Question: Who was he supposedly defending by killing 13 innocent people, 14 if you count the unborn baby, and injuring 30 others?
Answer: He wants to argue that he killed to defend Taliban leaders.
As This Ain't Hell notes:
This administration has done it’s level best to keep Hasan from being
associated with terrorism and that’s all for naught at this point. From ABC News;
Accused gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan announced the revelation
Tuesday as he asked the court for a delay in his trial so he could
prepare a new “in defense of others” legal strategy.
When Judge Col. Tara Osborn asked specifically who he was defending,
Hasan said, “The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the
Taliban” and its leader Mullah Omar, according to an account by The New York Times.
So, since this is his defense can we stop calling him an “accused gunman”?
Can we stop calling it "workplace violence", which is what the Obama administration calls it.
The judge apparently will not let him get away with this. AP has the story:
The military judge overseeing the trial of an Army psychiatrist charged in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting
rampage may not allow him to claim that he killed to defend Taliban
leaders, military experts said Wednesday. And such a decision could lead
to even more delays in a case that's already dragged on for years.
Maj. Nidal Hasan
revealed this week that he would use a "defense of others" strategy at
his trial. Such a strategy requires him to prove the shootings were
necessary to protect others from imminent harm or death. Hasan told the
judge that U.S. troops deploying from the Texas Army post posed an
immediate danger to Taliban fighters.
The judge, Col. Tara Osborn,
is to discuss Tuesday whether Hasan has the evidence to use the
"defense of others" claim and rule if Hasan will get a three-month delay
to prepare for that defense.
However, Jeff Addicott,
director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in
San Antonio, said it's unlikely that Hasan will have the legal elements
needed to move forward with the strategy, so Osborn will likely not
allow it.
Lisa M. Windsor, a retired Army colonel and former judge advocate,
said the judge may allow it but tell jurors to disregard Hasan's
argument, because "it doesn't have to be a good defense. It has to be a
plausible defense."
It's unclear when jury selection will begin. It had been scheduled to start this week, with testimony starting in early July. (continue reading at AP Yahoo)
This is yet another stalling tactic by the terrorist Hasan. Using our legal system to hsi benefit.
Recent Comments