Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 80 of 80
  1. #71  
    Administrator SaintLouieWoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sarasota Florida
    Posts
    40,877
    Quote Originally Posted by AlmostThere View Post
    I hope that feeling like all we can do is sit and watch is some satisfaction to us when our country is actually gone. I know I'll be pretty damn ashamed when my kids ask me why I didn't do more to stop it. I don't know what the answer is, but if all we do is watch it happen without putting up some kind of fight, then we deserve exactly what we'll get.
    When many of the Germans did nothing to stop the rise of Nazism, they were scorned by the world after the fact. They sat on their hands, figuratively said "What could we do?" Are we doing the same thing with our silence?

    I get in a constant argument with a friend who says that there's nothing she can do. She won't call her congressman, won't participate in any way to make her convictions (if she has any) known about how we're going down the slippery slope. She's not unusual, and I feel sometimes that I'm too hard on her. But if everyone feels that way, just sits there without uttering a word, we'll deserve what's around the corner.
    Last edited by SaintLouieWoman; 11-10-2009 at 08:18 AM.
    http://http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/SarasotaRepub/83069bcc.png

    " To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."

    "
    A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyOldLady View Post
    They'd better charge him with 12 counts of murder, 30 counts of attempted murder AND TERRORISM.
    If they leave off the terrorism charge that would be WRONG.

    Quote Originally Posted by FBI
    This may be dated, but this is the FBI definition of terrorism:


    The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
    I hesitate to call him a terrorist just because he's Muslim. If his religious preference is the only evidence of terrorism offered, then a prosecutor won't get that conviction and will likely not press that charge.

    I guess it really comes down to intent and motive. I haven't read anything substantial on Hasan's motive. I think everyone is just speculating right now. If his motive was to sway U.S. or government policy through acts of violence, then yes, he is a terrorist and should be charged as one. However, I've also read that he was moon-bat crazy, and deathly afraid of deploying to Afghanistan. If his motive to kill is attributed to his moon-bat craziness and cowardice, then he is not a terrorist regardless of religious preference. I mean if he was so deathly afraid of deployment that he went off the deep end and committed this crime because of it, then it would be the same as if the murderer were atheist, Jewish, or Christian.

    Now, if he's moon-bat crazy, a coward, and attempting to influence U.S. policy through acts of violence, then I think the prosecutor should also count terrorism and let the case be sorted by the courts and jury, unless a plea of guilty is made.

    Don't think I'm going soft on him. I hope he's tried, convicted, fried and burns in hell for eternity. However, the facts must speak for themselves. If the prosecution cannot prove that Hasan had any intent to sway U.S. policy through his actions, and he's convicted of terrorism regardless, that could be a dangerous precedent, and certainly wouldn't be the way our system of justice is designed to work.
    Last edited by malloc; 11-10-2009 at 08:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Senior Member Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, Tn
    Posts
    1,531
    Okay, if he is not a Terrorist then he is at the least a traitor who has given aid and comfort to the enemy, and he (An Army Officer) attacked U.S. soldiers on a U.S. base before they could be deployed to the war zone to fight terrorists.

    This is not a civilian criminal matter so the CID should be handeling this with aid from the FBI. He should face a Military tribunal not a civilian court. Civilian Laws are not for this case, it should be the UCMJ.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Guy View Post
    Okay, if he is not a Terrorist then he is at the least a traitor who has given aid and comfort to the enemy, and he (An Army Officer) attacked U.S. soldiers on a U.S. base before they could be deployed to the war zone to fight terrorists.

    This is not a civilian criminal matter so the CID should be handeling this with aid from the FBI. He should face a Military tribunal not a civilian court. Civilian Laws are not for this case, it should be the UCMJ.
    I agree on treason, and I'm surprised I haven't heard that word uttered. The only way it couldn't be treason would be if he is, in fact, completely crazy and not aware of the reality of his actions.

    I also agree that the UCMJ should be the authority here, but under which name should the trial be convened? Should it be a court martial, which is used to try criminals who wear our flag, or a tribunal which is used to try enemy combatants as criminals?

    Here's what I hope. I hope the system works in this case. If hard evidence is found which ties this individual 's actions to the legal definition of terrorism, then he should be tried as a murderer, terrorist and traitor. I hope that in the event such evidence is found, the prosecutor moves forward with the terrorist and traitor language regardless of how bad it makes the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI or Homeland Security look. However, if no real evidence of political, social, or religious motivation is found than I hope he isn't tried as a terrorist or traitor on the basis of his religion alone. What would that do to other soldiers who happen to be Muslim? In other words, like any good conservative, I hope for equal application of the law, not based on religious accusations, but based on facts in evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Senior Member Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, Tn
    Posts
    1,531
    The system will only work in the politicians stay out of it. I believe the UCMJ will call for him to be Court Martialed for treason if they find this falls in the definition of terrorism set fourth by the UCMJ. At any rate his crime definately falls into the definition of murder, which is punishable by death according to the UCMJ I used to study.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,565
    Quote Originally Posted by malloc View Post
    I agree on treason, and I'm surprised I haven't heard that word uttered. The only way it couldn't be treason would be if he is, in fact, completely crazy and not aware of the reality of his actions.

    I also agree that the UCMJ should be the authority here, but under which name should the trial be convened? Should it be a court martial, which is used to try criminals who wear our flag, or a tribunal which is used to try enemy combatants as criminals?
    Here's what I hope. I hope the system works in this case. If hard evidence is found which ties this individual 's actions to the legal definition of terrorism, then he should be tried as a murderer, terrorist and traitor. I hope that in the event such evidence is found, the prosecutor moves forward with the terrorist and traitor language regardless of how bad it makes the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI or Homeland Security look. However, if no real evidence of political, social, or religious motivation is found than I hope he isn't tried as a terrorist or traitor on the basis of his religion alone. What would that do to other soldiers who happen to be Muslim? In other words, like any good conservative, I hope for equal application of the law, not based on religious accusations, but based on facts in evidence.
    I say we let the murderous swine decide. He stated that he was muslim first and American second. That puts him firmly in the Tribunal arena. Fair is fair. He wants to be seen as a muslim, grant him his wish and then hang him.:mad:
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    I heard on the radio today that one of the women shot was pregnant. It's 14 deaths in that case.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78 Treason 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1
    The Constitution of the United States is difinative regarding the charge of Treason. Having gone back and re-educated myself on this definition of Treason, it is clear to me, Major Nidal Malik Hasan is indeed worthy of the charge of Treason. Major Hasan, as an Officer in the United States Army, had a duty to uphold and a country he had sworn to protect and defend. Instead, Major Hasan sought out our nation's enemies in our War on Terror by contacting a known terrorist representative/recruiter, Anwar Al Awlaki. The following quote is from Aljazeera (a middle eastern newspaper also printed in English): "Al-Awlaki left the US in 2002, eventually travelling to Yemen, but his whereabouts have not been known since he was released from a Yemeni jail last year. He is on Yemen's most-wanted list, according to Yemeni security officials." There was NO need for Major Hasan to contact a known international terrorist, unless he had prior permission or orders to do so. Instead Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, armed himself and attacked the Ft. Hood Army Post, killing 13 UNARMED FELLOW SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN, ONE OF WHOM WAS PREGNANT. After Major Hasan had waged his attack on Ft. Hood, Al-Awlaki congratulated him on the internet and called him a hero (I did not actually see this posting, but I did see where the site has been removed from the internet). This case of Treason is clear cut and I am certain there are far more than 2 witnesses to this fact. It is also fact that he premeditatidley murdered 12 unarmed service members and 1 civilian and wounded about 30 others. Let us all be clear, this does NOT make Major Nidal Milak Hasan a "terrorist," IT MAKES HIM A TRAITOR AND A MURDERER. As Americans, lets not judge all Muslims by this Traitor, for it would seem that even "Allah" did not want him and has left him to be TRIED by those he BETRAYED. I hope all Americans will hold President Obama to his words, "the killer will be met with justice in this world and the next." I HOPE THIS MEANS HE WILL NOT HESITATE IN SIGNING HASAN'S DEATH WARRANT and seek to carry out his execution swiftly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Senior Member GrumpyOldLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by malloc View Post
    If his religious preference is the only evidence of terrorism offered, .
    Just being a muslim would have nothing to do with it.
    He TERRORIZED the soldiers and civilians of Fort Hood.
    This was premeditated. He planned it for at least 2 weeks.
    There was no 'snapping'.
    He wanted Americans dead.
    He wanted to encourage Jihad against America.
    Legally terrorism is defined as 2 or more acts against the gov't in order to change it.
    (something like that).
    He had 43 acts against it and, yes, he wanted policy changed.
    He's been preaching change of policy for years.

    Terrorism fits.

    As was said on TV this morning .. if he had used a suicide bomb instead of guns
    would it then be called terrorism? He did the same thing as light off a suicide bomb.
    If leftists didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    They are already laying the groundwork for his insanity defense.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=120313570
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •