American Justice: No Guilty Plea for Hasan

[Tiassa]

American Justice: No Guilty Plea for Hasan

When will a court not accept a guilty plea from a defendant?

American courts are notorious for accepting perjury from defendants who plead out on a deal, but every once in a while a judge will intervene for various reasons including mental capacity.

Unusual, though, is a judge who refuses a guilty plea because she wants to kill the defendant.

Osborn also entered a not-guilty plea for Hasan, 42, after he refused to enter a plea.

Hasan told the judge Tuesday he earlier tried to plead guilty after his "Muslim community" told him his actions went against Islamic teachings. But he said he later came to believe his actions weren't wrong because of the war in Afghanistan.

Under military law, a death penalty case requires a plea of not guilty. The judge previously refused to remove death as a punishment option in Hasan's case after he asked to plead guilty.

(Brown)​

This is how the bad guys win. One by one, we throw away all the little things that make this country great. While it may be the in thing these days to fret about government surveillance, there are far more important things happening.

And I love the HuffPo headline: "Nidal Hasan To Enter Plea In Fort Hood Shooting Trial". No, the judge entered Hasan's plea for him, because he wasn't allowed to plead guilty.

And why not? Because if he does, we can't kill him.

God bless America.
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Angela K. "Nidal Hasan To Enter Plea In Fort Hood Shooting Trial". The Huffington Post. July 2, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. July 7, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/02/nidal-hasan-plea-_n_3532782.html

 

[GeoffP]

So? Kill him and have done. All this moaning and bleating: you're worried that it would be used to establish precedent in any such later crime but the facts are utterly indisputable. You actually think this more significant than collecting journalist's phone records?

 

[Tiassa]

At Least We're Enjoying the Ride ... Right?

So? Kill him and have done.

Spoken like a true American.

All this moaning and bleating: you're worried that it would be used to establish precedent in any such later crime but the facts are utterly indisputable.

No, Geoff. It's a military court. It's not something people who are smart enough to stay out of military service have anything to worry about yet, despite Americans having chosen a path they might someday find themselves regretting in this context. I mean, yes, it's a military court, but we do also try alleged foreign terrorists in military courts, and current policy allows the killing of American citizens abroad as if they were foreign fighters. So it doesn't establish a precedent yet, but We, the People, have time to stop the bleeding before it gets life-threatening.

The issue here is the pretense of justice. The "trial" is now a mere formality along the way to killing the defendant? No, they should just skip the trial and stand him in front of the ditch if this is how they're going to do it.

You actually think this more significant than collecting journalist's phone records?

I do actually find such American barbarism more significant than a periodic societal temper tantrum that We, the People, don't really want to bother with fixing. (See also: #3077859/23, 3077948/31, 3077992/34, 3078364/51.)

Are people ready to fix the situation? Great, then let us do so.

What's that? We'd rather elect the same old clones because, you know, abortion and homosexuals and all that? Okay. As the people want, so the people get.

I would also note a relevant post in light of the parenthetical list provided above, but written by one with whom I frequently disagree about political issues:

What people generally don't realize is that while terrorism in and of itself is bad enough, the worse fact is the proportion of people that terrorists implicitly represent. Small committed minorities may be able to force 'democratic' (and there's an ironic usage) outcomes that support their extremist views. A few bombs going off, while horrible, is peanuts compared to institutionalized fascism, religious or otherwise. At risk of someone bitching about the invocation of Godwin: Hitler. Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler, Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler. It's true: most people will not become terrorists. However, civil rights and equality decline with increasing numbers of their supporters. This is the real significance of the proportionalist line of inquiry.​

I certainly agree with my neighbor, though I have a feeling he might disagree with my present application of our shared sentiment.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I am opposed to the death penalty for two reasons:

• 1. There are too many innocent people on Death Row. Many of them are guilty of other crimes so it's hard for them to make a good impression on a jury, yet those are not capital crimes. Others are simply railroaded.
• 2. Killing someone does not punish him. He can't feel chastised because he is dead. All we're doing is punishing everyone who ever loved him or tried to help him: His children, his spouse, his parents, his priest, his basketball coach, his scoutmaster. As I've said often, if you come home and find some miscreant stabbing your wife (or in my house even my dog), you can be forgiven for losing your veneer of civilization and killing him; especially since there might not be any other effective way of making him stop without letting him get away. But if you actually manage to tie him up while your wife holds a knife to his throat, call the cops, go through the months of torture that being a crime victim and then a witness entails, and when you're all done the shit-for-brains government kills him anyway, you have to wonder why you bothered. Capital punishment is nothing but revenge writ large, and revenge is the most primitive and evil of all human emotions. It should not be encouraged, especially by a government that in all other areas of life implores us to act civilized.

Nonetheless, that said, I only have a finite amount of attention and energy to devote to causes I think are important. I'm just not going to siphon some of it off in order to plead for the life of a man who is incontrovertibly guilty, who killed a large number of people, and who was motivated by religion, one of the other primitive and evil human emotions. If his parents, teachers and scoutmaster (and surely his mullah) were so incompetent that they turned him loose on the world with that bad an outlook, I can't say I feel too sorry for their loss.

If you guys mount a campaign and get him off, of course I'll give you a high five and praise you for making civilization just a little more civil. But I've got some factory-farm animals that need better quarters, some immigrants who have lived here since they were two years old but are scheduled for deportation, some pregnant women who can't drive the 500 miles to a state with abortion clinics, and a government that can finally be truthfully described as "worse than no government at all." I have to devote my spare time and energy to those causes.

But good luck!

 

[GeoffP]

Spoken like a true American.

Tiassa, I'm shocked at this blatant xenophobia. Surely there's room for a little informed social diversity hereabouts? Why, look at the flag I'm flying up there. Surely this proves my indulgent love for capitalism, pie and smut.

(Or is this a critique of the bloodlust of your countrymen? Other empires have certainly been worse, you know.)

But you can't contradict yourself in the same paragraph. Either it's a step in the process of precedent, or it's not:

No, Geoff. It's a military court. It's not something people who are smart enough to stay out of military service have anything to worry about yet, despite Americans having chosen a path they might someday find themselves regretting in this context. I mean, yes, it's a military court, but we do also try alleged foreign terrorists in military courts, and current policy allows the killing of American citizens abroad as if they were foreign fighters. So it doesn't establish a precedent yet, but We, the People, have time to stop the bleeding before it gets life-threatening.

Clearly, you find it threatening as precedent - to whatever extent military law informs civil law (no idea), and to whatever endpoint this achieves. Here's my counter-call: fuck that. The American system is awash in power decision-making, bias, tampering and economic litigation. I think it's gone on long enough to say that the experiment as a moral tale has failed. So, how about, in this case, just shoot him. Is there really any doubt in your mind that he's guilty? In almost anyone's? Is there any reasonable chance he could get off? I mean, aside from shooting a pregnant woman and all.

The issue here is the pretense of justice. The "trial" is now a mere formality along the way to killing the defendant? No, they should just skip the trial and stand him in front of the ditch if this is how they're going to do it.

Actually, I agree: the best way was at the point of the shooting. 'He resisted arrest, sir.' Done. A regrettable fallshort in the soldiers that got him: they caught him, but didn't see the bigger picture. If shooting him in a ditch and getting that image around to his quiet supporters would be more effective, though, well...

I do actually find such American barbarism more significant than a periodic societal temper tantrum that We, the People, don't really want to bother with fixing.

Depends on the kind of social malaise. I don't completely object to the AP phone collection, but neither do I support it. It seems kind of questionable in value, but as an infringement on the 'American dream', is it better or worse than just extrajudicially shooting Hasan? I mean, it's only one douchebag. The former sounds like a lot more threatening to the kind of social values you people hold in such admiration.

Are people ready to fix the situation? Great, then let us do so.

What's that? We'd rather elect the same old clones because, you know, abortion and homosexuals and all that? Okay. As the people want, so the people get.

Actually I thought this last guy was supposed to be the non-clone or something. Hope, change, hopeychange, new way, etc etc.

I would also note a relevant post in light of the parenthetical list provided above, but written by one with whom I frequently disagree about political issues:

What people generally don't realize is that while terrorism in and of itself is bad enough, the worse fact is the proportion of people that terrorists implicitly represent. Small committed minorities may be able to force 'democratic' (and there's an ironic usage) outcomes that support their extremist views. A few bombs going off, while horrible, is peanuts compared to institutionalized fascism, religious or otherwise. At risk of someone bitching about the invocation of Godwin: Hitler. Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler, Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler. It's true: most people will not become terrorists. However, civil rights and equality decline with increasing numbers of their supporters. This is the real significance of the proportionalist line of inquiry.​

I certainly agree with my neighbor, though I have a feeling he might disagree with my present application of our shared sentiment.

I had no idea I had such a fan! I would be happy to send you a signed copy for framing, for a modest fee. (The American Way, you understand.)

And you have, in your fan-dom - worthier, I am sure, than any Hitchensian poser - predicted my response: no, I don't think it fits. But in order to lever it into the pigeonhole before it, I simply add the following selection of provisos at no additional cost:

1.) But an informed social Soviet is a beautiful thing.

Or:

2). Yes, but not in this case. Because: come on. Seriously. It's not the same thing.

All right, humour aside: the brilliant quote above refers to counter-revolutionary movements. I'm not necessarily asking for a change in the inaequalitas quo ante. Just shoot the little fucker, to illustrate that you mean business. Why not? Lives are destroyed every day in this Great Shining City on the hill for philosophical peanuts compared to that. Heck, I'm advocating the prolonging of your empire, something the Romans couldn't be arsed to do in that unfortunate fifth century falldown. Eh.

And Fraggle: his teachers, scoutmaster (really?) and mullah didn't lose anything. The people he shot and their families did. I'm fairly sure none of the people you mentioned are worrying about it too much, and at risk of seeming controversial, one of them might have helped him along a little. Maybe, just maybe, he might be a little happy about it. Sorry about the broken hearts of the rest of them, but hey: he was a shitbag.

 

[Bells]

Clearly, you find it threatening as precedent - to whatever extent military law informs civil law (no idea), and to whatever endpoint this achieves. Here's my counter-call: fuck that. The American system is awash in power decision-making, bias, tampering and economic litigation. I think it's gone on long enough to say that the experiment as a moral tale has failed. So, how about, in this case, just shoot him. Is there really any doubt in your mind that he's guilty? In almost anyone's? Is there any reasonable chance he could get off? I mean, aside from shooting a pregnant woman and all.

You don't think there is anything wrong with the thought that a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, is attempting to sway the trial and has already stated from the outset what the determination of the trial will be - in this case the death penalty?

In other words, a defendant pleads guilty to a crime - he is accepting fault. He has clearly said he has done it.

It is not the place or role of the judge to then reject that plea because it would mean that they cannot utilise the death penalty as a result of said plea. What that does is show that the court and the justice system is not impartial and that judges are interfering with the trial to ensure they are able to hand down the punishment they want to give. In this case, the judge clearly wants the death penalty. What the judge has done is subvert the course of justice by refusing to allow the defendant to enter a plea of guilty because she wants Hasan to get the death penalty. That is not impartial. Frankly, it is obscene..

Then again, perhaps it is solely dependent on the nationality of the killer and the victims..

In contrast, last month at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales pleaded guilty as charged to premeditated murder and other charges as part of a deal that removed death as a punishment option. Bales killed 16 Afghan villagers during pre-dawn raids in 2011 during his fourth deployment. A penalty-phase trial next month will determine whether Bales is sentenced to life in prison with or without the possibility of parole.​

 

[GeoffP]

You don't think there is anything wrong with the thought that a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, is attempting to sway the trial and has already stated from the outset what the determination of the trial will be - in this case the death penalty?

In other words, a defendant pleads guilty to a crime - he is accepting fault. He has clearly said he has done it.

Good. So shoot him and get on with it. Surely there are more important cases awaiting trial?

It is not the place or role of the judge to then reject that plea because it would mean that they cannot utilise the death penalty as a result of said plea. What that does is show that the court and the justice system is not impartial and that judges are interfering with the trial to ensure they are able to hand down the punishment they want to give.

Of course judges aren't impartial. They never have been. In this case, who cares? I wouldn't particularly mind - in fact, I think I might applaud - if he just climbed down from his bench and beat Hasan to death with his gavel. As far as the judge himself wanting the death penalty, my supposition is that his motivation probably comes from a little higher up.

 

[Bells]

Good. So shoot him and get on with it. Surely there are more important cases awaiting trial?

Why even bother with a criminal justice system at all?

Or does this only apply to certain individuals or crimes? Should the rule of law cease to apply for particular crimes?

So much for the notion of democracy and an impartial justice system, huh?

Of course judges aren't impartial. They never have been. In this case, who cares? I wouldn't particularly mind - in fact, I think I might applaud - if he just climbed down from his bench and beat Hasan to death with his gavel. As far as the judge himself wanting the death penalty, my supposition is that his motivation probably comes from a little higher up.

It is interesting that you respond this way to Hasan but not to the American soldier who decided to go and slaughter over a dozen civilians in their homes in Afghanistan. And yet, he was allowed to enter a guilty plea.

As I said, I guess it depends solely on the nationality of the perpetrator and the victims, doesn't it?

And 'who cares?'? Really? Really?

When it gets to the point where you can no longer guarantee that the rule of law will be followed and that judges are refusing to accept pleas from the defendant because it could mean that they do not get the death penalty, then it is fair to say that as a society, you are royally fucked, for lack of a better term. You can no longer consider yourself a free democracy.

Bloody hell, you might as well just take him out back and lynch him now. Because this is the kind of crap that happened prior to the Civil Rights era, where 'niggers' were just hung because people in society said "who cares?" if they get a fair trial or not. Why even bother with the farce that is a trial? If the judge won't allow him to plead guilty, this trial is obviously an absolute farce solely for the comfort of the blind portrayal that it is a democracy. The reality is that such a trial would be more at home in Iran, where the verdict and sentence is predetermined before the trial even starts.

 

[quinnsong]

@ Geoff,

I was so looking forward to you addressing the double standard that Bells pointed out and not one word from you about this. Why?

 

[GeoffP]

Why even bother with a criminal justice system at all?

Bit of a stretch.

Or does this only apply to certain individuals or crimes? Should the rule of law cease to apply for particular crimes?

Sure. Why not?

Like I said, the American experiment in equal justice has failed, categorically. Why pretend otherwise? Take a lesson from the barbarians and send someone the guy's head, if it would help. No, literally send someone his head. This devotion to process is hypocritical and maudlin: look, he's guilty. It's pretty obvious. There's really no question. Instead of just having quietly shot him 'accidentally' during arrest - the socially responsible thing to do - the US is dragged into what is bound to be another incredibly expensive trial. In a hundred pinpricks, Islamism could do more economic damage to the US than three 9/11s. American justice bends the rules all the time: a few journalist's phonecalls collected there, a touch of Guantanamo behind the fence, and so on. It's about power then, but not now? At the least make your enemies respect you. Look: did he do it or not? Answer that.

So much for the notion of democracy and an impartial justice system, huh?

Hell, that ship sailed so long ago you can't even see the smoke from here. You can't really think this one deviation would sink democracy after everything else. Google "CIA" and "1970s".

It is interesting that you respond this way to Hasan but not to the American soldier who decided to go and slaughter over a dozen civilians in their homes in Afghanistan.

I don't know much about the latter guy. Should I find it interesting that you find it interesting that I didn't comment on his case? Hmmm?

As I said, I guess it depends solely on the nationality of the perpetrator and the victims, doesn't it?

And 'who cares?'? Really? Really?

Yeah, really. Why should I care? Just shoot him.

When it gets to the point where you can no longer guarantee that the rule of law will be followed and that judges are refusing to accept pleas from the defendant because it could mean that they do not get the death penalty, then it is fair to say that as a society, you are royally fucked, for lack of a better term. You can no longer consider yourself a free democracy.

What, you think up until now the US has been this paragon of ecumenical justice? Grow up. Power is about one thing: power.

Bloody hell, you might as well just take him out back and lynch him now.

Well, if you think that would be better...

Because this is the kind of crap that happened prior to the Civil Rights era, where 'niggers' were just hung because people in society said "who cares?" if they get a fair trial or not.

They had horsey rides and daisies and bunnies back then too. Maybe we should ban them also. Since you're feeling around for a moral imperative here, hanging African-Americans just for being African-Americans is not really the same as shooting an enemy of your society for being an enemy of your society.

Why even bother with the farce that is a trial?

As I grow into maturity, I'm reminded of the old Soviet practice of 'show trials': a public pageant for the purposes of making a political point.

If the judge won't allow him to plead guilty, this trial is obviously an absolute farce solely for the comfort of the blind portrayal that it is a democracy. The reality is that such a trial would be more at home in Iran, where the verdict and sentence is predetermined before the trial even starts.

Well, why not? Show your enemies you're not a pack of decadent powderpuffs. That's what they think, you know.

@ Geoff,

I was so looking forward to you addressing the double standard that Bells pointed out and not one word from you about this. Why?

I think I already said that the American justice system is corrupt. As for the specific case she pointed out, though, I don't even know that it's an unequivocal a case as Hasan. Is it?

Also, evil, clearly.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It is not the place or role of the judge to then reject that plea because it would mean that they cannot utilise the death penalty as a result of said plea.

Yes, actually it is, at least a judge in a U.S. military court. They do not have the same rules as civil courts.

Now I'm not saying that this is a good idea. I'm just explaining it to someone who's not familiar with the American legal system.

In most civil trials in the U.S. the judge decides the sentence of a defendant who's been found guilty. His choices don't range from "apologize, pay a $100 fine and go home," all the way to the electric chair (or whatever technology they're using today), but he can make a prison term significantly shorter or significantly longer, and in some cases he can elect probation if the miscreant did not harm anyone physically.

So this judge thinks he should have more leeway than a civil judge (who, actually, in certain circumstances can also reject guilty pleas), so that if the defendant is found guilty he can be executed. And please note that by rejecting the guilty plea he is, indeed, opening the possibility (admittedly slight but nonetheless possible and stranger things happen every day) that the defendant could be found not guilty and sleep in his own bed after the trial is over.

If you think the judge is a barbarian for wanting the death penalty to be an option, I can't argue. As I said in my earlier post, once the government has gone to the trouble of capturing a criminal and locking him up so he can do no more harm, it is nothing more than revenge (the most evil and primitive of all human emotions) to then kill him.

But we have to remember that this is a military court and all of the people involved with the crime and the trial are military people. Military people, by definition, believe that it's okay to kill people in the "right" circumstances. They do it every day. (Well anyway I think our paid professional killers in the Middle East average at least 365 summary executions per year.) So for one of them to believe it should be okay to kill Hasan, well hey they would certainly have done that without a trial if his crime had been committed in Afghanistan and he were wearing a Taliban uniform (or however those assholes identify themselves).

What that does is show that the court and the justice system is not impartial and that judges are interfering with the trial to ensure they are able to hand down the punishment they want to give.

As I noted, this also opens the possibility of Hasan going free, a possibility that doesn't exist if he pleads guilty.

In this case, the judge clearly wants the death penalty.

What member of the U.S. armed forces--paid professional killers one and all--would not want that? This is hardly remarkable!

What the judge has done is subvert the course of justice by refusing to allow the defendant to enter a plea of guilty because she wants Hasan to get the death penalty. That is not impartial. Frankly, it is obscene..

Paid professional killers believe that the death penalty is appropriate if you even look like you might do something wrong. In fact they have summarily executed rather a large number of unarmed, more-or-less neutral civilians in this War on Islam--just for being Muslims or Iraqis or simply being there in their own country committing the crime of not being Americans.

Save your finite stock of pity for those people, as well as the ones who have been raped or maimed or widowed or orphaned or waterboarded or had their towns destroyed so they now live in poverty. At least this guy really is an asshole! He personally does not deserve anyone's pity. We all understand that this conversation is taking place at an abstract level, so let's not get carried away.

In contrast, last month at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales pleaded guilty as charged to premeditated murder and other charges as part of a deal that removed death as a punishment option. Bales killed 16 Afghan villagers during pre-dawn raids in 2011 during his fourth deployment. A penalty-phase trial next month will determine whether Bales is sentenced to life in prison with or without the possibility of parole.

Exactly. These victims are the ones who deserve our pity. I find this outrage to be qualitatively much stronger than my merely philosophical outrage over Hasan.

And once again, for the benefit of the lady on the opposite side of the planet who only knows about America from news reports that are only 50% complete and accurate (the ones we get occasionally approach 75% ), there are millions of other Americans who feel as I do, and are trying to find ways to put an end to this. At this point it's a quite reasonable option to simply bring all the paid professional killers home before they bring down the wrath of the entire human population on the USA, instead of merely the 20% of that population (or whatever the figure is) who are Muslims.