Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:25 PM
alp227 (20,426 posts)
Judge orders accused Fort Hood shooter to have his beard shaved
Source: CNN
A judge has ordered that the beard of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of fatally shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, be forcibly shaved ahead of his upcoming military trial, base spokesman Tyler Broadway said Thursday. Col. Gregory Gross issued the order, which will likely trigger an appeal that would further delay a case that has dragged on since the 2009 mass shooting. Hasan's attorney had filed an appeal when Gross threatened to order the shaving, but the appeals court said it wouldn't issue a decision until the shaving was actually ordered. Thursday's order by Gross opens the door for that appeal. The last time he was in court, Hasan told the judge, "Your honor, in the name of almighty Allah, I am a Muslim. I believe that my religion requires me to wear a beard." Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/justice/fort-hood-trial/index.html
|
122 replies, 10484 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| alp227 | Sep 2012 | OP | |
| MADem | Sep 2012 | #1 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #2 | |
| cstanleytech | Sep 2012 | #3 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #8 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #12 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #18 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #22 | |
| alp227 | Sep 2012 | #13 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #19 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #27 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #36 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #39 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #51 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #104 | |
| LaydeeBug | Sep 2012 | #119 | |
| Hugabear | Sep 2012 | #82 | |
| msanthrope | Sep 2012 | #89 | |
| msanthrope | Sep 2012 | #88 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #102 | |
| jberryhill | Sep 2012 | #108 | |
| jberryhill | Sep 2012 | #107 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Sep 2012 | #46 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #52 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Sep 2012 | #90 | |
| awoke_in_2003 | Sep 2012 | #49 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #76 | |
| awoke_in_2003 | Sep 2012 | #83 | |
| pasto76 | Sep 2012 | #74 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #79 | |
| Old Troop | Sep 2012 | #114 | |
| S_B_Jackson | Sep 2012 | #121 | |
| cstanleytech | Sep 2012 | #50 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #53 | |
| cstanleytech | Sep 2012 | #65 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #67 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #95 | |
| jberryhill | Sep 2012 | #109 | |
| gejohnston | Sep 2012 | #86 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #96 | |
| gejohnston | Sep 2012 | #111 | |
| Freddie Stubbs | Sep 2012 | #100 | |
| jberryhill | Sep 2012 | #106 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #4 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #9 | |
| alp227 | Sep 2012 | #15 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #20 | |
| alp227 | Sep 2012 | #32 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #37 | |
| pasto76 | Sep 2012 | #75 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #80 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #97 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #33 | |
| Angleae | Sep 2012 | #87 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #30 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #38 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #40 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #54 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #56 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #58 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #63 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #66 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #68 | |
| Missycim | Sep 2012 | #85 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #41 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #98 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #6 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #10 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #94 | |
| nadinbrzezinski | Sep 2012 | #7 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #11 | |
| Bernardo de La Paz | Sep 2012 | #31 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #5 | |
| Red Mountain | Sep 2012 | #14 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #23 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #99 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #16 | |
| ProudToBeBlueInRhody | Sep 2012 | #17 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #25 | |
| ProudToBeBlueInRhody | Sep 2012 | #34 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #35 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #55 | |
| spayneuter | Sep 2012 | #44 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #57 | |
| glacierbay | Sep 2012 | #73 | |
| emilyg | Sep 2012 | #84 | |
| Quantess | Sep 2012 | #112 | |
| MicaelS | Sep 2012 | #21 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #26 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #29 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #59 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #69 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #71 | |
| spayneuter | Sep 2012 | #43 | |
| obamanut2012 | Sep 2012 | #105 | |
| spayneuter | Sep 2012 | #115 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Sep 2012 | #47 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #61 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Sep 2012 | #93 | |
| Fearless | Sep 2012 | #24 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #28 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Sep 2012 | #48 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #60 | |
| pasto76 | Sep 2012 | #77 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #81 | |
| spayneuter | Sep 2012 | #120 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Sep 2012 | #91 | |
| RobinA | Sep 2012 | #110 | |
| spayneuter | Sep 2012 | #42 | |
| riderinthestorm | Sep 2012 | #45 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #62 | |
| cstanleytech | Sep 2012 | #70 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Sep 2012 | #72 | |
| cstanleytech | Sep 2012 | #92 | |
| Pterodactyl | Sep 2012 | #64 | |
| pasto76 | Sep 2012 | #78 | |
| Quantess | Sep 2012 | #101 | |
| slackmaster | Sep 2012 | #103 | |
| Green_Lantern | Sep 2012 | #113 | |
| neovente | Sep 2012 | #116 | |
| alp227 | Sep 2012 | #117 | |
| PavePusher | Sep 2012 | #118 | |
| indypaul | Sep 2012 | #122 |
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:28 PM
MADem (85,949 posts)
1. Good for the judge.
|
The guy was fine with being clean shaven before he decided to shoot up the joint. Playing the Religion Card now is horseshit.
He's lying about his religion, too. That "beard" thing is not a mandate, any more than a prohibition about mixing fabrics, or burning offerings on altars, is a mandate of christian religions. |
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:28 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
2. Why?
|
How is his bearded face going to affect his trial?
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:37 PM
cstanleytech (5,295 posts)
3. Why?
|
How is him being required to be clean shaven going to affect his trial?
|
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #3)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:19 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
8. It won't ...
|
but it will infringe on HIS practice of HIS religion.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:23 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
12. Between his trial and his execution, he'll have plenty of time to re-grow the beard
|
And practice his religion.
|
Response to slackmaster (Reply #12)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:28 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
18. Or ...
|
the military can administratively discharge him for, at the very least, insubordination, then try him, then execute him as so many wish.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #18)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:34 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
22. If that happens he'll still be able to re-grow the beard
|
I'm sure he'll be executed. I don't approve of capital punishment, but it's a fact that he'll be put to death.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:23 PM
alp227 (20,426 posts)
13. The law is the law, and military courts forbid beards.
|
End of story. No religious exemptions.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #13)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:31 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
19. So military law ...
|
Last edited Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:54 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) trumps the U.S. Constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
When'd that happen. I must have missed that one, too. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #19)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:41 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
27. All rights are subject to regulation through due process of law
|
Even the ones explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The Army decided that facial hair could interfere with the duties of soldiers, and the courts have upheld that position. He wasn't forced to enlist. When you enlist, you temporarily give up a lot of your basic freedoms. |
Response to slackmaster (Reply #27)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:54 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
36. That doesn't cut Constitutional muster ...
|
First, under strict scrutiny analysis, the regulation must be related a legitimate government purpose (i.e., as you have correctly identified, interference with the duties of a soldier might be one of them) AND there must be no less offensive alternative than the regulation.
Second, as posted in this thread, that argument fails because the military already makes excepts for soldiers (i.e., Sikhs) that ARE performing the duties of a soldier ... how can they refuse a Constitutional exception for someone, in prison, and therefore not performing the duties of a soldier? |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #36)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:00 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
39. That all sounds great in theory, but in reality all rights are subject to restriction
|
Whether you can present a coherent argument against the restriction or not.
Second, as posted in this thread, that argument fails because the military already makes excepts for soldiers (i.e., Sikhs) that ARE performing the duties of a soldier ... how can they refuse a Constitutional exception for someone, in prison, and therefore not performing the duties of a soldier? Sounds reasonable, but the exception for Sikhs is established policy. I believe there is also such an exception for Orthodox Jews. There is no such policy for Muslims that I am aware of. Perhaps Hassan can take the issue to the courts after his murder trial. |
Response to slackmaster (Reply #39)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:43 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
51. No disrespect intended; but ...
|
My theory IS the Constitutional analysis (i.e., the law) of such controversies.
I agree that "in reality all rights are subject to restriction" ... but such restrictions are subject to Constitutional analysis. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #51)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:23 AM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
104. Defending one's rights against infringement takes more resources than most can muster
|
If you are willing to work for free, perhaps you can assist me in preparing a suit against the state of California for infringing on my right to own a machine gun. I'll have to file in forma pauperis because I need some expensive dental work.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #51)
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 01:03 AM
LaydeeBug (4,473 posts)
119. It's actually not, enlisted service members VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP SOME RIGHTS, whether YOU
|
think that's Constitutional or not. They give up their right to Free Speech, and agree their appearance will adhere to military code.
Can an enlisted member sport a brink pink mohawk? It's free expression, right? HOW MANY OF THEM DO YOU SEE? I am an Army brat, and I can tell you right now that you are wrong. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #36)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:59 AM
Hugabear (9,860 posts)
82. Military also allows some Special Forces types to grow beards
|
Many of the Special Ops forces need to be able to blend in with the population, so they are allowed to grow beards and have longer hair.
So there ARE exceptions the military is willing to make. |
Response to Hugabear (Reply #82)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:54 AM
msanthrope (16,459 posts)
89. What Special Forces Op is this dude participating in? nt
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #36)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:42 AM
msanthrope (16,459 posts)
88. First, strict scutiny analysis doesn't apply to the UCMJ. Read Parker v. Levy and Quarles.
|
The authority for the UCMJ derives from Article 1, sec. 8, clause 14, and therefore, while soldiers do not lose all constitutional protections, they can be restricted. For example, in the military I can own literature from the KKK, but I cannot be a member of the KKK.
Second, application of 10 USC 774 allows him to wear religious items as authorized by his Secretary, but Army Reg 670-1 is pretty clear--no beards except for medical reasons. http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf Third--having a beard would prejudice him with the members who will hear his court martial, and who are well-aware of regulations. They would know he was in violation of code. Fourth--downthread, you want to know why he can't be discharged, then tried. Well, that would violate his constitutional rights--the military court does have jurisdiction over you once you have left the service, even for acts you did while in service. (Quarles.) He gets shaved. Better that the judge commits a 1st amendment violation which won't overturn a criminal conviction, than a violation that would, such as a DP or EP one. |
Response to msanthrope (Reply #88)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:08 AM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
102. I accept most of what you have written ...
|
Not that I agree or do not have counter-arguments, but because I would be parsing and because I am tired of discussing this.
Thanks. |
Response to msanthrope (Reply #88)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:42 AM
jberryhill (29,884 posts)
108. Your reason number three strikes me as the important one
|
The judge here is actually attempting to reduce the possibility of prejudicial effect that would be caused by letting him keep the beard. It seems to me the Defendant is attempting to lay a trap for appealable error. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #36)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:40 AM
jberryhill (29,884 posts)
107. Easy - because exceptions are discretionary, not mandatory
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #19)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:35 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
46. Actually, yeah
|
the military puts lots of restrictions on your rights.
You want to freely express yourself? Be sure to tell your drill sergeant that it's your right to say what you want and dress how you want and if he says anything about it he's oppressing you and that hurts your feelings. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #46)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:47 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
52. "Laughingly" ...
|
The drill sargeants lawful options do not include forcible holding your close shut, or forcibly dressing you.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #52)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:47 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
90. But they do get to restrict your right to free expression
|
that's part of the deal.
You were never in the military or knew anyone who was, were you? |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #19)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:09 PM
awoke_in_2003 (18,492 posts)
49. If you are a member of the military...
|
the answer is "Yes, it does"
|
Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #49)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:29 AM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
76. No ... it doesn't. n/t
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #76)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:25 AM
awoke_in_2003 (18,492 posts)
83. Yes, it does...
|
I took the oath to defend the Constitution, and fully understood that it didn't apply to me. Those is uniform answer only to the UCMJ. That is just the way t is.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #19)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:24 AM
pasto76 (1,333 posts)
74. Yes, it does.
|
I do NOT have free speech, freedom of expression in uniform. My 4th amendment rights do not exist in uniform.
All branches are under UCMJ. I can speak specifically of the Army. If you are not in the army, you should not speculate so wildly about its own laws, rules and regulations. |
Response to pasto76 (Reply #74)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:33 AM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
79. No, it doesn't ...
|
You continue to have a 1st amendment to say whatever you wish ... You do not, however, have a right to say what you want AND remain in the military.
This is the distinctive point. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #19)
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 07:08 PM
Old Troop (1,990 posts)
114. Actually, the UCMJ
|
limits many of the rights enjoyed by American civilians.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #19)
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:55 AM
S_B_Jackson (695 posts)
121. In voluntarily joining the US Military,
|
Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:05 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Maj. Hassan freely chose to limit some of his freedoms and to be governed according the the US Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
After he gets out of the military, he can let that beard sport as wild as he wants until then, he may not. On Edit: US Army regs with regards to permissible haircuts and facial hair. http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf see page 27 (2) Male haircuts will conform to the following standards. AR |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:28 PM
cstanleytech (5,295 posts)
50. Except he didnt ask for a waiver when he signed up and instead agreed to abide by the military rules
|
and regulations regarding being clean shaven.
|
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #50)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:49 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
53. Americans ...
|
do not have to ask permission to exercise our Constitutional rights ... sometimes we have to sue to secure them; but we do not have to ask.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:18 PM
cstanleytech (5,295 posts)
65. Then try looking at it as a contract. When he signed up he agreed with the contract
|
and clearly he had no problems with shaving for years before he committed the murders so the whole "its against my religion" kinda falls flat.
|
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #65)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:21 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
67. Okay ...
|
I'm done!
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:25 AM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
95. You do in the military
|
And, actually, you do in some other professions, too.
Ridiculous line of reasoning. It's the military. AND he is a prisoner. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:45 AM
jberryhill (29,884 posts)
109. If I sign a contract with you....
|
Under which you paid me $500 for being silent for 24 hours. And then, on the appointed day, I sing the National Anthem and recite the Constitution. You can sue my ass for not being silent. Among the rights you have is the right to contract. Under our contract, I did NOT have the right to sing or speak that day, and I owe you the $500 back. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #8)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 03:55 AM
gejohnston (12,574 posts)
86. because uniform regulations make no allowances for religion.
|
uniform regulations make no allowances for that. Just like there are DoD regulations that say you can't cross a picket line to work as a scab or protest in uniform.
Based on my experiences with the British Air Force, the Brits would be more lenient. I knew an RAF officer that was a Sikh, and the turban was a nonissue to them. |
Response to gejohnston (Reply #86)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:28 AM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
96. Sikhs can now get advance permission to join and wear their turban
|
Beards, etc.
http://www.army.mil/article/36339/sikh-soldiers-allowed-to-serve-retain-their-articles-of-faith/ Good article on it. Photo: ![]() |
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #96)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:55 PM
gejohnston (12,574 posts)
111. good news to know
|
Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:55 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) sometimes learning your information is outdated is a good thing.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #8)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:46 AM
Freddie Stubbs (28,542 posts)
100. If he were really serious about practicing his religion, he wouldn't have shot 42 people
|
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #8)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:40 AM
jberryhill (29,884 posts)
106. He voluntarily joined the Army and abided by regulations
|
He is still in the military, and will be judged by a panel of officers.
If he is allowed to keep the beard, he could later claim ineffective assistance of counsel, on the ground that his lawyer advised him to keep the beard, but having the beard was prejudicial to him. It is not unusual for criminal defendants to ask and receive odd things, and then turn around and claim that they did not receive a fair trial as a consequence of the very thing they themselves asked for or did. Some defendants use this as a strategy. Regardless of what this defendant may be planning, he is of exceptional intelligence and knowledge in the area of psychology. That he would use this intelligence and knowledge to engage in some form of manipulation of the process and those in it, does not strike me as unusual at all. The judge is focused on providing a fair trial and reducing appealable errors. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:39 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
4. He is still in the military. It's a military court.
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #4)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:20 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
9. So violating ...
|
the military code of conduct is punishable by forced compliance; rather than, discharge?
When'd that happen? |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:24 PM
alp227 (20,426 posts)
15. Discharge him, when he's suspected in a mass murder? He's gotta go thru trial!
Response to alp227 (Reply #15)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:33 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
20. Discharge ...
|
Not release from custody!
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #20)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:48 PM
alp227 (20,426 posts)
32. But Hasan still has to abide by military court requirements,
|
as he's being tried for a military crime, even if discharged.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #32)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:55 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
37. Not under the U.S. Constitution. n/t
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #37)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:26 AM
pasto76 (1,333 posts)
75. US constitution does not govern miltary trials. try and wrap your head around that.
|
in some cases, stuff like, the defendant not being allowed to see, hear, or know evidence against him is normal.
|
Response to pasto76 (Reply #75)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:38 AM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
80. I beg to differ ...
|
The U.S. Constitution is the over-arching frame work for all law in the U.S.
Though I have not practiced before a military court, I am well versed in Constitutional law. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:31 AM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
97. You need to talk to a JAG, because you are mistaken
|
About how military hearings and military courts work.
That was the whole point about Mary Surratt and her codefendants: civilians cannot be tried by a military court, but they were. Military personnel do NOT have the same rights under military law as civilians have under civilian law. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #20)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:49 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
33. He'll be discharged after his conviction and before his execution
|
You may rely on it.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #20)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 03:57 AM
Angleae (2,069 posts)
87. Discharge from the military would mean no trial.
|
The military couldn't try him, he wouldn't be in the military and because they've already charged him, the judge would have no choice but to dismiss the charges. The federal courts couldn't take it up because he's already been charged at the federal level.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:43 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
30. Since logic. Has to be tried before can be found guilty of a crime worthy of punishment & discharge.
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #30)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:59 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
38. Not true ...
|
the defendant can be tried in abstencia; or can be tried without stepping into the court room.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #38)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:07 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
40. He is still military and subject to its rules and regulations. His protestations of faith are a sham
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #40)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:53 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
54. A sham????
|
Last edited Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:54 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Says you!
Who are you to question someone else's sincerity of their faith? We are trending dangerously close to the extremism that we abhor. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #54)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:00 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
56. A sham. He shaved before he went psycho. He can shave now without religious exemption. nt.
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #56)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:27 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
58. Okay ...
|
what you did yesterday shall bind you to today ... without regard for what you did in the intervening period. Right?
Does not not matter that between the time he did the shooting and now, he has not shaved ... and that apparently was not a problem until he was to appear in court> Doesn't the military's sudden insistence lead you to believe that this is more about the exercise of authority? |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #58)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:52 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
63. The military is all about the exercise of authority. Duh.
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #63)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:19 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
66. Exercise of authority? ...
|
Or, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and abroad?
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #66)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:22 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
68. Exercise of authority (military discipline) is how it protects and defends. Now just let it rest.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #66)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 03:43 AM
Missycim (950 posts)
85. You mean
|
Foreign and domestic.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #38)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:08 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
41. It is true. He has to be tried, whether in absentia or not.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #38)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:33 AM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
98. Absentia
|
Which attorneys generally know how to spell.
And, that is unconstitutional, as you well know. Precedence for that. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:48 PM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
6. He is breaking regs -- why should he get a pass?
|
About time. Shave away.
|
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #6)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:21 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
10. See Response #9 n/t
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #10)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:20 AM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
94. He is a service member in a military prison
|
Just like a prisoner in a civilian prison, he has to abide by regs. Military personnel are not allowed to wear beards, except for some Sikhs that have been given prior approval before formal enlistment.
Military personnel. Prisoner. He doesn't get to choose what he wants to do. Service members can be charged and convicted for not obeying regs, btw, not just discharged. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:09 PM
nadinbrzezinski (120,187 posts)
7. He is still in the army
|
as such military discipline applies... that includes clean shaven... that is why. If this was a civilian trial, whatever.
|
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:22 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
11. See Response #10, Reference Response #9 n/t
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #11)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:45 PM
Bernardo de La Paz (7,142 posts)
31. Endless repitition does not make your point clearer or stronger. It makes it less convincing.
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:47 PM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
5. good -- about time
|
He is not allowed to wear that beard. Against regs.
|
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:24 PM
Red Mountain (72 posts)
14. And if.....?
|
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=8bm&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
&w=295&h=200&ei=fC9JUIq8HqqM2gXv5ICQBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=465&vpy=180&dur=34&hovh=160&hovw=236&tx=173&ty=46&sig=118056779401259670177&page=1&tbnh=153&tbnw=226&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,iHe's making an issue of it and the Judge sees it as a challenge to his authority. It is.......but there are larger implications. We're better than that....or we damn well better be if we want to pick our fights. |
Response to Red Mountain (Reply #14)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:34 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
23. Thank You ...
|
Last edited Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Sometimes ... rage blinds; even justifiable rage.
|
Response to Red Mountain (Reply #14)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:36 AM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
99. Sikhs ask for prior approval before formal enlistment
|
Because Sikh men HAVE to wear the beard and turban and ceremonial knife. It is a fundamental article of their faith, unlike Islam, which doesn't require a beard.
The military, at ant=y time, can say no, you cannot join. |
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:24 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
16. Don't get me wrong ...
|
Last edited Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) I recognize the anger and sentiment surround this trial.
What he did deserves to be punished ... but that punishment, should never include forcing someone to violate their conscience. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #16)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:28 PM
ProudToBeBlueInRhody (10,310 posts)
17. Could it be argued his "conscience" led to him shooting and killing?(n/m)
Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #17)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:38 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
25. And other than ...
|
evidence of aggravation to be applied to sentencing, how is what led him to act, pertinent to his trial?
He is not being tried for what he thought; but rather, what he did. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #25)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:51 PM
ProudToBeBlueInRhody (10,310 posts)
34. It's all manipulation.
|
One way or another, in his twisted mind of extremist thought, the same reason he doesn't want to shave his beard is the same reason he killed people.
I condemn ALL extremist religion, and refuse to kowtow to murderers who pervert religious beliefs to gain some sort of legal foothold. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #25)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:51 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
35. If people were tried only based on what they did and not what they thought, the term "hate crime"...
|
...would have no meaning.
Motivation is always relevant in criminal trials. Malice aforethought may be the only thing that makes killing a murder as opposed to manslaughter. Premeditation is the difference between two degrees of murder. |
Response to slackmaster (Reply #35)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:58 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
55. Bingo! ...
|
Doesn't that go to aggravating elements of a crime; rather than, whether the crime was committed?
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #25)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:11 PM
spayneuter (134 posts)
44. I'd like to see him shaved and have his hands removed.
|
Why are you defending this piece of shit?
|
Response to spayneuter (Reply #44)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:11 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
57. Because ...
|
I support the U.S. Constitution.
But don't get me, or my argument twisted. I am not defending him from being tried for the crimes for which he is accused. Hell no! He is accused of killing and wounding a bunch of people ... He should be tried for that. Does the fact that these people were soldiers matter? Does the fact that he is an Islamist matter? I don't really know, but I hope not, though it appears at the root of many of those arguing. My defense is rooting in my refusal to sit back and watch some butt chapped "Judge" trample on someone's Constitutional rights, even under these F'd up circumstances. And face it ... this is all about a pissing match where one side is relying on legitimate/organizational authority and the other side is protected by the U.S. Constitution. |
Response to spayneuter (Reply #44)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:17 AM
glacierbay (2,477 posts)
73. To be fair
|
He's not defending the heinous acts Hassan committed, he's saying that Hassan should be allowed to keep his beard if it's in accordance with his religion. I personally think he should have to shave it.
|
Response to spayneuter (Reply #44)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 03:21 PM
Quantess (23,926 posts)
112. His defense lawyer gets paid, but otherwise,
|
I do not see any reason to support this P.O.S. at all.
Try...just try to imagine you had just shot and killed a bunch of people. And after that... you claim that your rights are infringed because they want you to shave your beard??! That is deeply offensive. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #16)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:33 PM
MicaelS (4,386 posts)
21. What conscience?
|
He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others. People like that have no conscience.
|
Response to MicaelS (Reply #21)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:41 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
26. Conscience being another ...
|
term for the practice of his religion.
And please don't go to the "killing Americans/infidels is the practice of Islam" thing. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #26)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:43 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
29. WADR to his choice of religion, he's using the beard issue to delay the administration of justice
|
He's stalling.
|
Response to slackmaster (Reply #29)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:31 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
59. Maybe ...
|
But should we err, constitutional, on the side of caution ... especially when the only thing lost by doing so is time?
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #59)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:37 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
69. I don't care much about what happens to Hassan as long as he's kept out of circulation
|
It would be nice to get him killed at the lowest possible cost or incarcerated for life, but those aren't going to happen.
I have accepted this. |
Response to slackmaster (Reply #69)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:50 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
71. Wow ...
|
But okay.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #26)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:09 PM
spayneuter (134 posts)
43. Why not?...it's in their Holey Book.
|
They're just as homicidal as the crazies in the Xian bible. |
Response to spayneuter (Reply #43)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:33 AM
obamanut2012 (9,971 posts)
105. Nothing in Islam says he has to have a beard
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #105)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 07:26 PM
spayneuter (134 posts)
115. Not that it matters to me, but the Xian bible has prohibitions against shaving...one
|
thing most contemporary TRVE BELIEVERS don't much care about any more, along with the abominations of eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of different materials. Where is the line beyond which some random religion's sacrament doesn't have to be respected? Marijuana and Peyote are important elements of some religions, which unfortunately for them, don't have a hell of a lot of political power. What if I invent a church that mandates walking in public with my penis hanging out and urinating on things that are yellow in color? Is there some rational reason to prohibit that?
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #16)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:42 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
47. If only his conscience were as staunchly against murdering innocents in cold blood
|
as it is against removing a few hairs.
Oh well, priorities. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #47)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:38 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
61. This argument ...
|
is not about him ... It's about US.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #61)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:54 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
93. Yes and it says that to US it doesn't matter what sky fairies you worship
|
you will be held to the exact same standards as everyone else.
And I can live with that. |
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:36 PM
Fearless (12,391 posts)
24. People need to chill the fuck out
|
And by people I mean the judge. Beards don't matter. Forcibly shaving a prisoner DOES matter. It's a BIG fucking deal.
|
Response to Fearless (Reply #24)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:42 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
28. Again ...
|
Sometimes ... rage blinds; even justifiable rage.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #28)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:44 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
48. If this is part of the military code he agreed to
|
and which all soldiers in the US military are held to should he be exempt because he claims his religion forbids it?
How is treating everyone the same discrimination but making exemptions for certain religions not? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #48)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:36 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
60. Research the term "accommodations" ...
|
in the context of discrimination.
It might open your eyes. Hint: treating people "the same" is not the same as treating people fairly/equitably. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #60)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:29 AM
pasto76 (1,333 posts)
77. laughing here. "Accomodations" in the Army. As only the uninitiated can say...
|
I invite all of to enlist and actually serve this country. There is better than a 99% chance most of you commenting on this are not veterans.
Enlist, and then try and exercise your assumptions, speculations and "accomodations" once you are actually IN uniform. Then come back and tell us how it all went. |
Response to pasto76 (Reply #77)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:44 AM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
81. I have no doubt ...
|
that the practice differs is extra-judicial; but that does not change the constitutional application.
"accommations" are allowed in the military, just as in civilian life, on a continuing basis. (see: beard allowances and Sikhs) |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #81)
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 06:37 PM
spayneuter (134 posts)
120. One fuckup doesn't justify all the others.
|
You're arguing for a particular exception for a particular religion, most of us are saying fuck the guy, he's no better than some asshole who takes a job as a pharmacist then refuses to dispense certain medications because it damages the tender sensibilities of his idiotic faith.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #60)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:54 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
91. People who are not legal experts and have no knowledge of the military say one thing
|
people who are legal experts and do have a knowledge of the military say another thing.
I'll go with the later. Hint: treating people "the same" is not the same as treating people fairly/equitably. So the law shouldn't be blind? It should make exceptions for people based on their religion? |
Response to Fearless (Reply #24)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:35 PM
RobinA (3,304 posts)
110. This
|
Who the hell cares about an other person's beard except as an exercise of institutional power? Which is wholly irrelevant in this case because the man is incarcerated and already subject to institutional power. The guy murdered a bunch of people and will be tried, as he should be. It disgusts me as an American and a human to see this use of power for the sake of power. The objection people have is not about this particular man. Leave aside the religion, military and even Constitutional issues. The government using its power to force a guy to do something as meaningless to the process as shaving his beard is just creepy. I used to think we were better than this, but that was a long time ago.
|
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:08 PM
spayneuter (134 posts)
42. I wonder why he didn't use the defense that his "religion" requires him to kill infidels?
|
(it does)...and I am not particularly picking on Islam, I find ALL religion to be vile, delusional and contrary to the good of humans. http://www.godisimaginary.com/i7.htm
|
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:26 PM
riderinthestorm (13,166 posts)
45. Having the beard will prejudice his trial. The military is going to be scrupulous in this case
|
and ensuring Hasan has every possible chance of a fair trial.
His peers in the military will judge him. Since its against military regs for a soldier to have a beard, Hasan having a beard will send the wrong message (that he's now a religious extremist) to his peers and that he won't follow standard regulations. When you join the military you sign away a great deal of your rights, including the right to keep your own grooming standards. You must adhere to the standard in the military or face disciplinary procedures. Hasan knows that. He abided by that for many years without a problem. Wearing a beard now will be prejudicial to his case and the Army is going to avoid the appearance of that at all costs, including forcible shaving. |
Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #45)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 10:42 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
62. I would probably agree ...
|
His beard would prejudice his "jury"; but not more than dark skin or internal genitalia in most jurisdictions.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #62)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:44 PM
cstanleytech (5,295 posts)
70. "I would probably agree" I doubt that.
|
Of course I could be wrong but seeing your posts in this thread on the subject I do not believe that my conclusion is wrong.
|
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #70)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:05 AM
1StrongBlackMan (5,376 posts)
72. Why is it so difficult ...
|
to believe that I would agree that the prosecution's strategy would be to shave Hasan, even forcibly, in order to limit any claim that his appearance prejudiced the jury? That's standard strategy. I've argued jury prejudice, literally hundreds of time ... and I know how to defend the claim.
But I fear, their solution to one problem (i.e., jury bias) will create a much bigger problem (i.e., violation(s) of the Constitution). |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #72)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:54 AM
cstanleytech (5,295 posts)
92. Why? Because you have used pretty much the same argument with everyone in this thread who
|
Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:56 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) doesnt share your opinion so thats why I doubt you when you said "I would probably agree".
Edit: And btw http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_law/military_us_constitution.htm |
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:06 PM
Pterodactyl (985 posts)
64. "My religion requires me to wear a beard."
|
Yeah, guess what Nidal? Your religion also requires that you don't go around murdering your comrades in the name of Allah.
|
Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #64)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:30 AM
pasto76 (1,333 posts)
78. Right. PLenty of regular church goers were denied access to religious services during our deployment
|
DUTY and MISSION come first. Beards are forbidden in a court martial. End of debate.
|
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:58 AM
Quantess (23,926 posts)
101. This creep gunned down 13 people and he is whining about his beard?
|
He has A LOT OF NERVE to being acting that way. He does no favors to muslims, either.
|
Response to Quantess (Reply #101)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:10 AM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
103. Let's just refer to him as a "barbarian"
|
Literally.
|
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 05:18 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
113. there is a good reason for making him shave the beard..
|
When he committed the crime he didn't have the beard but now he knows that with the beard witnesses will have difficulty identifying him.
He doesn't care about his religion, he just wants to screw with the prosecution's case. |
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 07:48 PM
neovente (24 posts)
116. why is the judge making a big deal aboit it? does it really matter?
Response to neovente (Reply #116)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:53 PM
alp227 (20,426 posts)
117. Military law makes it a big deal.
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 12:33 AM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
118. Hopefully they use a rusty spoon...
|
and a high-alcohol-content after-shave.
Fuck that murderous pig-fucker. |
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:00 PM
indypaul (942 posts)
122. This POS is still in the military
|
and as such must obey lawful orders of his superior officers. He is
under the jurisdiction of the authority that convened his courts martial and as such must first obey those orders then appeal them if he feels they are wrong. He cannot, due to his faith, pick and choose what orders he will or will not obey any more than he can select the menu at the mess hall. My only problem with this matter is why has it taken this long to bring him to trial? |


