Fort Hood Shooter Gets Death Penalty



Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to

Related Post Roulette

29 Responses

  1. Avatar Patrick says:

    I will bet $1 that he is executed on or before January 1st, 2014.

    I can write Obama’s speech about it, if you want.Report

    • Avatar NotMe says:

      I’ll take the dollar now. First his case will go to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) and then to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) It will be 10 years before he gets anywhere near an execution date.Report

      • Avatar Cascadian says:

        Who’s his lawyer?Report

      • Avatar NotMe says:

        He is his own lawyer but is also being represented by his appointed Trial Defense Services (TDS) (aka the dark side) attorney. The fact that he is so involved with his own defense means this case will get extra scrutiny from the appellate courts.Report

      • Avatar Cascadian says:

        So the TDS will be more effective on appeal than with his defence?Report

      • Avatar NotMe says:

        Probably not. But what I’m trying to get at is that is that this case is not going thorough two levels of appellate review any time soon. For example, SSG Akbar convicted in 2005 of killing two fellow soldiers just had his death sentence affirmed by the ACCA in 2012 and is now before the CAAF.Report

      • Avatar Patrick says:

        Timothy Mc Veigh was executed in four years.

        Somehow I expect the mandatory appeals process to not take the years everyone is predicting it will take.

        I’ll pony up the buck in good faith if I’m wrong.Report

      • Avatar Rod Engelsman says:

        …being represented by his appointed Trial Defense Services (TDS) (aka the dark side) attorney.

        I find this attitude among some on the Right toward defense attorneys inexplicable. First, the role of a competent defense is to ensure that the defendant’s civil rights are respected and ultimately is what lends the entire process legitimacy. Second, some criminal defendants are genuinely innocent (or at least not guilty as charged) and it’s the job of the defense to cast doubt on weak cases brought by the prosecutors. Tell me, which side were you on during the Zimmerman trial? ‘Nuff said.

        And what I really find baffling is how the Right seems convinced everyone in government is barely competent to feed and dress themselves, yet they seem all too eager to make exceptions for anyone holding a gun, imprisoning someone, or dropping a bomb on them.Report

      • Avatar NotMe says:


        First, McVeigh was a civilian and two, he gave up on some of his appeals b/c he wanted execution rather than life in prison.


        With all due respect, you might try decaf. If you ask a TDS attorney they will proudly tell you that they are part of the dark side. It is really an inside joke in the JAG community.

        As for the Zimmerman trial I found it ironic that some liberals complained about the defense was too harsh on some of the prosecution witnesses when usually they want the defense to be as harsh as possible on prosecution witnesses.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        People tend to have different attitudes towards the defense when they know that the defendant is guilty. Different attitudes for the process, too.Report

  2. Avatar North says:

    I can’t muster up much opinion on it myself. It’s certainly unambiguous that the man is guilty, now he’s going to have the martyrdom he sough I guess.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      From the NYT:

      “Do not be fooled,” Colonel Mulligan said. “He is not giving his life. We are taking his life. This is not his gift to God. This is his debt to society.”Report

      • Avatar ScarletNumber says:

        Empty words.Report

      • Avatar North says:

        “Do not be fooled,” Pontius Pilate* said. “He is not giving his life. We are taking his life. This is not his gift to God. This is his debt to society.”

        For some reason the Christians didn’t see it that way.

        *Full disclosure, I’m being tongue in cheek. I do not in any serious way consider Jesus, whoever or whatever he was, remotely similar to SSG Akbar other than that both were (or seem likely to be) killed for their respective crimes.Report

  3. Avatar NotMe says:

    While I support the death penalty they shouldn’t have given to Hasan for the simple reason that he wants to be a martyr. Of course I doubt Obama would confirm the sentence anyway, which he is required to do in military death cases. Heck, the DOD won’t even classify this as a terrorist attack but instead calls it workplace violence which screws survivors out of some benefits. I wonder how many of the lefty anti death penalty folks will be out protesting against his execution if it ever comes to pass?Report

    • Avatar Patrick says:

      If your prediction turns out to be incorrect, will you revisit the notions that lead you to your prediction, or will you figure out a way to have your error be explicable via re-rationalization?

      I’ll vote on (b).Report

    • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

      Heck, the DOD won’t even classify this as a terrorist attack but instead calls it workplace violence which screws survivors out of some benefits.

      Why do victims of terrorist attacks deserve special consideration?Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

        Really, how screwed up is it that this classification matters at all?Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

        Say a large number of people are poisoned by toxins illicitly dumped into their water supply. It’s a good thing that’s not considered terrorism, because if it were we’d spent a trillion dollars prosecuting a different corporation that’s in more or less the same sector as the polluters.Report

      • Avatar Will Truman says:

        I think the difference is being killed in the line of duty versus being killed in a random act of violence. A terrorist attack would fall into the former category, but workplace violence in the latter.

        I’m just glad they didn’t pin this one on Terry Jones.Report

    • Avatar Kolohe says:

      “instead calls it workplace violence which screws survivors out of some benefits”

      The only categories for injury and death I am familiar with are:
      (1) “in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct”
      (2) “not in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct”
      (3) “not in the line of duty- due to own misconduct.”

      And everything from CONUS car accidents to hostile fire can fall under the first item – providing any and all benefits to a service member and/or survivors are entitled to. There’s nothing extra for getting killed in a war zone afaik.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto says:

        Not that such semantic realities actually matter in the talking points of the day.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto says:

        From what I understand though, since they were on duty, they’d be in the line of duty and not due to own misconduct deaths, right?Report

      • Avatar Kolohe says:


        exactly. As far as I know* there is no distinction in the various military/veterans systems between the persons injured/killed by Hassan and those that would have been killed in hostile action overseas (or non-hostile action – car accidents and heart attacks, even in staging areas like Kuwait, normally get rolled into OEF/OIF casualty totals). The only possible thing I can think of is eligibility for the purple heart. Which apparently does get you something – but can be equally achieved through a disability rating in the veterans screening process.

        *(from doing some prelim LOD and other JAGMAN investigations, but as a line officer, not a JAG – NotMe does seem to know what they are talking about, so I’ll entertain a refutation)Report

      • Avatar Will Truman says:

        Here is an article on why (some of) the families of the deceased are upset.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe says:

        “But the Purple Heart has been denied the soldiers who were killed or wounded at Fort Hood.”

        Which is what I considered

        “And, because they were classified as victims of simple calamity rather than of combat, they and their families have been denied the accompanying benefits.”

        the only benefits I can see are for veterans (i.e. no longer active duty or drilling reservists) that have the purple heart, and are listed in the link. (you get some head of the line privileges with the veterans health system) Which can be obtained in any case with a service related disability finding, which is (should be) relatively straightforward for any of these cases

        “A number of them say they have not even been able to secure adequate care for their wounds.”

        That’s probably just the standard bureaucracy. Convalescent care has been famously broken for many years.

        “And, perhaps in part because people assumed that the army would take care of the soldiers as it would any other fallen and wounded warriors, there was no huge outpouring of financial support for them as there would later be for, say, the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings.”

        Well, yes, the Army should be taking care of them. And they probably did, in typical Army fashion.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe says:

        “As a consolation, the cops might consider that the trial is going ahead only because the judge nixed Hasan’s effort to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty. ”

        Btw, this is simply not correct. Hasan was perfectly willing to plead guilty and get the death penalty, but UCMJ rules preclude it.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        I’ll sing my “Section 3” song again:

        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

        This sure as heck seems to fit.

        What the heck?Report