-The Commander Nidal Malik Hasan army admits taking a gun, shouting "Allahu akbar" (God is great) and open fire on unarmed people, killing 13 of them. All, says, in an effort to stop Afghanistan and killing fellow Muslims.
Concluding that it was on the "wrong side" in America's war, he told jurors at his Council of war who switched sides.
Then, what victims and others are demanding, it is the attack of November 2009 in Fort Hood, being treated as a case of violence at work and not as an act of terror?
Scott L. Silliman expert military law says the answer is simple. Because the uniform code of military justice does not have a punitive article by "terrorism".
"Don't really have a choice," said Silliman, director emeritus of the center of Duke University in law, ethics and national security at Durham, North Carolina "was an official asset. The crime occurred in a military installation. ... It was obvious that he was going to face a court-martial".
The victims of the shooting rampage filed a lawsuit last year by the Administration's decision to treat the incident as workplace violence. They say that the designation has stolen benefits and made them ineligible to receive the purple heart, given to service members wounded in battle.
On Monday, the staff of the National Review magazine launched a petition drive directed the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, arguing that the army psychiatrist should be tried as an enemy combatant by what they regard as "an act of Terror".
"By not designating this event as such an Act, does not respect the lives of the 13 who lost their lives that day and dozens more wounded," reads the petition. "This is outrageous and I call to change the official designation now" before continuing proceedings against Hasan.
While Silliman understands the indignation, says that it was not possible to transfer the case to civilian courts - where you could attach a load of terror-.
"It would have been totally unprecedented to have such things occur," said Silliman, who has served as a senior lawyer in two large military installations and three major air force commands. "Now, if the crime had occurred outside the post, then could be what we call a concurrent jurisdiction between civilian authorities and military authorities."
Why cannot the administration calls this an act of terror without charge Hasan as a terrorist? According to a position paper of the widely cited Pentagon opposition purple hearts to the victims that would allow the defense to argue that Hasan "can get a trial just because a branch of the Government has indirectly stated that major Hasan is a terrorist - who is criminally guilty."
Reed Rubinstein, one of the attorneys representing a number of the victims of the shooting and their families, calls this "false" argument.
The National Counterterrorism Center and the State Department told the incident between the attacks of terror that year, says. The White House and the Defense Department have been frustrated, argues, for many people doesn't pay attention to the warning signs that Hasan was becoming increasingly radical that preceded their deployment in Afghanistan.
"The truth of the matter is, that it is policy," said Washington lawyer. "It boils to conceal the political correctness which was the immediate cause of this attack in the first instance". Rubinstein is not asking for an accusation of terrorism but argued that the Government could govern administratively that this was an act of terror so that their customers can qualify for benefits more and the purple heart, which comes with its own set of privileges and awards.
Hasan is representing himself during the court martial. Because he faces the death penalty, military law had prevented him from entering a plea of guilty. But he admitted in his statement of opening Tuesday, as he has done before, did the shooting.
Military prosecutors could have added a civil charge of terrorism, said Geoffrey Corn, a Lieutenant Colonel retired and former military lawyer. But argues that it would have added a layer of unnecessary complexity with little, if any, benefit.
"Never been in a military court soon," says corn, a professor at the South Texas College of Law. "Was it motivated by a terrorist agenda? Without a doubt. It will present the evidence? Without a doubt. But the crimes he committed were premeditated murder and attempted premeditated murder".
Corn says it would be difficult in the case of Hasan as a combatant enemy. While Hasan may have been inspired al - Qaida and even had contact with known terrorist suspects, it does not appear that he received orders from the group, says the corn.
Rubinstein negative terms of the Government called the shooting a terrorist attack for the purposes of the granting of benefits "a kick in the teeth to the victims."
"They have to hear about workplace violence," he says. "They tell them that what happened was not. Do not pay attention to the fact that he was a jihadist. They knew that we knew and the FBI. But his career, because of their race and religion, was more important to us than their lives. You forget all of that."
Government lawyers have asked a federal judge to delay the civil case, to reclassify the incident as well as make combat-related pay and other benefits available to victims, until after the court martial and processing subsequent have been completed. That could take up to nine months.
Victim Shawn Manning estimated that it lost $2,000 a month in wages and benefits due to the decision to classify injuries resulting from violence at work rather than combat or terrorism-related. They had their wounds have been classified in this way, the army would have paid the difference between their pay of civilian and reserve, offered better medical benefits and awarded higher payments for disability.
"And Hasan is still collecting their higher pay," growls Manning, who now works as a specialist in civil mental health at Fort Lewis, Washington
"That is not correct," accepts the former Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times and still has a bullet in the back. Manning and he spoke with The Associated Press before the order of a military judge this week not to discuss the case.
Silliman said that, it is also the way in which the military system operates.
"Remember, he is innocent until found otherwise," he says. "It will be drawing full pay as a United States Army major... until a judgment is awarded in the case and the sentence is approved by the authority of call".
___
Breed reported from Raleigh, North Carolina and Plushnick Masti-from Houston.
You can follow on Twitter at race. Follow Plushnick Masti https://twitter.com/RamitMastiAP https://twitter.com/AllenGBreed
Also in HuffPost:
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire