Nidal Hasan is not guilty of murder (Fort Hood shooting)

Post Reply New Topic

Ok so I know this happened some time ago but I want to address the issue.

How is it murder if he did not attack civilians? Both sides of wars attack the other's miltary bases all the time. This event is just one typical attack that just happens in war. Now, of course, the US would not want to just release him as he is probably gonna attack another base or something but they should treat him as a prisoner of war and see what they can do from there (maybe put him in another country). The death penalty? Uh, I'm pretty sure thats against international law to kill an enemy combatant unless it was for self-defense purposes.

So ya, Nidal Hasan should not be treated as a criminal.

I think the US thinks that their army bases has some sacred significance or something.

Shooting your own side carries the same legal implications as shooting a civilian and more: it's a form of treason, which is a crime that goes far beyond murder.

I'm sure the US would not mind if someone who is part of al-qaeda decided to turn against their fellow fighters and kill a few of them. The US probably won't mind if someone in Iran killed some Revelutionary Guards either.

He can't be treated as prisoner of war - he was not in a combat situation, but on US soil, when he carried out his attack. I've always seen this as just another case of someone snapping under pressure - I don't think his origin or religion was directly involved in it, but instead became the "flavour" of his outburtst. Lots of white christians go on shooting sprees, but no one would think to drag their race or religion into it. Hasan was not an islamic terrorist, just another soldier who buckled under the pressure. He should be given the same treatment any marauding white, christian soldier receive.

Ugh, Nidal Hassan was a member of US Army and guilty of the worst crime of all: treachery. Not everyone he killed/shot was a soldier either. Civilian and military law apply to Armed Forces. Even if he was a terrorist in another country, he'd be considered a unlawful combatant and could be prosecuted domestically.

Really? I didn't know that.

How do you define combat situation?

Well, of course not. Such acts are against our enemies and not within US jurisdiction.

As it stands, I see the situation as obvious, so long as you are not contesting that Nidal Hasan killed these US soldiers:
1) Nidal Hasan is a US citizen.
2) Nidal Hasan killed other US citizens.
3) US law says that killing other US citizens is illegal.
4) Nidal Hasan unlawfully killed US citizens.
5) Unlawful killing is murder.
6) Nidal Hasan committed acts of murder.

I mean, let's put it this way: What if I have a friend who is in the military? Then I shoot them in the face? How is that not murder? It is not as if killing someone in the military makes you an enemy combatant, to be an enemy combatant, you have to be representing another side engaged in a military conflict with the US. The idea that killing a soldier isn't murder because it automatically makes you an enemy combatant is silly.

As it stands, Nidal Hasan wasn't a member of the other side, but rather acted alone, and he was a US citizen, so he committed acts of murder. Even further, even if he was just undercover, or a turncoat, he still wouldn't be considered an enemy combatant, but rather a traitor, and killed on those grounds.

What he did was an act of treason. Treason carries the penalty of death. He was a US citizen and thereby is subject to US laws.

He was in the US when he did it - there is no war in the USA. He wasn't shooting at enemy soldiers. His crime was military treason, and the only justifiable mitigating factor is anxiety-related mental breakdown. I don't think his attack was premeditated, so I don't think he will be charged with treason proper. He deserves to go away for a long time though - what he did was wrong any way you want to look at it.

It wasn't anxiety, a lot of troops have anxiety about going to war. He wasn't even going to be going outside the wire for his duties. His problem was that he was an islamic militant. Plain and simple.

[quote="jc6chan]I'm sure the US would not mind if someone who is part of al-qaeda decided to turn against their fellow fighters and kill a few of them. The US probably won't mind if someone in Iran killed some Revelutionary Guards either.[/quote]

No, the U.S. would not "mind," but the U.S. would also not expect those guys to be treated as anything other than traitors by the organization that they betrayed.

What the hell is the OP going on about? If you intentionally kill another citizen, not in self defense, whether they're military personnel or civilian, that's murder.

Hassan is in breach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the law that applies to him since he was a member of the armed forces.

ruveyn

Oh come on. Miltaries bomb other military facilities all the time even when its indirect "self-defense". Although I think the problem is that this guy was acting alone. See, you can't really arrest someone if they bomb you from a warplane.

As it's already been explained that he was a member of the US Army.
He took an oath that he went against.
He was bound by the UCMJ in which several articles of it he is in violation of.
Look at it just from that angle alone and there's enough to hang his ass from the nearest tree, after a fair and impartial courts martial that is.