- Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
Prosecutors getting to motive in Fort Hood trial
Question of the Day
FORT HOOD, Texas — The prosecutors pursuing the death penalty against the Army psychiatrist accused in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting rampage will soon begin trying to answer a difficult but key question: Why did Maj. Nidal Hasan attack his fellow soldiers in the worst mass shooting ever on a U.S. military base?
Both sides offered a few hints so far. Although he’s been mostly silent in the courtroom, Hasan used his brief opening statement to tell jurors he had “switched sides” in what he called America’s war with Islam; he later leaked documents to the media showing he believed he could be a martyr.
Military prosecutors opened the trial by saying they would show that Hasan felt he had a “jihad duty,” referring to a Muslim term for a religious war or struggle. After calling almost 80 witnesses over two weeks, prosecutors said Friday they would begin tackling the question this week.
How much they can say to jurors, however, may be limited by the judge. Even though plenty of information about Hasan’s extremist views has been published since the rampage, the 13 military officers on the jury said they had not closely followed the case and wouldn’t read news coverage during the trial.
Prosecutors asked the military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, on Friday to approve evidence and several witnesses to explain Hasan’s mindset. Such evidence includes references to Hasan Akbar, a Muslim soldier sentenced to death for attacking fellow soldiers in Kuwait during the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Prosecutor Col. Steve Henricks told Osborn that Hasan had shown interest in Akbar’s case and prosecutors wanted to prove Hasan’s attack was a “copycat.” The skeptical judge told Henricks she didn’t want to hold a “mini-trial” of Akbar and asked how he would introduce the case to jurors. Henricks said he planned to call a prosecutor to discuss its basics, but he didn’t identify the prosecutor. Akbar was prosecuted by Col. Mike Mulligan, the lead prosecutor in Hasan’s trial.
Henricks has alleged that besides his so-called “jihad duty,” Hasan was looking for ways to get out of deploying, and he said witnesses could include former classmates who heard him talking about suicide bombers.
Prosecutors also said they wanted to introduce three emails, but they didn’t disclose details. The FBI has said Hasan sent numerous emails starting in December 2008 to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.
Osborn promised to rule Monday on what prosecutors could present.
Even if Osborn keeps out most or all of the disputed evidence — a possibility since any issue could come up on appeal — prosecutors have done plenty to prove Hasan deserves the death penalty, said Richard Rosen, a military law expert who teaches at Texas Tech University. He described some of what prosecutors hope to present as further “nails in the coffin.”
“This isn’t a terrorism trial, and she may decide that this would just unnecessarily inflame the jury, and that it’s not worth the risk,” Rosen said. “But it clearly is relevant evidence.”
Prosecutors said they had between 15 and 25 witnesses left, meaning Hasan could get his chance to defend himself as early as Tuesday or Wednesday. He signaled before trial that he had just two witnesses.
Hasan — who is acting as his own attorney — told jurors during a barely one-minute opening statement that evidence “will clearly show that I am the shooter,” but he said it wouldn’t tell the whole story.
Since then, his defense has been nearly non-existent. He questioned only two of prosecutors’ witnesses and didn’t object to hundreds of pieces of evidence.
He mumbled through a series of rambling questions of his former supervisor, retired Lt. Col. Ben Phillips, talking about “medical personnel initiating mercy killings” and a water supply in Iraq being contaminated with gas. But he was cut off by prosecutors’ objection, which was upheld by the judge.
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Federal deficit shrinks 20 percent in fiscal 2014
- MILLER: Obamacare enrollees include 101 members of the House of Representatives
- EDITORIAL: Our ideological president
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Red Alert focuses on the hottest political topics in the nation and calls Americans to action.
History doesn't have to be grim; there is a lot to be learned from the pages of time.
The Constitution: Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. And how to get from here to there.
Why can’t humans just be free to be humans?
White House pets gone wild!