Fort Hood Suspect Says Rampage Was to Defend Afghan Taliban Leaders

I put this here for a forum because I wasn't really sure where else to put it. Honestly, this line of defense took me so totally off guard, as it apparently did the Judge and members of the court as well, I'm not sure what the heck to make of it. He almost talked himself into being a qualified enemy combatant, in my view. At the very least. I'm starting to wonder if Treason wouldn't have been a better charge here. Perhaps a related charge?

Just HOW do you defend this when it's come from his own mouth?!

KILLEEN, Tex. — Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people, told a judge on Tuesday that he believed he was defending the lives of the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan from American military personnel when he went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood here in November 2009.

Keep in mind... HE said this. HE is making this case and it's HIS to do. No one is forcing him to basically side entirely with the enemy of this nation. He's doing this in open court.

On Monday, one of Major Hasan’s first legal maneuvers had been to ask the judge, Col. Tara A. Osborn, for a three-month delay in his trial, scheduled to begin on July 1. His primary reason in asking for the delay was to change his defense to a “defense of others.” At a new hearing on Tuesday, Colonel Osborn asked him pointedly whom he was defending.

“The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban,” he said, specifically naming Mullah Muhammad Omar, the founder of the Islamic insurgent group.

Should they look again at his communications, contacts and associations? I'm really getting a feeling here...there may have been more that has been missed in just what his loyalties have been and how deep and established they are.

The “defense of others” strategy requires a criminal defendant to prove that he was compelled to use force against an aggressor to protect a person or a group from being harmed or killed by that aggressor. In this case, Major Hasan is claiming that he was protecting Taliban leaders from death by using deadly force against Fort Hood military personnel deploying to Afghanistan.

Source

That's quite a defense. As the article goes on to state, it's not likely he'll be able to make this work, either. It's just too far out there ....unless he has other bombshells yet to drop about personal motivation, knowledge and connections to what he's done.

It really doesn't matter what he gets to play at though. He can't un-ring this bell for what he has already said in court and on the record. The 5th isn't retroactive to apply and he's hung himself for any viable defense, in my lay opinion.

What is everyone else's take? Aside from some degree of shock, I mean.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit2000,

I'm impressed, I didn't think he'd come up with any defense. I figured it would be delay after delay, propaganda speech after speech, until his freedom was won by a bargain between our President and some Sheik or another.

Very imaginative defense, stupid beyond words and doomed to failure, but imaginative. Killing to defend others is a lot like killing in self defense. Imminent threat, serious bodily harm or death threatened, etc.

Nowhere in Hassan's vicinity was anyone being threatened by anyone, he can't show that even killing the entire room would have stopped any one's death. It's all too speculative, vague and distant in time and place.

With his comments, which only have propaganda value, he's cemented his ultimate fate. (After 10 more years of delays and a Presidential pardon by Hillary Clinton. (Did that make your little wrabbit whiskers curl up?))

(By the way, he's already had four years of delays without coming to trial. George Zimmerman won't even get two.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Seeing as he did say this on the record in open court then it is a major violation of the UCMJ and makes him a traitor that was in fact aiding the enemy. He should be tried for treason, not murder and hanged until dead for all to see.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

OK, had to go back and read that twice. Don't think that's going to fly well as he would need to know that the people he shot at Ft Hood were going to personally attack the Taliban leadership. Maybe if he had exact information against a specific drone operator it might stick.

He was a sworn officer of the US military who's oath was not worth the air he used to speak it. What he did makes him 1) a traitor and 2) a terrorist and enemy combatant. The UCMJ has specific rules and laws about what he did. He's US military, they should be able to figure out an appropriate response to his actions.

OT Seems we see first hand how reliable a degree in psychiatry is. (Yeah, yeah I know it was a one-off.)

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

The “defense of others” strategy requires a criminal defendant to prove that he was compelled to use force against an aggressor to protect a person or a group from being harmed or killed by that aggressor. In this case, Major Hasan is claiming that he was protecting Taliban leaders from death by using deadly force against Fort Hood military personnel deploying to Afghanistan.

Source

That's quite a defense.
It's just too far out there ....

It's not that "Far out There"
Nor is it a New Defense, because it has worked before..

I believe Israel used this Defense to 'reason' the Bombing of a Nuke Plant in Syria, and again in Iraq.
Just sayin....it's not new.

reply to post by charles1952


It certainly is creative and shows ..imagination? Well, it explains why he fired his attorneys and went to represent himself. No lawyer worth his law degree would entertain a defense like this as a joke. Shoot up a whole group of people in 'defense' of someone on the other side of the world? These weren't even command level, who could.. MAYBE.. sorta.. somehow be said to be a threat to Omar directly. Maybe a Commanding General? Not really, but heck, at least the theory could be debated with a straight face. How, with the guys at Ft. Hood? Foot Soldiers aren't a threat to the command level of the Taliban unless they just stumbled across one by pure luck and accident in a village or something.

I have to wonder... Is he insane? I mean, honestly. Clinically. (I don't think legal insanity applies, even if he tried it)

This is a crazy tack to take? He's either crazy or he is a true Believer to the "cause". They do exist, right? The Taliban military and political leaders believe in what they are doing. Could he be so deeply committed that he'd be willing to go down this way for it? It's an interesting development to see happen with this whole thing.

reply to post by Tw0Sides

It's not that "Far out There"

Tw0sides you're right. It is not proper to describe his defense as "Far out there." That does not do it justice.

It is one of the three most ^&%&()insanely stupid defenses I have ever heard of, or created, in trying to answer an exam question or get somebody off. Hassan has paved the way for an insanity defense. But beyond that he is reinforcing for the umpteenth time that the mental processes of a Muslim terrorist qualify him only for work as a street sweeper in the middle of the Pacific. If he is able to get from one end of the English alphabet to the other without falling and hurting himself I will be astonished.

He didn't provide the court with a weak defense, he provided it with a barrel of pork fat and volunteered to jump into it. I have been accused, recently, of being difficult to follow. HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR?

I believe Israel used this Defense to 'reason' the Bombing of a Nuke Plant in Syria, and again in Iraq.
Just sayin....it's not new.

In the name of Holy Reason, go fight another battle. No nation ever has to offer a defense in a criminal trial. Courts have no criminal jurisdiction over entire countries, only people.

I am so blasted upset. I'm trying to restrain myself. Hassan has not only pegged the stupid meter, he's wrapped the needle around it. How in the **^&%#$ can anything survive in a world as full of stupid as this one is?

And I have a reputation for being calm and reasonable. In the last two days I've seen enough stupidity to fill an entire High School, and the Democratic National Convention, with room left over for Al Gore's entire *&^&# mansion.

I think I'll have a Scotch and a cigar and read something relatively intelligent, maybe an old Archie comic?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

From your source...

The “defense of others” strategy requires a criminal defendant to prove that he was compelled to use force against an aggressor to protect a person or a group from being harmed or killed by that aggressor.

Isn't that what we claim to have been doing all along, though?

We bomb or drone or hunt the "enemy" over there to keep them from harming us over here right? To "pre-empt" their perceived terrorist acts against our people here at home? How is that different than what he claims he did?

It won't fly obviously, he is on trial in the hornets nest. Imagine if some court got hold of a drone pilot and put them on trial in Pakistan?

reply to post by intrptr


Well, that is logical on the face of it...if someone is looking specifically from the approach of excusing what he's done. Fortunately (Or unfortunately for him) it's a positive defense and means he has the burden of proof now, to prove it. Unlike most defenses, where he can sit, silent as a mime and give the prosecution the rasberries when the Court isn't looking? This one requires him to actively show his actions were those of an innocent man, doing the right thing, as the law stipulates.

That means, quite literally, he has to show how each man or woman he engaged in that hall of soldiers was a threat ...individually, not collectively...to the lives of those he claims to have been defending. It's why I said above, the defense could at least be argued without outright laughing if he had just shot a Commanding General. It wouldn't succeed to save him, but a straight face could at least be maintained for presenting the case.

On this? Just how, as direct individuals, EACH, were those soldiers a personal threat to Omar in Afghanistan? Even Seal 6...*MAYBE*..could be argued to be a threat on that level. Still...fantasy and assumption based on presumption of things not yet happening or planned ......yet shooting up privates and low level enlisted? That wasn't defense. It was murder for political statement.

That is text book definition to Terrorism. As a serving Officer in the U.S. Armed forces? It's treason, by definition ..... and he supplied the details to wrap it up like a present, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Well, that is logical on the face of it...

I agree Wrabbit, it's not logical. War never is.

I personally don't see it as their side or ours, neither side is right in the head.

Nobody wins?

I'll always come from "that side".

reply to post by intrptr


Fair enough on that. In the particulars of the path your approach takes? I can never agree with it for some topics. At the same time, I've always respected your intellectual honesty in being consistent for that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's the fact of the matter, eh?

Aiding and abetting the enemy aka Traitor legally defined, Kill him.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

As you wish...

It's a clever defence because it perfectly echoes Bush's excuse for attacking Iraq in retalliation for 9/11 even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any WMD. So this is exactly the same reasoning.

Fort Hood was obviously a false flag operation. We have no evidence that this guy killed anyone; all we have is a bunch of military stooges and government bureaucrats claiming that he did. Should we believe them? Are they trustworthy? That's like asking if a fox can be trusted to guard your chickens.

This guy is a patsy. He's pleading guilty because that's what he was told to do. His defence is intended to invoke anger and bewilderment, confusing the publicand distracting them from the bigger picture. Judging by this thread, he has succeeded brilliantly.

reply to post by Sankari

I'm assuming that the words you wrote were not the words you intended. But on the slight chance you meant to say those things I would have some reactions.

It's a clever defence because it perfectly echoes Bush's excuse for attacking Iraq in retalliation for 9/11 even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any WMD. So this is exactly the same reasoning.

A clever defense is a defense that works. This one is not going to. Legally, it is beyond insane. There are no words for it other than a momentary, publicity grabbing, stunt. You even admit to it in your very same post.

His defence is intended to invoke anger and bewilderment, confusing the publicand distracting them from the bigger picture.

It's not intended to win, or even be reasonable. It's a sick, attention seeking stunt, not a defense.

Fort Hood was obviously a false flag operation.

Really? Why? Would you still say it was a false flag if he was a Presbyterian? My guess is that then you'd think it wasn't. How about a skinhead or a Westboro Baptist Church member? It appears you mention it only because he is a Muslim.

You claim his accusers have no evidence, what is yours?

We have no evidence that this guy killed anyone; all we have is a bunch of military stooges and government bureaucrats claiming that he did. Should we believe them? Are they trustworthy?

If there was no evidence, he would not be on trial today. The court has twisted themselves into pretzels to give him every possible break.

This guy is a patsy. He's pleading guilty because that's what he was told to do.

So Hasan is a patsy, the dead bodies were stooges, the investigators are stooges, the surviving soldiers are stooges, the reporters are stooges. And they've all kept their mouths shut for four years. Tell me, who doesn't believe that he did the shootings? Some fellow Muslims? Who believes he wasn't the shooter, and why?

But, as I said, there's only the slightest chance that you meant what you wrote.

Originally posted by Sankari
Fort Hood was obviously a false flag operation. We have no evidence that this guy killed anyone; all we have is a bunch of military stooges and government bureaucrats claiming that he did. Should we believe them? Are they trustworthy? That's like asking if a fox can be trusted to guard your chickens

What are you talking about? Fort Hood is a massive U.S. Army base.

Like the State of Texas, Fort Hood is big and boasts of being the largest active duty armored post in the United States Armed Services. Fort Hood is nicknamed The Great Place because of the quality of life the post and area offer Soldiers and their families. These qualities are important, especially with home-basing initiatives, frequent deployments and family stability and support.

Fort Hood Home Page

It's not just a static post, it's a transition and training post as well. This hit home to many people in the military and many many knew some either directly involved or somehow effected by it. Where did you get the impression there could be much of any doubt to the fundamentals of what happened? This was a hall full of people and he only shot some of them. Witnesses everywhere.

That's the really weird thing: the government says he killed people in the middle of an army base but how can you go on a rampage in an army base without someone taking you down in a couple of minutes? Army bases are not gun-free zones! This scenario doesn't make sense.

When you add the fact that there's no evidence he killed anyone... it all starts to add up.

reply to post by Sankari


I don't know how it is on bases in Australia, but the United States doesn't have loaded weapons commonly seen, much less carried or freely accessible all over a state side base. The MP's have them and of course, every base has armories....and that's where the guns are unless there is a specific thing like training or a deployment. It's not like it was a hall full of guys carrying rifles and loaded magazines to just slap one in and open fire. Good lord, it would have been a cross fire with dozens shot from how I understand this moron did it in the middle of people to start.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


Just HOW do you defend this when it's come from his own mouth?!

KILLEEN, Tex. — Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people, told a judge on Tuesday that he believed he was defending the lives of the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan from American military personnel when he went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood here in November 2009.

Keep in mind... HE said this. HE is making this case and it's HIS to do. No one is forcing him to basically side entirely with the enemy of this nation. He's doing this in open court.

If this wasn't a terrorist attack, I don't know what is.

I don't know how anyone could say otherwise after this.

This is not a civilian trial it is a military trial under UCMJ he just cut his own throat.There ARE no constitutional rights involved here at all.