Online Newshour reports:
And it doesn’t have to be all 12 members voting him guilty. Two-thirds to convict is enough. And it does have to be unanimous to give him the death penalty.
In a death penalty case the members have to be unanimous on a finding of guilty. The unanimity requirement different than for any other special and general court-martial.
This reminds me of A Few Good Men. Remember, in the Navy court-room the Army JAG symbol
is on the podium.
Well here they have a picture of courtroom A at Marine Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan. We know the picture’s about a year old because the major pictured is now the head defense counsel in that same LSSS.
I think it unlikely the Army will move Hasan to Camp Foster for court-martial.
There is a great deal of pontificating on both sides of the aisle about Major Hasan, Fort Hood, and intelligence failures. Here is a rational discussion and perspective.
In last week’s global security and intelligence report, we discussed the recent call by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West. We also noted how it is relatively simple to conduct such attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns or even knives and clubs.
The next day, a lone gunman, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.
ACCA has decided United States v. Kloch.
The accused wanted to tell the military judge in his unsworn that several of his co-accused’s had received 15 days confinement at summary court-martial, etc. The MJ would not allow the statement. ACCA found error, but that it was non-prejudicial.
An official news release from Fort Hood PAO states that:
The charges filed against Hasan include 13 specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (emphasis added).
hat-tip to CAAFLog. The media has been speculating all afternoon based on a CID news conference. I would not imagine CID to be a spokesperson for the Article 32, UCMJ, appointing authority, and if it’s CID, I’d want to see it in writing. One suspects CID is wanting a little face time with the public. CID investigates, they don’t decide what charges will be preferred.
Here’s the question, I think.
Military.com, as with many other media outlets are reporting:
Nidal Malik Hasan’s overly zealous religious views and strange behavior worried the doctors overseeing his medical training, but they saw no evidence that he was violent or a threat.
The CGCCA has issued a decision in the court-martial: United States v. Montuoro. A short sweet reminder of sentence comparison issues when there are co-accused’s. Sentence comparison among co-accused’s is a different issue than sentence appropriateness.
Yes, of course John Galligan is getting that question. We get it all the time. How could you represent so-and-so at court-martial? Here is MichaelTomasky’sBlog.
Banner CNN day: Wolf Blitzer apparently really distinguished himself yesterday by asking Nidal Hasan’s military lawyer, retired Colonel John Galligan, how on earth he could do such a thing[?]
Many in the legal community are critical of President Obama, who as the Commander-in-Chief may have “screwed up” the prosecution of Major Hasan for his acts at Fort Hood.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
The only good news out of the Fort Hood massacre is that U.S. electronic surveillance technology was able to pick up Major Hasan’s phone calls to an al Qaeda-loving imam in Yemen. The bad news is the people and agencies listening to Hasan didn’t know what to do about it. Other than nothing.
The other bad news may be that a number of politicians, particularly Hoekstra, having been disclosing this information to the public. No wonder the CIA and other agencies are suspicious of giving “delicate” shall we say information to Congress.
I’m not sure why, but it seems the Air Force must have a checklist of annual warnings. The official website makes one about prescription drugs, entitled: Prescription meds: Proceed with caution. The caution advises that misuse of prescription medications can result in disciplinary action, including court-martial.
When Airmen ignore inspecting their medicine cabinets they risk possible damage to their careers and, more importantly, can jeopardize their health.
This becomes a problem later if Airmen take prescribed medications after the prescription has expired.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog