Fort Hood killer to argue ‘defense of others’ justification for murder

Let’s take him at his word.

Islamist U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, the terrorist who killed 13, including a pregnant woman, during an attack on the Fort Hood, Texas, Army base 2009 wants to use a “defense of others” justification for his actions, according to the Associated Press.

Let him.

nidalhasanIt will clarify a couple of things for the death-penalty phase before the guilt phase of the trial even starts.

As writer J. Robert Smith pointed out on American Thinker, the defense will demolish the Obama administration’s absurd categorization of Hasan’s murderous actions as an act of “workplace violence.” Such a phrase doesn’t deserve an argument from a sane individual, but Hasan, with his “Soldier of Allah” business cards and convenient shouting of “Allahu Akbar” as he fired on that November morning, shows it up nicely.

The argument itself will hang him – or lethally inject him, as the case may be. Hasan can argue he was defending fellow Muslims from harm by killing his fellow soldiers, but there’s a big problem with the self-represented killer’s case: The oath he swore as an officer of the United States Army.

The officer’s oath reads, in part: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

When Hasan argues he was defending others, he’ll be arguing he wasn’t defending the Constitution of the United States, as he swore to do on the peril of his soul.

So the Army took him at his word once, and paid for that mistake with lives of 12 soldiers, a civilian doctor and an unborn child.

Taking him at his word again will mean just one more life is forfeit.

Hasan’s.

 

Powered by Topple

Comments

Latest Articles