Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ft. Hood Shooting: What's the Army Hiding?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
jakeXT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:24 PM
Original message
Ft. Hood Shooting: What's the Army Hiding?
Ft. Hood Shooting: What's the Army Hiding?

Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major accused of killing 13 and wounding 32 in the 2009 shooting rampage at Ft. Hood, is on his way to a court-martial that could sentence him to death. But in a break with military custom, the Army won't release the critical report that convinced authorities to indict Hasan for capital murder. It's a decision that has some reporters wondering what the service doesn't want them to see.

Sig Christenson, a military writer for the San Antonio Express-News who has covered the Hasan case from the start, says the Army is acting fishy. "Sometimes, the military as an institution fights harder to do as it pleases than it does to preserve your First Amendment rights," he writes. Christenson is an officer of Military Reporters and Editors, which supports journalists who cover defense affairs, and he's asked the group's attorney to provide a legal opinion on whether the Army's violating open-records rules. (Full disclosure: I am a MRE board member.) Other major media organizations are expected to sign on to a letter demanding the Army explain why it's keeping the report under wraps. "You cannot condition access to the courts," he states. It's not the first roadblock Army authorities have thrown in front of reporters covering the Hasan case: Journalists say that at one point, they were told not to ask prosecutors certain questions, or else they'd face expulsion from the court.

But the phantom report is a new twist. Army prosecutors held an indictment hearing against Hasan last year, known in military parlance as an "Article 32" investigation. The hearing, called "chilling" by observers, was open to the public, and the case against Hasan seemed straightforward, according to retired Army lawyer Geoffrey Corn, who observed the proceedings. Fifty-six government witnesses testified that they were shot at by Hasan or saw him shooting at others. Prosecutors rolled out the autopsies of the 13 dead victims; they detailed how many spent bullet casings were found at the scene (146) and how many unused bullets were found in Hasan's possession (177). Within weeks, the judge, Colonel James Pohl, issued a final Article 32 report ruling that Hasan should be tried for capital murder.

But the Army has repeatedly refused to reveal the contents of Pohl's report. That's highly unusual in military justice circles. The Army "has released Article 32 investigating officer reports in the past, sometimes even before the commander had opted on a course of action, and that made sense," Christenson writes. It's normally a routine step: "he investigating officer's sole mission was to tell the commander if there is enough evidence in the case to justify taking it to a judge and jury."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/whats-army-hiding-ft-hood

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. The military gets most of our money. They can do whatever they want.
What army will stop them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's the reason for the hush-hush: Anwar Al-Awlaki also shepherded the Flt. 77 hijackers
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 02:26 PM by leveymg
during their stay in US prior to 9/11, following them from San Diego to Northern Virginia as they moved across the country, meeting with other 9/11 cell members and al-Qaeda supporters. In addition to the Ft. Hood shooter, he also had e-mail exchanges with the Underwear Bomber and the would-be Times Square SUV Bomber.

He seems to know all the major Al-Qaeda terrorists in the U.S. before they carry out their attacks. To know him, is to know them before they do it. No doubt, Imam al-Awlaki is probably one of the most closely watched clerics on earth.

Odd, that he was actually in U.S. custody after 9/11, but they let him leave the U.S. "by mistake", and have repeatedly "failed" to kill him in Predator missile attacks in Yemen.
See, Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakeXT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Reminiscent of 9/11 or 7/7 were drills or people thinking they were in a drill
Soldier Keara Bono survived the onslaught although she was wounded slightly in the back and grazed in the head.

Bono told "Good Morning America" today that she initially thought the scene of Hasan standing up, praising Allah and starting to fire was a drill. She didn't believe it was real even when she felt her own blood, she said.

"Then I looked to my left and right and I saw people that were bleeding," she said. That's when Bono realized that Hasan's rampage wasn't a drill.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/fort-hood-shooter-maj-nidal-malik-hasan-shot/story?id=9018559

Pfc. Amber Bahr of Random Lake heard someone yelling and ducked at the sound of gunfire, but she said she thought supervisors at Fort Hood were holding a drill last Thursday.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/69626847.html



The Underwear bomber was monitored and let through



THOMPSON: In the process. Does it revoke the visa? Does it...

KENNEDY: We -- we -- as I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman, if we unilaterally revoked a visa, and there was the case recently up, we have -- we have a request from a -- from a law enforcement agency to not revoke the visa. We -- we came across information. We said, "This is a dangerous person." We were ready to revoke the visa. We then went to the community and said, "Should we revoke this visa?"

And one of the members -- and we'd be glad to give you that out of -- in private -- said, "Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person."

So we will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, "Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot?"

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/political-transcript-wire/mi_8167/is_20100128/rep-bennie-thompson-holds-hearing/ai_n50814061/pg_8/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Same operational M.O. repeatedly fails to stop the targets. Goes back to Embassy & Cole bombs.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 04:08 PM by leveymg
When are they ever going to learn that operational security and compartmentalization doesn't trump all other considerations, including innocent human lives?

They've gotten better, but that's until the next CT catastrophic failure occurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. As usual, they're hiding anything that contradicts the "lone-wolf" theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC