Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Hasan killed after war crime prosecutions rejected

by fairleft Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 04:16:42 PM EST

Photobucket

Hasan wanted patients to face war crimes charges

Fort Hood massacre suspect Nidal Malik Hasan sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him, a captain who served on the base said Monday. . . .

It wasn't clear Monday what information Hasan received from patients and what became of his requests for prosecution. ABC News, citing anonymous sources, reported that his superiors rejected the requests, and that investigators suspect this triggered the shootings.

Hasan may have been legally justified in reporting what patients disclosed, said Patrick McLain, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in military defense work and is not involved in the Hasan case. But it's impossible to be sure without knowing exactly what they said, he added.

"He was right on his authority to report it," said the ex-Marine, who formerly served as a court-martial judge. The Army teaches all service members that they have a duty to report evidence of war crimes.

War crimes? Our heroes commit war crimes? Start here: War criminality, in U.S. soldiers' words. A bit of the soldier testimony from that diary:

Afghanistan:

"Anyone carrying a shovel or any sort of implement that could be used to bury an IED could be considered a target. After dark, you can shoot anyone who is outside."

Iraq:

"There were massive amounts of artillery strikes before we even invaded. We saw the results of that. Streets full of bodies - women and children - body parts, extremely indiscriminate. I'm talking about rolling through villages here, not military encampments."

". . . at one point, anyone who was described as a suspicious observer would be a legitimate target, anyone holding a cell phone, binoculars, or at one point, anyone out after curfew, and this led to an incident where Marines were firing at firefighters and cops silhouetted against a fire that our indirect fire had caused who were trying to help out the civilians that were being affected by that fire."

Below is additional testimony by three U.S. Iraq veterans, but I don't think it's different in Afghanistan:


Vincent Emanuele: An act that took place quite often in Iraq was that of taking pop shots at cars that drove by. Our rules of engagement stated that we should first fire warning shots into the ground in front of the car, then the engine block, and then the driver and passengers.

Most of the time, however, the shots made their way straight to those very individuals in the car.

Jon Michael Turner:

On April 18, 2006, I had my first confirmed killed. This man was innocent. I don't know his name. I called him "the fat man." He was walking back to his house, and I shot him in front of his friend and his father. The first round didn't kill him, after I had hit him up here in his neck area. And afterwards he started screaming and looked right into my eyes. So I looked at my friend, who I was on post with, and I said, "Well, I can't let that happen." So I took another shot and took him out. He was then carried away by the rest of his family. It took seven people to carry his body away.

There was one incident, where we got into a firefight just south of the government center about 2,000 meters. We had no idea where the fire was coming from. And the way our rules of engagement were, pinpoint where the fire is coming from and throw a rocket at it. So, at that being said, we still didn't know where the fire was coming from, and an eighty-four-millimeter rocket was shot into a house. I do not know if there was anyone in it. We do not know if that's where the fire was coming from. But that's what was done.

I just want to say that I am sorry for the hate and destruction that I have inflicted on innocent people, and I'm sorry for the hate and destruction that others have inflicted on innocent people. At one point, it was OK. But reality has shown that it's not and that this is happening and that until people hear about what is going on with this war, it will continue to happen and people will continue to die. I am sorry for the things that I did. I am no longer the monster that I once was.

Jason Hurd:
And there was one of those buildings that was sort of dilapidated; however, we knew that squatters had taken this building over, and we actually used to make jokes that this place looked like a crack house and that they were running drugs out of there. We had no evidence of that; it was just joking.

One day, Iraqi police got into an exchange of gunfire with some unknown individuals around that building. Some of the stray rounds came across the Tigris River and hit the shield of one of our Hummers. The gunner atop that Hummer decided to open fire with his fifty-caliber machinegun into that building. He expended about a case and a half of ammunition. And I'm no weapons expert--I'm a medic--but I talked to some of my colleagues just the other night, and to put this into perspective for you all, each case of fifty-cal ammunition holds about 150 rounds. A case and a half is well over 200 rounds. Over 200 rounds of fifty-caliber ammunition could take out just about every single person in this room. We fired indiscriminately and unnecessarily at this building. We never got a body count, we never got a casualty count afterwards. Another unit came through and swept up that mess.

Ladies and gentleman, things like that happen every day in Iraq. We react out of fear, fear for our lives, and we cause complete and utter destruction.

Individuals from my unit indiscriminately and unnecessarily opened fire on innocent civilians as they're driving down the road on their own streets. My unit--individuals from my platoon would fire into the grills of these cars and then come back in the evenings after missions were done and brag about it. They would say, "Hey, did you guys see that car I shot at? It spewed radiator fluid all over the ground. Wasn't that cool?" I remember thinking back on that and how appalled I was that we were bragging about these things, that we were laughing, but that's what you do in a combat zone.

P.S. -- From "War Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq and Mechanisms for Accountability"

"[T]he choices made at more senior levels than the ranks of individual soldiers have created the context in which regular abuses of civilians in occupied Iraq are occurring. It is argued that: the failure to adequately rebuild the civilian and social infrastructure; the failure to provide civilians with appropriate security; and the choices of weapons and tactics often used in military operations all constitute war crimes. Regardless of the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq, the U.S. and British governments, their commanders and all their soldiers in the field are accountable for these grave breaches."

"One reason for the huge numbers of civilian casualties under the U.S. occupation is that U.S. soldiers have often behaved as if they have been told to shoot anything that moves. As noted in the Christian Science Monitor: "The rules of engagement instruct U.S. soldiers to bring withering force to bear on positions they're attacked from, even when an insurgent ducks into a private house for cover" (22). However, many NGOs have attested that private homes and persons who are clearly civilians are attacked without any possible excuse that a particular attack was directed at insurgents."

"Each citizen of the United States is challenged to be willing to recognize first that fellow citizens in the executive branch of the Federal government and in the military have repeatedly violated international law in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The next step is to open our minds to not only the possibility but the absolute necessity to hold our fellow citizens to account. As noted above, we have a law to do so--the War Crimes Act."

Display:
.
From the article ...

"Nobody should be advanced in rank and no one should be kept in the military if their loyalty is to anything other than the United States,"  Senator Jeff Sessions - Alabama.

If Congress would impose same oath of loyalty on all of its members, perhaps the I/P conflict would be resolved.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 07:11:56 PM EST
The military are sworn to protect and defend the laws and Constitution of the United States, not the U.S. itself. Those not prosecuting U.S. war criminals were violating their oath.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 at 07:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
.
The Vice-President of the United States of America

"This world we live in is a better place for the power, and influence, and the values of the United States of America. Americans are rightly proud of our country. We're a patriotic people, and we show that devotion in many different ways. And the bravest way of all is to take up the profession of arms.

On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in. Your country has prepared you, and now your country is counting on you. I know that each one of you will serve with skill, and carry yourself with honor, and take care of your soldiers, because that is the way of the West Point officer."
Vice-President Dick Cheney commencement address at West Point Academy, New York, in 2007.

Of course, Cheney had some issues with our Constitution and wasn't aware of the oath these young officers have taken on this day. Likely Cheney preferred the officers to pledge allegiance to the decider President or himself, the executive officer (CEO) as in corporation.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 03:14:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

  You'd believe, cite, Dick Cheney?!?  On a military question?!?

  The oath goes as follows:

   

 United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office:

  "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that 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 reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]"

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

   



"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
by proximity1 on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 09:30:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Hasan killed after war crime prosecutions rejected
It wasn't clear Monday what information Hasan received from patients and what became of his requests for prosecution. ABC News, citing anonymous sources, reported that his superiors rejected the requests, and that investigators suspect this triggered the shootings.

But it is ah so more convenient to focus on the religious narrative.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 03:08:01 AM EST
I was under the impression that what a patient discloses to his psychiatrist is protected by patient-doctor confidentiality.

Hasan Wanted Soldiers Prosecuted, Officials Said - ABC News

Legal analysts say psychiatrists are strictly bound by the rules of patient confidentiality except in cases where they might become aware of crimes about to be committed.
When talking about soldiers for PTSD you would think that the ability to speak freely about their experiences without fear of retribution from their psychiatrist would be an essential part of therapy.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 04:48:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While I also think that patient-doctor confidentiality should apply, I'm not sure that fear of retribution from the psychiatrist applies. I assumed that the requests for war crime prosecution (if true) applied to people that his patients witnessed committing (or ordering) crimes, not to the patients themselves.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 05:02:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
gk:
I assumed that the requests for war crime prosecution (if true) applied to people that his patients witnessed committing (or ordering) crimes, not to the patients themselves
I assumed differently, but if you're right maybe confidentiality doesn't in fact apply?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 05:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would have assume that confidentiality applies to everything a patient says, but, on second thought, it might be possible that he was trying to get his superiors to prosecute war crimes, on behalf of the patients, and with their approval. But this may be getting too far into the realms of speculation, even by the generally low factual standards of debate about Hassan.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 06:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, military law may be different from civilian law. And war crimes may be doubleplusungood crimes that have a special exemption.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 09:59:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently there is no right of psychotherapist-patient confidentiality  among the US military

Marching To The Beat of A Different Drummer: Is Military Law and Mental Health Out-of-Step after Jaffee v. Redmond?

For years the issue of whether there should be a federal psychotherapist- patient evidentiary privilege has been debated. The latest battle for recognition of this controversial privilege was won on 13 June 1996, when the United States Supreme Court recognized the privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 in the case of Jaffee v. Redmond. 1 The only jurisdiction remaining which has yet to address this privilege is the military, a federal jurisdiction with its own evidentiary rules. The military's initial reaction to the Jaffee decision has been negative. 2


Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 10:31:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That appears to be current law, according to this (abstract from a) law paper published in 2009:

. . . while Department of Defense directives and other military law has arguably eliminated the psychotherapist-patient privilege in the military, military courts have an opportunity to restore and maintain the privilege in light of those courts' tradition of protecting the interests and rights of military members.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1403815

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 11:47:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While looking furter into this

U.S. Army Field Manual provisions relating to the law of war.

505.  Universality of Jurisdiction

. . . b.    Persons Charged with War Crimes.  The United States normally punishes war crimes as such only if they are committed by enemy nationals or by persons serving the interests of the enemy State.  Violations of the law of war committed by persons subject to military law of the United States will usually constitute violations of the Uniform Code of Mlitary Justice and, if so, will be prosecuted under that Code.... Commanding officers of United States troops must insure that war crimes committed by members of their forces against enemy personnel are promptly and adequately punished.

Note the first sentance "The United States normally punishes war crimes as such only if they are committed by enemy nationals or by persons serving the interests of the enemy State"

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 01:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It doesn't get any clearer than that.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 01:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure what you mean. The key to the sentence is "as such," and the sentence simply means that war crimes are punished as a violation of the UCMJ -- and so are to be tried within the military justice system -- rather than as a violation of a sub-category of human rights law and therefore something I guess international or national 'civilian' courts would handle. (Whatever, so long as there is severe punishment for severe crimes.) Maybe the above is what you meant and if so sorry for 'correcting' you.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 at 02:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly. War crimes, as such, are punishable under the UCMJ, one way or the other, could be as homicide, assault and battery, rape, etc.  It doesn't mean they always just walk because they are US soldiers.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 at 11:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I found this "Primer" under the Air University/War College pages that offers guidance for military lawyers and commanders when considering charging US military members with war crimes. The value lies in its discussion of the interplay between military and civilian/federal law. As can be seen, Article 134 of the UCMJ assimilates federal civilian law in certain aspects. The guide also recommends using specific UCMJ punitive articles (such as assault/murder, etc) when applicable.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Nov 26th, 2009 at 02:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, forgot to include the link to Air U.  

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Nov 26th, 2009 at 02:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gringo
"The United States normally punishes war crimes as such only if they are committed by enemy nationals...."
To me that means that you are only punished of a war crime if committed by an enemy national....., US individuals are not punished as war criminals, but under US military law.

Assuming of course that they went to trial & were convicted, with the other caveat that "normally" is quite ambiguous.

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

by Knucklehead on Thu Nov 26th, 2009 at 03:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Whether a cat is black or white is of no consequence. As long as it catches mice, it is a good cat." - Attributed to Deng Xiaoping

If they actually were prosecuting war criminals under their own criminal justice system, there would be no problem.

The problem is that the US is prosecuting war crimes neither as criminal offences, as offences against military law, or as war crimes as such.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 26th, 2009 at 05:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you are technically correct knucklehead, but Jake hits on the key element in his response. The issue with these types of offense is not the category under which they are tried/ajudicated. The problem is that they take place in an environment wherein everyone is watching everyones back.  So group loyalty takes over and the cover up begins, often successfully.  

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Nov 26th, 2009 at 11:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course. I'm not saying that Hasan was justified to kill 12 people either...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 05:12:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since many of his patients were about to return to Iraq/Afghanistan, then Hasan may have had good reason to believe those who were war criminals were about to resume committing war crimes.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 11:26:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now that will be a somewhat interesting legal defence.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 11:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not much of a defense at all, really. I think typically there has to be a lot more sense of 'immediacy' for that defense to work (even in a non-show trial, which Hasan's trial is more or less going to be).

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 at 02:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When talking about soldiers for PTSD

I mean when treating soldiers...

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 at 02:53:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no doctor-patient relationship (as in lawyer-client, clergy-penitent) in the US military (unless the law has changed recently).  Whatever goes on between a military doctor and a military patient is subject to disclosure, albeit with a reasonable (according to the regulations/law) measure of protection of privacy, to certain military authorities under specific situations.  Likewise, doctors are expected to report, as I recall, admissions of criminality by their patients. Do they always report.  No, not in my experience, unless the crime was very serious.

As a military investigator, at one time, I would often review medical records and interview doctors during security clearance reinvestigations or during certain other criminal investigations, such as homicides and sexual assaults.  Anyone who applies for a security clearance must also sign a doctor-patient release statement giving the government or its reps. the right to review all their medical records, both military and civilian. It's not mandatory that one signs the release (as in an application for life insurance), but if you don't then you don't get the clearance/job/insurance, etc.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 at 11:33:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mark Ames has taken another look at the reporting on the Fort Hood shooting.

Scrubbing Major Hasan: The Strange & Silly Media Rewrite Of The Fort Hood Shooting Spree - By Mark Ames - The eXiled

What happened to all the initial reports that accused Fort Hood killer Maj. Nidal Hasan snapped because he was distraught over the Army's refusal to grant him eithera discharge or an exemption from being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, wars which the Muslim psychiatrist abhorred -- and how it was this callous Army refusal to accommodate Maj. Hasan that led to his downward spiral into despondency, rage and mass murder?

We heard quite a bit about this in the first couple of days, and then -- poof! That part of the Fort Hood story disappeared so neatly that I almost started to wonder if I'd imagined it -- such is the power of media bombardment versus a mere soap bubble like the human memory.

He looks at the story from the start where we read stuff like this:

Scrubbing Major Hasan: The Strange & Silly Media Rewrite Of The Fort Hood Shooting Spree - By Mark Ames - The eXiled

First, here are some of the most credible early sources which prove that Maj. Hasan tried and failed to get the Army to relieve him. On November 5th, I found these statements by Texas Republican congressman Michael McCaul:

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Austin, was briefed by military officials and said Hasan had taken some unusual classes for someone studying about mental health.

"He took a lot of extra classes in weapons training, which seems a little odd for a psychiatrist," McCaul said.

McCaul said Hasan had received poor grades for his work at Walter Reed and was not happy about his situation in Fort Hood, where Hasan apparently felt like "he didn't fit in."

"He's disgruntled because he had a poor performance evaluation, he doesn't believe in the mission, he's looking at getting transferred to Afghanistan or Iraq," McCaul said. "He's not happy about all that."

McCaul added that officials planned to interview Hasan to try to determine for sure that he was not working with foreign agents.

Note the Republican congressman's use of the word "disgruntled"-the adjective synonymous with "going postal" workplace shooters.

And threw various steps the story lands at:

Scrubbing Major Hasan: The Strange & Silly Media Rewrite Of The Fort Hood Shooting Spree - By Mark Ames - The eXiled

At last, we have the new nicely-scrubbed Soviet version of events that we've come to accept: No one told the Army that Maj. Hasan wanted a discharge. Army officials figured out that he was a crazy Muslim-because that $700 billion we pour into our military every year isn't wasted!-and they even tried to enroll him into Islamic sensitivity training. But the problem is, our 2 million man military was so terrified of hippies and feminists terrorizing them with political-correctness-hectoring that our nation's finest kept all of their fears about Hasan to themselves.

That's it. That's the story. Sure, it's fucking ridiculous. But it's what the country now all agrees happened.



Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Nov 28th, 2009 at 10:48:52 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]