The Fort Hood Shooter Will Be Able to Cross-Examine the Soldiers Whom He Shot

[jimmy olsen]

Now that's some dramatic must watch court TV!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/05/nidal_malik_hasan_fort_hood_trial_admitted_gunman_will_get_chance_to_cross.html

The Fort Hood Shooter Will Be Able to Cross-Examine the Soldiers Whom He Shot

By Josh Voorhees
Posted Monday, Aug. 5, 2013, at 11:23 AM


Tuesday will mark the beginning of the military trial of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major who gunned down 13 people and injured several dozen more during his 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood. Hasan, both in court and out of it, has already admitted to being the gunman—he claims to have been trying to protect Taliban leaders from U.S. soldiers deploying to Afghanistan—and has even offered to plead guilty to the charges. But that doesn't mean that the courtroom action will be without its fair share of drama, as the New York Times explains this morning in a great table-setter:

    It is not unusual for victims to face their assailants in court, as [Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr.] will do on Tuesday, when he testifies on the first day of Major Hasan's military trial. What is extraordinary is that Major Hasan, seated behind the defense table in a Fort Hood courtroom, may be the one questioning Sergeant Lunsford during cross-examination.

    Major Hasan is representing himself, one of many elements of his long-delayed court-martial that legal experts say will make it one of the most unpredictable and significant military trials in recent history. "I will be cross-examined by the man who shot me," said Sergeant Lunsford, 46, who retired from the Army and remains blind in his left eye. "You can imagine all the emotions that are going to be coming up."

Other than the scene of a shooter questioning someone who he shot, however, legal watchers and historians aren't exactly sure what to expect once the trial gets underway. For starters, there's the question of just how much the trial will explore Hasan's radical Islamic beliefs. And, while it likely won't prove too difficult a task for Army lawyers to convince the jury of 13 to find Hasan guilty, it's less clear if the government will be able to achieve its ultimate goal: the death penalty. (The reason the Army refused to accept Hasan's offer to plead guilty is because, by military law, that would have taken a death sentence off the table.) Even if they do, such an outcome is all but certain to be subject to a lengthy appeals process, one that history would suggest could last more than a decade. Head on over to the Times for more on what's likely to prove to be a historic trial regardless of the outcome.

[derspiess]

What a circus.  This fucker is a poster child for summary executions.

[Neil]

No shit.  They fucked up pretty bad by bringing this guy in alive.

[Barrister]

Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...

[dps]

Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...

Why?

[Barrister]

Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...

Why?

Cuz there's no reason for an accused person to re-victimize their victim?

What we have is a provision for 'court appointed counsel for the purpose of cross-examination'.  The court hires a lawyer for you.  You tell that lawyer the questions you want to ask.  This comes up more than you'd think in terms of domestic abuse cases.

[Neil]

Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...

Yeah, but the US is a pretty harsh place.  Remember, the people who created the country and its laws were the people who loved the brutal violence of slavery.

[Barrister]

Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...

Yeah, but the US is a pretty harsh place.  Remember, the people who created the country and its laws were the people who loved the brutal violence of slavery.

Trollish, but true.

[Ideologue]

I agree.  America sucks.  I wish we'd never rebelled.  It was a mistake.

[garbon]

I agree.  America sucks.  I wish we'd never rebelled.  It was a mistake.

Yeah we could have been as thrilling as Canada.

[jimmy olsen]

I agree.  America sucks.  I wish we'd never rebelled.  It was a mistake.

Yeah we could have been as thrilling as Canada.

Or Canada would have been as thrilling as the USA! 

[Ideologue]

I agree.  America sucks.  I wish we'd never rebelled.  It was a mistake.

Yeah we could have been as thrilling as Canada.

It would be all of the nuclear majesty of America with the benevolent statism of Canada.

[garbon]

How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.

[Ideologue]

How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.

America would likely be by the far the most important component of the Commonwealth.

I'm pretty sure we'd still have developed atomic weapons first as well.

[Barrister]

How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.

I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life...

and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting.  On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...