Fox: Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'

[Redskins Diehard]

Did you have a opinion on the Justice dept memo declaring giving them Purple hearts would bias the case?

How about the lawsuit by the dead/wounded & family?.....just propaganda to embarrass the administration?

Are you talking about the DoD memo or a different memo? Whatever the case I would want to read the memo before having that strong of an opinion. I dont think purple heart should be awarded in this case. And I do think we should do whatever is best in this situation for trial, conviction, and execution.

As I said before...I equate Hassan with akbar. I think DoD is consistent in how they have treated the perps and victims. Spanning multiple administrations.

I think the current administration is inconsistent in how they are treating Hassan and AlwakI.

[twa]

I see more evidence of terrorist intent in Hassan, the disgruntled soldier line doesn't fly in this case imo

It is of little import to me which they execute him for....it does matter how they classify it to the dead and wounded

of course that and a dollar .......

[JMS]

Did you have a opinion on the Justice dept memo declaring giving them Purple hearts would bias the case?

Eric Holder is a moron. Never liked the guy, worse I don't think he's worthy of respect or his office... Coarse I didn't think much of Ashcroft, and Gonzales and Holder have been worse in my opinion than Ashcroft was. ( clothing the statue of justice aside.)

Specifically on this quote though, what's your problem with it? Justice dept lawyers are prosecutors. They are there to get convictions. I certainly think considering the victims of this crazy doctor as war casualties and giving them purple hearts will make it much harder to try him as a criminal. It will make it much harder to put him in prison with other criminals, and much harder to hold him beyond the period the "war" is ongoing. If you want to have effective prosecutors, you need to allow them to give their opinions when you are about to shoot your own fool foot off don't you? And if we have any inkling of intelligence, we should probable listen to our lawyers shouldn't we? When was the last time you went to court with the idea you were going to shoot from the lip?

As such the political objection to the prosecutors memo was 100% counter productive, 100% political and in keeping with the very worst traditions of Fox News. Not in a smart way either, but a transparent stupid way. It was pandering to the worst elements of mob behavior. Suggesting to the Mob they can in their righteous indignation ignore the law and what the lawyers are trying to accomplish in their name though the law. Advocating lawlessness... Treat the victims as war casualties, victims of an act of war, yet continue to seek criminal penalties for the shooter.

How about the lawsuit by the dead/wounded & family?.....just propaganda to embarrass the administration?

Yes let's shun the advice of our ivy league educated federal prosecutors working to get a conviction here; and endorse the short sighted reflexive emotional desires of some of victims family's. The same families which will be even more outraged when the federal courts dismiss this lunatic shooter, when these very same actions are ruled prejudicial and interfere with the criminal trial..

[twa]

JMS....it is a military trial,and if they cannot get a conviction in this case they are incompetent

SOB should already have been executed....even if he was deemed a enemy combatant it is the punishment for treason or murder

[JMS]

JMS....it is a military trial,and if they cannot get a conviction in this case they are incompetent

SOB should already have been executed....even if he was deemed a enemy combatant it is the punishment for treason or murder

If it's a military justice issue then it's even less political. It's not like Obama or the Dem's appointed or had anything to do with the appointment of military lawyers..

Why is it political at all what military lawyers are telling the military? Politics has nothing to do with it....

It's not clear to me they are trying the guy as an enemy combatant.. I would think trying him as a soldier who shot fellow soldiers would be worse; with harsher penalties anyway.

Which is likely the prosecutors point. Can you charge an enemy combatant with treason? I don't think so.. If you grant him that status I think his case goes down a different shoot an ladder avenue.

if they cannot get a conviction in this case they are incompetent

So I'm unclear about what you are suggesting here? Prosecutors the guys we're paying to get convictions shouldn't be able to advise us when we are acting against own interests. Let's just hold the lawyers responsible for the results as we dump all over their case? Military Prosecutors are incompetent anyway, we shouldn't weigh there advice into the equation; they don't know what they are talking about? Let's do what feels right? That military justice is a joke and they don't even need prosecutors because it's such a joke, we should just expect convictions/executions regardless of the evidence given to the defense team?

some combination of the above...

[twa]

If it's a military justice issue then it's even less political. ..

Unless there is meddling

http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2013/mar/18/republican-lawmakers-question-government-on-ft-hood-massacre/

"We were surprised and troubled by Secretary McHugh's comment implying that the Justice Department may have been providing direction to the Defense Department on whether or not (Hasan) should be charged or otherwise labeled as a terrorist," the congressmen wrote.

Geoffrey Corn, a retired Lieutenant Colonel Army Judge Advocate General who is now a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said that meddling in charges is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"One of the cornerstones of the military justice system is that we don't allow others to call base commanders and say, 'This is what we want charged,'" he said. "That's illegal."

[JMS]

Unless there is meddling

http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2013/mar/18/republican-lawmakers-question-government-on-ft-hood-massacre/

"We were surprised and troubled by Secretary McHugh's comment implying that the Justice Department may have been providing direction to the Defense Department on whether or not (Hasan) should be charged or otherwise labeled as a terrorist," the congressmen wrote.

Geoffrey Corn, a retired Lieutenant Colonel Army Judge Advocate General who is now a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said that meddling in charges is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"One of the cornerstones of the military justice system is that we don't allow others to call base commanders and say, 'This is what we want charged,'" he said. "That's illegal."

Your concern still doesn't make sense to me. Certainly there are an array of charges which can be filed against this guy. I don't see how it's "political" for federal prosecutors to coordinate with the military on where to bring the charges or how best to get the conviction. I mean the FBI investigated this guy right and they are under Justice Dept.; are you saying the military prosecutors shouldn't be privy to the FBI investigation findings?... I mean what is the concern here? That this crazy guy somehow has garnered political coverage from the closeted Muslim Obama? That Obama is stopping the families and victims from collecting purple hearts in an attempt to get the shooter leniency? I don't see it.

In Virginia, many prosecutors regularly defer prosecution in capital cases in order to allow the Virginia trials to go through... Why? Because in Virginia we have the rocket docket. Trials typically go quickly and Virginia penalties are typically in line with our southern conservative roots. So prosecutors will try to get on Virginia's docket if at all possible regardless of if other courts may have jurisdiction... There is nothing political about it.. it's all about Prosecutors trying to get folks they think are guilty prosecuted.

Rocket Docket.. - The term was originally applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,[1] after Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr., who ran the federal courthouse in Alexandria, decided that justice was being dispensed too slowly for his liking. The court earned the nickname among attorneys practicing there in the 1970s, who told stories of Bryan ruling on the spot when motions were argued, and trying entire cases in one afternoon. As of September 2011, the Eastern District of Virginia had the shortest average time from filing to disposition for civil cases that went to trial (at 12.1 months) and was second (behind the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) in median time for resolution of all civil cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_docket

In the article it says military justice officials are counseling against giving the purple hearts because it could help the defense argument. You think the Feds told them to say that?

And you think the Military is parroting what the justice prosecutors told them too against the military prosecutors interests?

[twa]

The charges filed does not need to match a ruling on the Purple hearts....the notion of bias being introduced is immaterial in this murder trial.

IF they were trying him for a terrorist attack I might see it differently.

about as stupid as claiming charging him for murder will bias a trial

[JMS]

the charges filed does not need to match a ruling on the purple hearts....the notion of bias being introduced is immaterial in this murder trial.

Not according to the military!!!

"Passage of this legislation could directly and indirectly influence potential court-martial panel members, witnesses, or the chain of command, all of whom exercise a critical role under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Defense counsel will argue that Major Hasan cannot receive a fair trial because a branch of government has indirectly declared that Major Hasan is a terrorist -- that he is criminally culpable."

A source with knowledge of the position paper told Fox News that DOD is putting on a full-court press by sending senior officials, including generals, to meet with lawmakers in an effort to block support.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/30/defense-department-says-giving-purple-heart-to-fort-hood-survivors-would-hurt/#ixzz2PF4aegoa

about as stupid as claiming charging him for murder will bias a trial

Yes handing out awards to his victims and publicly acknowledging them as casualties of war should have no affect what so ever the next day when you try to call the shooter a criminal and that a military tribunal can have an open mind in trying him as guilty or innocent. I can see the defense team queuing up the video, Maybe you could have the same guy who gave out the medals, then be the judge... Not that the defense would need that to show the military was not an objective arbitrator of justice on the eve of the trial.

What are those freaking military lawyers thinking.. Why shouldn't the military be allowed to officially pronounce folks guilty (terrorists) BEFORE they conduct trials, hear evidence, and weigh the case?

[twa]

Not according to the military!!!

...

What are those freaking military lawyers thinking.. Why shouldn't the military be allowed to officially pronounce folks guilty (terrorists) BEFORE they conduct trials, hear evidence, and weigh the case?

Making a judgement on the nature of the attack is not a pronouncement of guilt anymore than filing the murder charge is.

It is going with the evidence ,

[JMS]

Making a judgement on the nature of the attack is not a pronouncement of guilt anymore than filing the murder charge is.

It is going with the evidence ,

again.... Not according to the military!!!

Let us review... The Purple Heart is the oldest award in the US military... going back to WWI, 1917. It is awarded for "Being wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States or as a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces"

So when the DoD awards this medel in the name of the President they are defining the guy who was injured and who injured him. They aren't making a judgement call. They don't give medels based upon judgments. They are stating the facts as the United States Military sees them. So giving the medel to the Fort Hood victems would literally be the US military calling the Major Doctor Whackadoodle guilty BEFORE THE TRIAL.... It would be saying in the view of the Department of Defense, the guy is guilty. Which makes it very hard indeed for the Military as an organization to claim the next day, it is capable of impartially weighing the evidence and conducting a fair trial. Having congress pass a bill calling the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism and then awarding purple hearts, likewise would be a disaster for the military justice system. It is literally handing the defense team ruby slippers that would teleport Major Dr. Whackadoodle into civilian coart; by way of a supreme court hearing.. Least that is the fear of the Military prosecutors.. Which seems like a pretty reasonable fear on their part.

It's really not that much of a deal... If the GOP was thinking this was a political issue with legs they are bigger idiots than even I think they are. The GOP has to actually accomplish something; it's not enough to just try to destroy the accomplishments or reputations of others; they actually need to do something.....

[twa]

when they lock you up and charge you with multiple murders the issue of whether you are the enemy is not central.

it is to those denied, they will demonstrate it is a big deal to them

more than that scumbag have rights that are to be protected

[Dan T.]

**Warning ** Warning ** Warning ** Warning **

_______________________________________

JMS and twa are entangled in a one-on-one debate...

Enter at your own risk.

[JMS]

when they lock you up and charge you with multiple murders the issue of whether you are the enemy is not central.

it is to those denied, they will demonstrate it is a big deal to them

more than that scumbag have rights that are to be protected

Not sure what that means exactly... but yes you are correct. When someone is "charged" with a crime; and either held because the court fears you may not show up for your court date, or released on your own personal recognizance(bail) with the agreement you will show up for court... That is not the court or the government saying you are a criminal. That is merely the mechanism everybody charged with a crime undergoes.

It's totally different than the government certifying you are a criminal / terrorist before the trial. Which of coarse is exactly what they would be doing if Congress passed a bill saying the fort hood shooting was an act of terrorism, and commanded the military to issue purple hearts to all the victims which restated that effect before any trial took place... At least that is the argument presented by the Military's prosecutors who convinced their Generals and whose Generals are now making that same case to Republican Congressmen.

[twa]

Not sure what that means exactly..

It means whether the govt determines it was a action by the enemy has no real bearing on a case when he is not being charged with that.

IF they were trying him for treason I could see it mattering, but even then a determination for the purpose of medals is not necessarily prejudicial.

You don't deny the rights of the dead/wounded to protect the rights of the accused w/o catching flack.

[JMS]

It means whether the govt determines it was a action by the enemy has no real bearing on a case when he is not being charged with that.

IF they were trying him for treason I could see it mattering, but even then a determination for the purpose of medals is not necessarily prejudicial.

So the military pronouncing him a terrorist and his victims, victims of terrorism; would not in your opinion prejudice the same military from being impartial in weighing arguments of his innocence of murder in your opinion? That's your position? Now who's legal opinion do you value more? The Military Prosecutors, The Federal Prosecutors or your own?

You don't deny the rights of the dead/wounded to protect the rights of the accused w/o catching flack.

Sure we do. We absolutely deny victims( dead or wounded) rights, to protect the rights of the accused in our system of justice.

Victims (dead or injured) have their burials delayed, their bodies invasively inspected, their mobility impeded, and their backgrounds torn apart. Courts absolutely can and will tell victims not to discuss crimes to protect the rights of the accused. Even Children of intensest for example can and have been forced to testifying in open court in front of their abusers because the accused constitutional right to face his accuser is greater than the victims right to privacy.

We absolutely as a society believe in "denying some rights of the dead/wounded victims of crime, to protect the rights of the accused". Especially when it comes to conducting a fair an unbiased trial. Hell sometimes we move entire trials hundreds even thousands of miles removed from the scene of the crime ( regardless of the desires of the victim and the victims family) if the proximal venue is deemed unsuitable to conducting a fair and impartial trial.

[twa]

You really have to ask who's opinion I value more?

You are mistaken, compelling testimony is not denying a right, nor is gathering evidence in accordance with the law.

Justice denied is error

add

the compelling testimony issue should demonstrate to you that what they claim is in error

as should the justice delayed is justice denied issue

[JMS]

You really have to ask who's opinion I value more?

I thought it might illustrate the differences in the discussion. but this is still good because at least we agree on what the issue is, which isn't always the case in these threads with other posters. So your argument is not rooted in the law, but in your own moral code. So my arguments are based upon the law, because the military legal opinion is what is causing the objectionable act we are discussing. So given that I'm guessing we may be at an impasse.

You are mistaken, compelling testimony is not denying a right, nor is gathering evidence in accordance with the law.

Justice denied is error

It's denying them a right to travel, to work, to go play golf that day. If the court says you can't bury/burn the body in a timely mannor, that has been called denying the victim his religious freedom. I don't think many extreme skins folks would agree with you that me cutting them open or inserting things into their orifices ( living or dead) was not an invasion of their right to privacy whether I ultimately find evidence or not. Likewise denying victims the right to discuss or speak about the crime (outside of court, or prior to the court hearing) in certain cases is certainly an infringement of the victims freedom of speech... All of these are infringements of rights.

But here again you are correct... the denying or penalizing the victim for using rights is seen by the public as a small sacrifice (lesser evil) when offset against the accused right to a fair trial. In our legal system after all, everybody is considered innocent until proven guilty thus in ensuring a fair trial for the accused, we are ensuring an innocent person get's every opportunity to defend himself from the government.

[twa]

Ask yourself why they can compel testimony and gather evidence....it is to deliver justice and resolution.

again.....a determination as to the nature of the attack has no real bearing on whether he committed murder.(which is what he is defending himself from)

the fact the attack happened is not in dispute and is only prejudicial if he is found guilty of committing it.

[JMS]

Ask yourself why they can compel testimony and gather evidence....it is to deliver justice and resolution.

again.....a determination as to the nature of the attack has no real bearing on whether he committed murder.(which is what he is defending himself from)

Not always... If you were a victim of a crime you may or may not be allowed by the court to discuss that crime if they think it prejudices the same defendent in another case..... Your rights as a victim may be subservient to the rights of the accused in civilian court to insure an impartial trial.

Hell man I remember during the Manson Trial President Richard Nixon said in an interview that he thought Manson did it. The judge had a sequestration order on the jury, they couldn't watch the news, because he thought such statements would influence them. The Manson folks tried for a mistrial by bringing newspapers with the headlines into the court room and stand up, showing the jury and disrupting court.

In that case we limited even the voice of the sitting president to ensure a fair trial... Or tried too.

the fact the attack happened is not in dispute and is only prejudicial if he is found guilty of committing it

The purple heart bill goes further though than acknowledging the attack occurred. It says Major Hasan committed the attack, and further that his motivation was due to terrorist sympathies / terrorist motives.

You have to support these conclusions if you are declaring Fort Hood a terrorist attack.

[twa]

I have no problem with a gag order or classified finding,that is a different matter than refusing to rule on a entitlement issue(and the PH is unique in that it is not given,but rather a person is entitled to it by circumstances)

Would amending the bill to grant anonymity satisfy you?

[JMS]

I have no problem with a gag order or classified finding,that is a different matter than refusing to rule on a entitlement issue(and the PH is unique in that it is not given,but rather a person is entitled to it by circumstances)

Would amending the bill to grant anonymity satisfy you?

If the Fort Hood victims were entitled to it by these circumstances then congress wouldn't need to pass a bill dictating the DoD make the awards here.

The medal itself is not an entitlement. It is awarded by the department of defense on behalf of the President specifically to those injured in action against an enemy of the United States. It says something about the injured and the injurer. That's the issue...

I think the victims will need to wait until after the trial and the military and congress should based the results ( awarding the medals etc ) on the results of the trial.

I know in WWII some munition workers sabotaged a munitions factor and like 100 folks or more were killed... don't know if they issued any purple hearts to those folks or not. That would be interesting to know.. don't have time to look it up right now.

[twa]

So your argument is not rooted in the law, but in your own moral code. So my arguments are based upon the law, because the military legal opinion is what is causing the objectionable act we are discussing. So given that I'm guessing we may be at an impasse..

On the contrary, my opinion is indeed rooted in law .....a legal opinion by the DOD or DOJ is not law ,though hopefully rooted in it (curiously a law passed by Congress is law)

add

they are automatically entitled to it IF the situation meets the criteria established, calling it awarding ignores the very unique nature of it.

Refusal to review the circumstances is a violation of duty and a disservice