Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

August 19, 2013 - 1:52 pm

Did I say “terrorist trial”? I’m sorry — I meant to say the trial of the Muslim who screamed “Alahu Akbar” while gunning down more than 40 people in what was obviously a case of workplace violence.

The judge nixed the prosecutors motion that he could introduce evidence that Nidal Hasan’s motive for the mass murder was jihad. Apparently, if you don’t mention the word “jihad,” you don’t have to say the word “terrorist.”

ABC News:

awyers representing the family members of those killed and injured in the Ft. Hood shooting rampage were outraged today when an Army judge limited prosecutors from introducing evidence, including emails to a known Al Qaeda operative, that would establish accused shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan’s “jihadi” motives.

The judge’s rulings could inhibit the ability of the victims’ families to claim in a civil suit that the shootings were an act of terror. Federal lawyers involved in the civil suit claim that the people shot during Hasan’s murderous rage were victims of workplace violence, a designation that could sharply limit the damages in a civil suit.

“This is first degree mass murder case and motive is absolutely relevant to prove premeditation,” said Neal Sher, a lawyer representing many of the victims and their family members in a separate civil suit against the government.

Prosecutors have sought to portray Hasan as a Muslim extremist, motivated by Islamist ideology and in touch with known al Qaeda member Anwar Alwaki.

“He didn’t want to deploy and he came to believe he had a jihad duty to murder soldiers,” lead prosecutor Col. Steve Henricks said in his opening statements. He wanted to “kill as many soldiers as he could.”

The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, ruled today that prosecutors could not mention Hasan’s correspondence with Alwaki, an American born al Qaeda recruiter and organizer. Osborn also barred prosecutors from mentioning Hassan’s interest in seeking conscientious objector status and drawing parallels to a 2003 incident in which another Muslim American soldier attacked U.S. troops in Kuwait, according to the Associated Press.

The judge found much of that evidence was too old, but permitted prosecutors to introduce evidence about Hasan’s internet usage and search history from the time of the attack.

Many of the victims and their family members have filed a civil suit against the government, arguing that the attack should be classified as a terrorist attack, allowing victims to receive combat medals, like the Purple Heart, and receive better benefits.

The government maintains that the attack was an incidence of “workplace violence.”

Is that what all this “workplace violence” nonsense is all about? The army doesn’t want to give the victim’s families better benefits? And, of course, the exposure of the military in a civil suit is also lessened.

Are we playing with words about this attack because of money?

It seems that President Obama, who could easily intervene in this matter as commander in chief and designate the massacre as a terrorist attack so that families could be justly compensated, is perfectly willing to give billions to his unions supporters but begrudges a few million dollars for the families of the fallen.

Not surprising in the least.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Another Army judge will soon rule that water is not wet. The U.S. Army judicial system is now totally politicized and corrupt.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (12)
All Comments   (12)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If one wanted to destroy the American military, to suppress both enlistment and reenlistment, I can't think of a better way to do it The enemy isn't the enemy and when that nonexistent enemy kills or maims you........you're on your own.

Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? That starts at the top.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, now we know whose pocket the judge is in.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Another Army judge will soon rule that water is not wet. The U.S. Army judicial system is now totally politicized and corrupt.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is not killing in the name of my god of the Kaaba, and Muhammad, it is murdering in their names. Please, let's get that corrected.

Don't worry folks. Another moon god worshiper will murder in the name of Sin soon enough. Maybe, while this BS is going on.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
New political correctness rule: crimes don't have motives; they happen in a vacuum.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
In the end this won't be an issue. Nidal Hasan will not be able to resist bringing it up as his motive. He will introduce jihad into the trial to the chagrin of the PC-types in government and the military. Hasan didn't get the memo from Susan Rice either to blame it on Hollywood or to claim work-related stress as his excuse.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
He isn't trying to "resist" brining it up. He's boasting about it. He's INSISTING on it. And he will continue to do so.

It won't matter. The judge will instruct the jury to ignore it, and they will.

The orders have been given.

This man will be convicted, but Islam will not be.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
In response president Obama did offer these words of comfort "I could have been Nidal Hasan"

35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just when I think this administration has gotten to be absolutely as disgraceful as possible they prove me wrong.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Only in America will the legal institution continue to have a trial after the accused man emphatically admits to committing the crime he was accused of doing and exclaimed the justification for the crime for which the legal institution says that cannot be considered in weighing his guilt.

Wait a minute, why are we having a trial for a man who admits to the crime and he is the shooter?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
He cannot plead guilty to a crime with a potential for death penalty in our system which is as it should be. I am no legal expert but it seems wrong that he should even be allowed to represent himself in that situation. All such trials need to be to the letter or we risk tyranny and summary executions in other situations.

The tragedy to victims is they cannot receive compensation as combat victims. They are getting lousy benefits because of this. It is blatantly obvious that he is a Jihadi and says so openly. This trial is a farce. There is no such thing as fair independant legal system in our country anymore.

35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
As a friend of mine said in a different context, "What we have is a legal system, not a justice system." In other words, our system focuses on what people can legally be charged with and finds loopholes as best it can to exculpate the guilty. Justice is rarely sought or delivered.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “Judge in Fort Hood Terrorist Trial Rules Against Jihad as Motive”