threat in our midst may stay classified, when it is exactly the klind of information the US public should know. We’ll see.

    Almost all of the witnesses were military.

    Michael Ejercito (6a1582)

  20. I don’t know if it’s true, but there’s no double jeopardy as applies to the UCMJ. Most of the time, the Military takes advantage of this, by letting the civilians get first crack, and if the military isn’t happen they follow up with additional charges.

    Like I said, I don’t know if it’s true, but our first sergeants had a habit of repeating that opinion a great many times to let us know not to screw up.

    The threat of being prosecuted twice is a pretty good tool to use in plea bargaining.

    Michael Ejercito (6a1582)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2492 secs.