Sad and Pathetic Political Correctness - Again

[K.Mooneyham]

Can someone who has some Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) knowledge tell me if what Hasan did was treason? Because it seems to me that carrying out a mass murder of US military personnel after seemingly collaborating with enemy forces is indeed a treasonous act. Am I wrong in my thinking on this?

[stevie_d_64]

Can someone who has some Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) knowledge tell me if what Hasan did was treason? Because it seems to me that carrying out a mass murder of US military personnel after seemingly collaborating with enemy forces is indeed a treasonous act. Am I wrong in my thinking on this?

Maybe not treason, but this certainly applies...

Article 118—Murder

Text.

“Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he—”


(1) has a premeditated design to kill;

(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;

(3) is engaged in an act that is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or

(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson; is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

Elements.

(1) Premeditated murder.


(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had a premeditated design to kill.

(2) Intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.


(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon a person.

(3) Act inherently dangerous to another.


(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the intentional act of the accused;

(c) That this act was inherently dangerous to another and showed a wanton disregard for human life;

(d) That the accused knew that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the act; and

(e) That the killing was unlawful.

(4) During certain offenses.


(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson.

Explanation.

(1) In general. Killing a human being is unlawful when done without justification or excuse. See R.C.M. 916. Whether an unlawful killing constitutes murder or a lesser offense depends upon the circumstances. The offense is committed at the place of the act or omission although the victim may have died elsewhere. Whether death occurs at the time of the accused’s act or omission, or at some time thereafter, it must have followed from an injury received by the victim which resulted from the act or omission.

(2) Premeditated murder.


(a) Premeditation. A murder is not premeditated unless the thought of taking life was consciously conceived and the act or omission by which it was taken was intended. Premeditated murder is murder committed after the formation of a specific intent to kill someone and consideration of the act intended. It is not necessary that the intention to kill have been entertained for any particular or consider-able length of time. When a fixed purpose to kill has been deliberately formed, it is immaterial how soon afterwards it is put into execution. The existence of premeditation may be inferred from the circumstances.

(b) Transferred premeditation. When an accused with a premeditated design attempted to unlawfully kill a certain person, but, by mistake or inadvertence, killed another person, the accused is still criminally responsible for a premeditated murder, because the premeditated design to kill is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.

(c) Intoxication. Voluntary intoxication (see R.C.M. 916(1)(2)) not amounting to legal insanity may reduce premeditated murder (Article 118(1)) to unpremeditated murder (Article 118(2) or (3)) but it does not reduce either premeditated murder or unpremeditated murder to manslaughter (Article 119) or any other lesser offense.

(3) Intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.


(a) Intent. An unlawful killing without premeditation is also murder when the accused had either an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. It may be inferred that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of an act purposely done. Hence, if a person does an intentional act likely to result in death or great bodily injury, it may be inferred that death or great bodily injury was in-tended. The intent need not be directed toward the person killed, or exist for any particular time before commission of the act, or have previously existed at all. It is sufficient that it existed at the time of the act or omission (except if death is inflicted in the heat of a sudden passion caused by adequate provocation— see paragraph 44). For example, a person committing housebreaking who strikes and kills the householder attempting to prevent flight can be guilty of murder even if the householder was not seen until the moment before striking the fatal blow.

(b) Great bodily harm. “Great bodily harm” means serious injury; it does not include minor injuries such as a black eye or a bloody nose, but it does include fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to internal organs, and other serious bodily injuries. It is synonymous with the term “grievous bodily harm.”

(c) Intoxication. Voluntary intoxication not amounting to legal insanity does not reduce un-premeditated murder to manslaughter (Article 119) or any other lesser offense.

(4) Act inherently dangerous to others.


(a) Wanton disregard of human life. Intentionally engaging in an act inherently dangerous to another—although without an intent to cause the death of or great bodily harm to any particular person, or even with a wish that death will not be caused—may also constitute murder if the act shows wanton disregard of human life. Such disregard is characterized by heedlessness of the probable consequences of the act or omission, or indifference to the likelihood of death or great bodily harm. Examples include throwing a live grenade toward another in jest or flying an aircraft very low over one or more persons to cause alarm.

(b) Knowledge. The accused must know that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the inherently dangerous act. Such knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(5) During certain offenses.


(a) In general. The commission or attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in Article 118(4) is likely to result in homicide, and when an unlawful killing occurs as a consequence of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of these offenses, the killing is murder. Under these circumstances it is not a defense that the killing was unintended or accidental.

(b) Separate offenses. The perpetration or attempted perpetration of the burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson may be charged separately from the homicide.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) Premeditated murder and murder during certain offenses. Article 118(2) and (3)—murder

(2) All murders under Article 118.


(a) Article 119—involuntary manslaughter

(b) Article 128—assault; assault consummated by a battery; aggravated assault

(c) Article 134—negligent homicide

(3) Murder as defined in Article 118(1), (2), and (4).


(a) Article 80—attempts

(b) Article 119—voluntary manslaughter

(c) Article 134—assault with intent to commit murder

(d) Article 134—assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter

Maximum punishment.

(1) Article 118(1) or (4) -- death. Mandatory minimum -- imprisonment for life with eligibility for parole.

(2) Article 118(2) or (3)—such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.

[stevie_d_64]

For the record...I submit that these deaths and injuries do fall under the provisions for the award/decoration...It should never have been questioned or debated...I have a very good feeling that the chain of command did submit their recomendations, and those efforts were eventually applied to a political template...And considering the overall process to get this person through the legal proceedings is indicative of how this particular aspect was handled...

Something political is/has occur-ed-ing...And that political effort is an insult to these servicemembers...Something that is near and dear to me...

It is a very humbling experience...

[lbuehler325]

I am okay with the decision not to award the PH to the victims at Ft Hood. I feel a big part of the reasoning is that the victims were not under any expectation of armed conflict. Under that premise, I would assume the victims in the Pentagon on 9/11 would also not receive the PH. I'm not sure if that is the case with 9/11 though. I would imagine it was awarded for 9/11. If they do award the Ft Hood victims, then would they also award it to the 101st guys in the grenade attack by an E-5 in Kuwait, or the 42nd ID (NYNG) fragging both prior to the '03 Iraq invasion?

[JALLEN]

For the record...I submit that these deaths and injuries do fall under the provisions for the award/decoration...It should never have been questioned or debated...I have a very good feeling that the chain of command did submit their recomendations, and those efforts were eventually applied to a political template...And considering the overall process to get this person through the legal proceedings is indicative of how this particular aspect was handled...

Something political is/has occur-ed-ing...And that political effort is an insult to these servicemembers...Something that is near and dear to me...

It is a very humbling experience...

Well, as a former serving officer and now lawyer for many years, my guess is that you have it backwards, the political template got stopped in the chain of command. These are not "combat" injuries, and no emotional heart tugging will make them so. You don't get a medal for getting shot while standing in a clinic when some lunatic cuts loose unexpectantly.

Many of us ridiculed John Kerry for his 3 Purple Owies, seemingly trivial injuries that might not even have gotten a band-aid in civilian life, but since they were facing combatants, and Kerry was a constant self-aggrandizing resume burnisher, 3 Purple Owies.

The legal process has a great many frustrations. The wheels of justice sometimes turn awfully slowly, but the product we accentuate is not efficiency, but justice. Contrast this to the main stream media whose emphasis has become speed, not truth. Get it first, and if you get it right so much the better, but if not, ohh, well!! with so many tragi-comic results.

We demand discipline and obedience to regulations from our military officers, and allow freedom of religion, even those peculiar to us. Here is where those two concepts collide. Hassan will be just as dead, eventually. There is no rush, and we dare not make a mistake that results in a miscarriage of justice and he walks.

[Purplehood]

Anyone recall that incident in the Gulf where an Arabic US Army Soldier threw a grenade into a tent full of officers?

I doubt any Purple Hearts were passed-out there. Of course this is all supposition on my part.

[stevie_d_64]

With my fellow veterans opinions, which are held in high regard, I feel the decoration should have been awarded...

More so, by the obfuscation we have seen in the process to deliberately keep this from those who were wounded and murdered by this suspect...Since the investigation and pre-trial pontificating has been ongoing (FOR YEARS!!!), I feel that is justification for the award...The suspect is an admitted islamic radical, who commited this act during a time of war, and the act was targeted at a group of servicemembers because of their current affiliation...

Was this an act of war??? Or a battle, where the conflict was joined??? A discussion could be made about the parameters of the engagement, and it would be a great topic (separate) for putting the facts/issues on the table...I think that would be a great thing (to do) at some point in the future...

I do believe the decorations were not awarded because of the status of the trial...If the PH's were delivered, that would take (create an empathy/bias) away the defenses ability to keep the trial and process out of the military system, as much as possible...Why this guy was given a civilian process (defense) is beyond me, and has been bugging me for as long as I can remember...

If this had stayed within the Department of Defense judicial system, this guy would have already been tried, and sentenced by now...I'm sure his disposition would be rather subdued do to his lack of a pulse...

I still believe some will dissagree with me, but there is one thing that will be true...

After the trial, and after the sentence is carried out...Those surviving service members who were injurder WILL receive the decoration...I am confident of that eventuality...Sometimes these commendations take years to resolve...

This is just my opinion/observation...

[JALLEN]

With my fellow veterans opinions, which are held in high regard, I feel the decoration should have been awarded...

More so, by the obfuscation we have seen in the process to deliberately keep this from those who were wounded and murdered by this suspect...Since the investigation and pre-trial pontificating has been ongoing (FOR YEARS!!!), I feel that is justification for the award...The suspect is an admitted islamic radical, who commited this act during a time of war, and the act was targeted at a group of servicemembers because of their current affiliation...

Was this an act of war??? Or a battle, where the conflict was joined??? A discussion could be made about the parameters of the engagement, and it would be a great topic (separate) for putting the facts/issues on the table...I think that would be a great thing (to do) at some point in the future...

I do believe the decorations were not awarded because of the status of the trial...If the PH's were delivered, that would take (create an empathy/bias) away the defenses ability to keep the trial and process out of the military system, as much as possible...Why this guy was given a civilian process (defense) is beyond me, and has been bugging me for as long as I can remember...

If this had stayed within the Department of Defense judicial system, this guy would have already been tried, and sentenced by now...I'm sure his disposition would be rather subdued do to his lack of a pulse...

I still believe some will dissagree with me, but there is one thing that will be true...

After the trial, and after the sentence is carried out...Those surviving service members who were injurder WILL receive the decoration...I am confident of that eventuality...Sometimes these commendations take years to resolve...

This is just my opinion/observation...

I think part of your observations do not, for whatever reason, take into account that this incident was not combat, not military action, despite that it took place on a military base, and most of the victims were military members, including the perp. Other than that, it is no different that an armed robbery of the base PX, or a violent disagreement at the Acey-Deucy Club, whatever they call them in the Army, no different than if the shoot out had occurred at a bank branch in town. Not a combat injury.

What I see in the reaction is yet another manifestation of of the rise of victimhood in our culture. Anything is possible now if you can portray yourself as a victim. Anything is possible if the politician class can portray some cause as being for the victims. Every player gets to play, and gets a trophy, win or lose!

Handing out PHs for this diminishes, demeans, the awards justly earned by the men and women who have actually been wounded in actual combat, even more so than the 3 Purple Owies that John Kerry sports. Maybe, since the regs don't actually cover this situation, there should be a Victim's Medal, to be awarded for anything bad thing that happens short of some other award, a catch-all, if you will.

I wonder if people haven't been watching too many "Queen For A Day" re-runs or something. For those among us too young to remember that afternoon TV show, each episode featured usually 3 women, one at a time telling their story of misery, despair, rotten luck, and woe, at the end of which the audience would "vote" by applause registered on the Applause-meter" for who had the most pitiful story. The "winner" would be crowned "Queen For A Day", draped in an ermine robe (probably fake!) and crown, and given an array of appliances, dishwashers, washing machines, furnished by the sponsors in return for the good plug, to the delight and gratification of sobbing women in homes all across America of the 1950's, who carried on, certain in the belief that miseries endured would have their reward.

[MeMelYup]

What I don't know about military "law" would fill volumes. If the report is correct and it would have even the slightest chance of providing a defense to this mass murderer, then I agree with the decision, if the medals can be awarded after his trial.

Chas.

It depends on whether they have delayed or denied.

[MeMelYup]

What I don't know about military "law" would fill volumes. If the report is correct and it would have even the slightest chance of providing a defense to this mass murderer, then I agree with the decision, if the medals can be awarded after his trial.

Chas.

Charles, I get the logic, but wouldn't it also extend to his appeals? If that's the case, then you couldn't award the medals until he had exhausted all his appeals and been executed. Otherwise he would have grounds for a new appeal asserting that the entire case against him was a fraud designed to make it possible to convict him. (I'm assuming they will execute the scumbag. They'd better.)

I'm not sure about anything related to the military. I just don't want to see anything done that gives him a shot at avoiding the death penalty.

Chas.

I disagree with the death penalty in this case. If he is convicted (death penalty) some will consider him as a martyr. I don't think he deserves that satisfaction.

[longtooth]

If it were claimed that he was a terrorist fighting for an organization we are at war with, and he attacked a military target, could he use that as a defense? We generally don't put enemy soldiers on trial for attacking our soldiers. Just a thought.

We havent put him on trial yet either. Not even a thought about when he will go to trail. Hussain obama wants it that way.

[JALLEN]

I disagree with the death penalty in this case. If he is convicted (death penalty) some will consider him as a martyr. I don't think he deserves that satisfaction.

Plus, he is a psychiatrist, so he must be crazy.