Sign up FAST! Login

Fort Hood judge blocks ‘jihad’ evidence

Stashed in:

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

<The ruling also frustrated Reed Rubinstein, an attorney representing victims and their relatives in a civil lawsuit against the U.S. government. He said only in an “alternative universe” could the emails excluded by Osborn be irrelevant.>

Well this is a mess.

Yes it is.

How it started: 

Last week, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan told the judge he was protecting Taliban leaders in Afghanistan from danger when he opened fire at the base on Nov. 5, 2009, killing 13 people. In describing his new defense — known in legal terms as a “defense of others” — he said he was defending the lives of Taliban leaders, including Mullah Muhammad Omar, the group’s founder, from Fort Hood soldiers deploying to Afghanistan.

On Friday, the judge, Col. Tara A. Osborn, told Major Hasan that his defense in this case failed as a matter of law, and that no one at Fort Hood posed an immediate threat to anyone in Afghanistan that day. In addition, she told him that the legitimacy of the United States’ involvement in the war in Afghanistan was not at issue in the case, and that as a soldier, he had no justification to kill other soldiers. He was forbidden to present evidence and testimony relating to his “defense of others” argument when his trial begins.

How it got twisted:  

Appearing on Fox News Wednesday, Fort Hood survivor Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford blasted Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department for allowing the incident to be labeled as “workplace violence” rather than the act of terrorism it clearly was. Because of the distinction, the brave men and women who were injured in the terrorist attack are not eligible for decorations, such as a Purple Heart, or combat-related benefits.

You May Also Like: