world

Fort Hood shooter sentenced to death

51 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

Just take him out back, strip him naked and shoot him in the head.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Death sentence is more than justified in this case.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Army Private John Bennett, who was hung in 1961 for rape and attempted murder.

I believe the correct verb in this case would be "hanged."

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Well, he thinks he's going a martyr. But just make sure to add some pork lard, and bacon to his last meal (without him knowing) and when his time to be executed is nigh let him know what was in it.

Cruel thoughts aside. Should he enter an afterlife, he'll find out that whatever omnipotent being resides there will show him as much justice and mercy as he had shown others... which doesn't bode well for him. You are judged by your heart and the actions your heart, and passing judgement on others in the methods that Islamists have been using show that they believe they're carrying out justice in their god's name. They revel in hatred, death, prosecution and destruction. And so when judged in a truly divine presences they'll come to the clarity how seriously wrong they were.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

And so when judged in a truly divine presences they'll come to the clarity how seriously wrong they were.

Honest@I am not sure we can count on divine retribution, but a "long drop" at the end of a rope will settle the matter in a manner that even religious fanatics can understand. In addition to being a mass murderer, Hasan was a medical doctor who violated the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm," I can't find any extenuating circumstances to justify allowing him to continue living.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Meanwhile same military court just handed 15yr sentence to a soldier who murdered 16 innocent Afghan women & children in cold blood! Double standards maybe?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Well, Lt. William Calley of My Lai massacre fame received a life sentence, but wound up serving just three and a half years under house arrest. Probably this man won't serve the full 15 years either.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

It would not look good for the US to kill a crippled man. If they hang him it would have to be from a wheel chair or to be lifted somehow. It would be better for him to remain in prison the rest of his life. Confined not only to a cell but a wheel chair. His quality of life can not be too good. I would think he needs diapers not having control over those functions. Killing him would make him a martyr at last. He sought death in the attack and will welcome death to release him from his cell. Killing him will not bring back the dead or deter any other attackers.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

I'm still against the death penalty.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Martyr

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

YuriOtani

If they hang him it would have to be from a wheel chair or to be lifted somehow.

It says death by lethal injection in the article.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

@ yuriotani

It would not look good for the US to kill a crippled man. If they hang him it would have to be from a wheel chair or to be lifted somehow.

lol you always seem to miss the main point of the article somehow.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

DJBooth

Meanwhile same military court just handed 15yr sentence to a soldier who murdered 16 innocent Afghan women & children in cold blood! Double standards maybe?

It looks bad but the differing sentences are a result of the pleas filed by the two defendants. SSGT Bales pleaded guilty, which automatically took the death penalty off the table as a potential sentence. The other recent cases of fratricide all plead guilty and so didn't receive the death penalty. MAJ Hasan on the other hand, who fully and proudly admits to the killings, intentionally refused to enter any plea at all knowing that by refusing to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty the court would be forced to try him as if he had pleaded not guilty. For him, a plea of not guilty would have been dishonest as he did not want to deny his actions in any way. He has stated that he considers a death sentence carried out by the US Government to be a death as a martyr, so he conducted his own legal defense exacly in a manner that would ensure his martyrdom. He wanted the death penalty so that's what he got. That's not a double standard.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

So this guy gets death, but the guy that slaughtered 16 Afghans gets life. Hmmmm...

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

This screams to the Muslim world that a Muslim life is cheaper than an American life:

Muslim kills 13 American soldiers - death sentence

American kills 16 Muslim civilians - prison sentence

Legal formalities aside, is the US military even remotely interested in conflict resolution?

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

This guy could have done many other things without shooting anyone. For example, he could have lit himself on fire in a public place to get media attention. Or just refuse to deploy and try to make a political fuss.

Anyway, lethal injection is way too good for this creep.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

One of the most horrible and selfish men I have seen news of in a long long time. I am very hopeful they execute him fast and as painfully as possible. He deserves to suffer as the families of those he murdered suffer ...all to give his allegance to an insane and overly mlitant sect of nuts that has terrorized the world for over a thousand years. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I hope he sits on death row indefinitely until he simply expires, and not as a martyr.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

For all who are perplexed or indignant about the differences in sentences handed down between this case and other recent US military trials, let me just ask this:

Would you arbitrarily surrender the sovereignty of your national laws in order to appease outside opinion, particularly when those opinions are unsympathetic to your culture?

Make no mistake, I'm NOT defending these verdicts, but as Mark Twain said: nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

smithinjapan, Get Real

So this guy gets death, but the guy that slaughtered 16 Afghans gets life. Hmmmm...

Legal formalities aside, is the US military even remotely interested in conflict resolution?

I can accept that the rational/legal explanation I gave previously for why SSGT Bales didn't receive the death sentence and why MAJ Hasan did would not be understood by someone on Arab street, particularly by someone with little formal schooling, but why you can't comprehend that it was the only logical and the only legally correct outcome to this trial is beyond me. So what if Muslims in Afghanistan get upset and think it's "unfair" as you are implying. Are you suggesting that the court should ignore its own laws in adjudicating a case like this one in the interest of promoting a particular perception overseas? Perhaps we should add a Sharia appendix to the UCMJ applicable only to our Muslim service members?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

So this fool will get the death penalty?? Cool! How about the other wacko who killed many innocent Afghan civilians?? Both will burn in hell for all of eternity, but just pointing out the double standard in so called American justice.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

A shame to give him what he wants when he could have been forced to live out his worthless life crippled enjoying the nappies.

Presumably he'll refuse appeal and be snuffed off rapidly. If he doesn't, it will be clear he finds martyrdom a little less appealing post conviction....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

To reiterate, making the plea the difference between life and death is extremely self-righteous.

Bales got life without parole, but can, and I bet WILL, be changed to a possibility of parole.

Hasan got a death sentence, but it will not happen unless the president approves. Still, its quite a disparity just how the plea went down. We are not talking about robbing a 7-11 here. We are talking about mass slayings.

Bales killed 16 innocent civilians in their own homes. He killed nine children, CHILDREN, as young as two. TWO YEARS OLD!

Hasan killed 13 uniformed military personnel on a military base, people who actually VOLUNTEERED to go fight and kill in a foreign country or otherwise help those fighting and killing people in their own country as they attempt to make real their image of what their own country should be.

The difference is night and day. Hardly matters if you think joining in the slaughter in Afghanistan is worthwhile or not. There is no bit of court procedure that can excuse the disparity between life for a mass killer of innocent children and death for a mass killer of volunteer soldiers. And if you oppose the war of profits in Afghanistan as I do, and decry that anybody would allow themselves to be shipped there to meddle, the difference is twice as stark.

Oh, hell no! This is crazy, and the people of Afghanistan have every right to be peeved. And if they start turning to the Taliban more, well what to do you expect?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@USNinJapan2 .. He (Hassan) has stated that he considers a death sentence carried out by the US Government to be a death as a martyr ... I can accept that the rational/legal explanation ... would not be understood by someone on Arab Street ... but why you can't comprehend that it was the only logical and the only legally correct outcome ...

I agree with you that it was the only logical and the only legally correct outcome ... within the legal framework by which he was judged. The fact is that same legal framework does not extend itself to protect certain peoples, such as Afghanistani commoners. It is set up that way on purpose, in order to protect US soldiers why are putting their lives on the line for their country while temporarily engaged in that madness known as war. But here's the rub; the war is LOST, in no small part because of a Taliban revival fueled by the indignation of Afghanistani commoners at living in war zone where the US legal framework does not extend itself to protect them.

I am sure you will say "NOT FAIR, the Taliban attack and hide behind women and children", which is true. "The constant pressure and hatred spawned by friends losing limbs and lives to IED is enough to drive some people crazy". True, and Bales became a man he would not have been if he had stayed home.

My conclusion is that the horrific crimes of Hussan and Bales and their apparently contradictory sentences (although completely logical and "just" within a certain legal framework) are merely symptoms of a larger problem: the US response to 9/11 which snowballed out of control, which has damaged our society and values, and which has left us exposed at a time when we face far greater risks than Al Queda.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

how is this not a terrorist attack?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The radical left can scream all they want about Sgt Bales, despite his own atrocities Bales used lawyers and was properly defended by a legal team to avoid the death penalty through a plea deal.

Hassan tossed his defence away "defending" himself much the same way he tossed the use of his legs and freedom away - and ultimately his life. Stupidly. This is nothing more than fundie suicide by Islam through a court martial.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The man found extreme fault with the U.S. military and is therefore not being cooperative. But the military cannot find any fault with itself and so does not comprehend or appreciate or even try to understand why he is not cooperating. Its called being self-righteous and its a big reason why this guy started shooting the soldiers of a self-righteous military in the first place.

Mr Hasan, as you say, found extreme fault with the military. In his own self-righteousness, he judged the military and others to be self righteous. So one day he started indiscriminately executing people around him, whilst shouting about his god. Its an indefensible act of cowardice.

Mr Hasan has made no defense of diminished mental capacity, showed no remorse whatsoever and is to this day proud of what he did.

If the US is going to have a death sentence, it would quite clearly apply here. Your spirited defense of this murderer is puzzling.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty.

So they both technically plead not guilty. Nice change in story there.

It looks bad but the differing sentences are a result of the pleas filed by the two defendants

Yeah, I see what you did.

and wish us all dead.

Don't put words in mouth. What I want is for military types to reflect, see the error of their ways, refuse bad assignments, actually mean it when they speak of DEFENDING MY FREEDOM (which they cannot do in Afghanistan) and become decent human beings opposed to death and war who would never make excuses for the disparity of these verdicts.

I've merely pointed out that the JAG Corps had no choice but to adjudicate MAJ Hasan's case as it did.

No choice?? Of COURSE there was a choice! To believe that there is no choice because "our military rules" say there is no choice is, again, self-righteous!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Lethal injection? What happened to live by the sword, die by the sword? Give him the firing squad, and ask for volunteers. I'm sure you could find plenty.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Calvin

I read US's first post on this story and found it a perfectly understandable explanation of the discrepancy in the sentences. While I disagree with his take on most issues, and seem to agree with you a lot more, in this case he's just explaining how the system, fair or otherwise, works. No story-changing or word-twisting going on. : )

2 ( +3 / -1 )

CalvinMonbllanc

Don't put words in your mouth?

CalvinMontblancAug. 25, 2013 - 02:08PM JST: "Hasan may be a loon, but if he is the instrument of sending such people (soldiers) to hell, so be it."

You used a few extra words to say that you wish us dead. Or did I misinterpret the word 'it'?

Either you didn't read my post(s) or don't understand simple English. My point is that US judicial law (both civil and military) require the court to treat a refusal to enter a plea as a de facto plea of not guilty. This is true for ALL criminal cases in the US, not the just military cases, and is true no matter how upset you or the aggrieved Afghans may get. You are demanding that the court violate a federal law in order to satisfy your personal moral views. THAT is self righteous.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I think posts have been deleted that make it a bit harder to follow what was said, but I agree with lucabrasi. USNinJapan2's post is quite clear about the reason for the different outcomes. He is just stating a fact of law.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Thank you lucabrasi for commenting, now I see my error, thanks to you. Too many issues on the table and so much frustration with excuse makers in general.

Yes Bales plead guilty, so no chance of death. Hasan's automatic plea was not guilty, so there is a chance of death. But its just not good enough. I still stick behind the reasoning that this is not a simple crime but a mass slaying, and no point of procedure can gloss that over. Its not justice but rather excuse making to have it and follow such a rule in cases like this. The plea ruling out or allowing life or death? That is madness. And it has allowed Hasan to play the system and win.

And further, the prosecution going for death was just more self-righteousness. Anyone with the gull to admit that soldiers during a war like this are the most legitimate targets ever would not go for death.

I have no doubt that down the road Bales will be released, and only further expose the disparity. But by that time, no one will be watching, and is precisely the outcome being considered by military minds right now. We all know it. Soldiers (and police) are valued more, even the ones that butchered innocent people.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Too many issues on the table and so much frustration with excuse makers in general.

Sorry to say, but that is kind of ironic since USNinJapan's first post was quite clear and you seem to be making excuses for not understanding it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@USNinJapan2 said:

So what if Muslims in Afghanistan get upset

Thank you for that clarification.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Calvin,

Having spent many years in a conflict (as a non-combatant), I find your revenge rhetoric distasteful. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

1.6 billion of our brothers and sisters have been once again been told (a view that some of our colleagues on this thread, who we might otherwise enjoy a beer with or hire, seem to support) that Muslim civilian lives are less precious than American military lives.

Do we really need to cloud such a straightforward argument?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

come on, no one is saying muslim civilians or american military lives are worth more over the other - I think 99.9% of the people on here think that the actions by these two vile creatures deserve each of them to be obliterated - however, the legal system and its wheels and cogs doesn't allow for that to happen. We don't have an automatic death sentance and everyone is entitled to "a fair trial" no matter how henious the crimes are or how rock solid the evidence is.

I don't agree with it but thats how the system works

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Calvin: So they both technically plead not guilty.

People often use the word "technically" as a way to push common sense aside.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Very stupid and ignorant to think that only MUSLIMS, only Afghans see this death penalty for killer of US soldiers in Texas but a white dude (also a US solider) goes nuts, shoots up a bunch of innocent women and kids in Afghanistan and??? Make excuses for this poor white boy who just had too much stress?? Kills off a couple of Afghan families but hey, just give him life in prison. Darker guy, kills a couple of fellow soldiers seeing them as Christian infidels, maybe plenty of white dudes in the wrong place at the wrong time and bang, bang, they are dead. But the US legal system says to NOT give him life in a crummy federal prison?? WTF?? Anybody with a brain and NON cwhite can see this as some racist, ignorant, backwards lower form of thinking that still exists in the USA. All of these murderers should get the death penalty, but by lethal injection?? WTF?? This is not right! The dude is already in a wheel chair, right?? How about getting a bit more creative, tie him up to that wheel chair, roll him off the side of the Grand Canyon, broadcast it live to the world, etc..that other fool Bales, drop his worthless no good racist behind, say butt naked and drop him off behind enemy lines back in Afghanistan, and let the good people of Afghanistan get real creative and let them torture him etc..that is karma and that is what will happen to him sooner or later, if not in this life time, in the next life time!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

One pleaded guilty and the other didn't. What part of that don't some of you understand? There's a world of difference between the two cases of SSGT Bale and MAJ Hasan.

A post of mine was deleted by the mod for allegedly being impolite to others, chiefly Calvin Montblanc, but as it's a critical point in understanding why one received the death sentence and one did not, I am going to repost it sans the part which I assume the mod found offensive:

CalvinMontblanc

...like a lot of military minded folks, you sure are adept with the excuse making, I will give that. But excuses are just that.

What excuses have I made? I've merely pointed out that the JAG Corps had no choice but to adjudicate MAJ Hasan's case as it did. In the military judicial system by which he was tried, the refusal to enter a plea is necessarily considered a plea of not guilty. Most importantly though, this isn't unique to military trials but is true for all cases tried in the Civil Law system of the United States as the Federal Rules for Criminal Procedures states:

Rule 11 Pleas: (a) Entering a Plea: (4) Failure to Enter a Plea. If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty.

Had MAJ Hasan been tried in a civil court the outcome would have been the same.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

USNinJapan: "So what if Muslims in Afghanistan get upset and think it's "unfair" as you are implying."

I'm neither Muslim nor am I in Afghanistan. What's interesting is to see people on this site and elsewhere saying lethal injection is 'too good' for this guy or what have you, but at the same time some of those posters actually have the gall to DEFEND a man who killed 16 innocents -- that's right, not people who were over there for war and knew they might be killed -- and defend his light sentence. It's rather amazing that you say you 'can't understand' someone's disbelief over the obvious hypocrisy. If this man had killed a bunch of Afghans or Iraqis in their sleep instead of fellow soldiers, probably half of you would be defending him, and he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

USNINJAPAN you are missing the point. It is how an action appears to others that count. The Muslim people will only see that the white Christian goes free and the Middle East dark skin Muslim gets killed. You can argue all you want to about US law but the truth hurts. Here is a man that wants to die and become a martyr to the cause. How many American military did for the satisfaction of killing a defenseless cripple? He death will cause the Muslim groups to be able to recruit an untold amount of fighters. Many will be prepared to give their lives using him as a role model. The trouble with the US military is they give western motivations to those they are fighting. They expect them to act like western culture people and that is why all of the middle east wars end in failure.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I have not seen anyone defending Bale's sentence. USinJapan has just been explaining why they both received the sentences they did based on the law of the US. Also, and I don't think I am mistaken here, I do not get the impression USinJapan was saying he did not care about Muslims, etc. It seems to me he was just saying that the opinions of people in other countries should not take precedence over laws in the US.

Perhaps people are getting a bit too excited and jumping to conclusions that are not revealed in people's words?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

True slumdog and the American military and people will pay the price.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

slumdog, lucabrasi, malfupete

Perhaps people are getting a bit too excited and jumping to conclusions that are not revealed in people's words?

Thank you. Good to know that some people read and take the time and effort to understand the point I was making. I've already put it in the simplest terms possible so if some here can't get past the "perceived hypocracy" and "but what will they think" fallacies there's little value in trying further.

YuriOtani

It is how an action appears to others that count.

Thanks for crystalizaing your position so succinctly and for demonstrating so clearly how you utterly fail to understand the purpose of domestic (in this case federal) laws, to mete out justice as defined by Americans and not anyone else.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

. This millitary court was held in Texas. Afgan case was held in somewhere else. Different military prosecutors, different judge and different jurors. Does not look like same military court. Unless all of people traveled back and forth every day. Different military courts, I believe.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

toshiko

Different military prosecutors, different judge and different jurors. Does not look like same military court.

Immaterial. Different courts/judges but same federal laws applied in the same way to two defendents who chose to be defended (or in MAJ Hasan's case defend himself) in compeletely different ways resulting in two very different verdicts. There is absolutely no hypocricy or inconsistency.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This story still hasn't made the Drudge Report page. Way to go JT. Somebody said "take him out back and shoot him." That's Communist style; Russian in the forehead and Chicom in the back of the head or neck. Somebody brought up Sharia Law: Not pretty since it involves sharp blades, stones, or a Derrick in Iran. They don't waste a lot of time on appeals, if any. I certainly wouldn't ask for it to be part of any of our jurisprudence. "Hung" vs "hanged": Hung is the past tense of "to hang" as in "They hung him." "Hanged" usually follows the verb "to be" as in "He was hanged." and "He may be hanged". The method of execution depends on the current edition of Manual of Military Executions. The last issue I saw was dated 1949 and only described hanging and the firing squad. There may be a later edition and some changes. Appeal time seems to be following Moore's Law (things double every 18 months); so, Pvt (prisoner) Hassam may die of old age first.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

USNNjAPAN2: Hasan refused to get defence attotneys. Do you know what this affect in trials in any USA court>? In Afgan case. defendants did not act stupid like Hasen, So, they avoided harsh sentence. To act on him is the stupidest decision. especially when death sentence is hanging.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At the start of his trial, Major Hassan declared: "the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter", an admission of guilt as explicit as Sergeant Bale's.

However, we are told by USNinJapan2 (who shrugs off Bale's victims and their families with "so what if Muslims in Afghanistan get upset!") that Hasan's 'Failure to Enter a Plea' creates a 'world of difference' between the cases of the Catholic soldier who murdered 16 civilians, including women and children as young as two, and the Muslim soldier who murdered 13 colleagues.

Is that 'world of difference' merely that single, legal technicality, a box unchecked?

Or is it that 'world of difference' created by the expedient othering of those whom, throughout US history, it was more profitable to revile than reconcile with: Redskins, Negroes, Papists, The Yellow Peril, Commies, Homosexuals, Gooks, Hispanics, Rag heads, A-rabs, Muslims, even (to a less ominous and lethal extent) Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys and 'Old' Europe?

George Walker Bush grasped that 'world of difference' succinctly with the sinister "You're either with us, or against us".

The Afghan victims and their families didn't get the Sharia justice that they sought, and I'm glad of that. Nidal Hasan did get the justice he sought, a promised martyrdom.

The court will have pleased the gallery and military morale, but at what price?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites