[Dilangos]

By Angela K. Brown - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Sep 16, 2010 13:15:07 EDT

FORT HOOD, Texas — A military officer who will decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial for an Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people on a Texas base has denied a request to close a hearing to the public.

Col. James L. Pohl, a military judge acting as the investigating officer in the case, has said that ......

Read the rest of the story here

----------------
What do you think about the Fort Hood hearing?

[Jenisoisy]

It should be open to the public. The Killeen newspaper reported 15 dead and over 40 wounded. I guess the Army doesn't think the others that were harmed that day are important. Cover-up is the name of the game in today's military.

The lawyer for the homicidal muslim Psychiatrist is a retired Army colonel/ex-Jag officer. It is in his best interest and the interest of his client that the hearings are open.

[assonomaf]

Be real.

There is no way this isn't going to trial.

[baronaaba]

This is still not already at a trial?>? WTF. Wonder if the defense is the one stalling, so they can then sue for "not honoring my clients right to a speedy trial"

[softy54534]

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 32. INVESTIGATION


(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.


(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.


(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.


(d) The requirements of this article are binding on all persons administering this chapter but failure to follow them does not constitute judicial error.

[KinicsBonee]

I agree with the investigating officer that the Article 32 hearing should be open out of respect for the family members and friends of the dead and injured. If the accused was worried about receiving a fair trial, he shouldn't have commited the crime, then he can have all the fairness that he wants. He wasn't worried about the fairness that his victims received. I do hope that the hearing will be concluded before the anniversary so that families and friends don't have to return to the court room to hear further evidence after the memorial service. If this proceeds to a court-martial, I hope it is not delayed by too much bureaucracy and politics so that we can all have clousure from this tragic event and move forward as an Army.

[Goooooblin]

Anyone know his defence on why he is saying he is not guilty? Or have they asked that yet?

[gundorana]

It should be open to the public. The Killeen newspaper reported 15 dead and over 40 wounded. I guess the Army doesn't think the others that were harmed that day are important. Cover-up is the name of the game in today's military.

The lawyer for the homicidal muslim Psychiatrist is a retired Army colonel/ex-Jag officer. It is in his best interest and the interest of his client that the hearings are open.

Do you even read these posts or just pull the trigger?!?!?

"A military officer on Thursday rejected a defense request to keep an upcoming hearing about last year's Fort Hood massacre closed, saying the public and the victims' families have a right to hear testimony from those affected by the attack."

[Oriesssedleli419]

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 32. INVESTIGATION


(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.


(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.


(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.


(d) The requirements of this article are binding on all persons administering this chapter but failure to follow them does not constitute judicial error.

What was the point of posting this portion of the UCMJ? I ask because I didn't see any question as to why there was a hearing only the quesiton of whether the hearing should be open.

[pavilionnotebook]

What was the point of posting this portion of the UCMJ? I ask because I didn't see any question as to why there was a hearing only the quesiton of whether the hearing should be open.

TJ, if you don't mind, allow me to answer your question for you, Corny-style.

The Magna Carta


"...here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."

--Winston Churchill, 1956

King John of England agreed, in 1215, to the demands of his barons and authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. Thus he bound not only himself but his "heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law.

When Englishmen left their homeland to establish colonies in the New World, they brought with them charters guaranteeing that they and their heirs would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects." Scant generations later, when these American colonists raised arms against their mother country, they were fighting not for new freedoms but to preserve liberties that dated to the 13th century.

When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.

This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice."

In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to Magna Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede. Yet, as close as Magna Carta and American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We the People."

[Nafheense]

TJ, if you don't mind, allow me to answer your question for you, Corny-style.

The Magna Carta


"...here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."

--Winston Churchill, 1956

King John of England agreed, in 1215, to the demands of his barons and authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. Thus he bound not only himself but his "heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law.

When Englishmen left their homeland to establish colonies in the New World, they brought with them charters guaranteeing that they and their heirs would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects." Scant generations later, when these American colonists raised arms against their mother country, they were fighting not for new freedoms but to preserve liberties that dated to the 13th century.

When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.

This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice."

In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to Magna Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede. Yet, as close as Magna Carta and American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We the People."

Nice cut and paste.

Yaaaaaawn.

[rozettasmolanov]

TJ, if you don't mind, allow me to answer your question for you, Corny-style.

The Magna Carta


"...here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."

--Winston Churchill, 1956

King John of England agreed, in 1215, to the demands of his barons and authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. Thus he bound not only himself but his "heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law.

When Englishmen left their homeland to establish colonies in the New World, they brought with them charters guaranteeing that they and their heirs would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects." Scant generations later, when these American colonists raised arms against their mother country, they were fighting not for new freedoms but to preserve liberties that dated to the 13th century.

When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.

This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...or in any other way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice."

In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to Magna Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede. Yet, as close as Magna Carta and American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We the People."

Instead of trying - poorly - to emulate me, why not get TJ's question answered by telling TJ to ask me directly?

[spamkillerj]

The way the question was asked told me that the person had little understanding how such an investigation is carried out - which is understandable since we rarely get told the nuts and bolts of an investigation. That said, I've learned the hard way that the best way to learn how things work in the Military is to read the regulations that govern those things. That way, you get the knowledge as espoused by the Commanders first hand, rather than as interpreted by intermediaries. By reading about Article 38, you now know the correct answer to the question. If you need further explanation, certainly ask.

[Kafuuil]

The way the question was asked told me that the person had little understanding how such an investigation is carried out - which is understandable since we rarely get told the nuts and bolts of an investigation. That said, I've learned the hard way that the best way to learn how things work in the Military is to read the regulations that govern those things. That way, you get the knowledge as espoused by the Commanders first hand, rather than as interpreted by intermediaries. By reading about Article 38, you now know the correct answer to the question. If you need further explanation, certainly ask.

Ok, let’s do this the hard way (that is, with the most amount of words instead of concisely).

The first post by the Community Editor…………

By Angela K. Brown - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Sep 16, 2010 13:15:07 EDT
FORT HOOD, Texas — A military officer who will decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial for an Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people on a Texas base has denied a request to close a hearing to the public.
Col. James L. Pohl, a military judge acting as the investigating officer in the case, has said that ......
Read the rest of the story here
----------------
What do you think about the Fort Hood hearing?

The first post from a forum reader……………….

It should be open to the public. The Killeen newspaper reported 15 dead and over 40 wounded. I guess the Army doesn't think the others that were harmed that day are important. Cover-up is the name of the game in today's military.
The lawyer for the homicidal muslim Psychiatrist is a retired Army colonel/ex-Jag officer. It is in his best interest and the interest of his client that the hearings are open.

The second post from a forum reader…………………….

Be real.
There is no way this isn't going to trial.

The third post from a forum reader……………………………..

This is still not already at a trial?>? WTF. Wonder if the defense is the one stalling, so they can then sue for "not honoring my clients right to a speedy trial"

Then came your cut and paste from the UCMJ………………..

Please explain to me …

What ‘question’ were you directly answering with your cut and paste?

Where did anyone show any lack of knowledge on UCMJ investigation processes?

In fact, where were UCMJ investigations even discussed?

Who questioned the duties of the trail counsel or defense counsel?

Once again what question was “correctly” answered by “reading about Article 38”?

BTW: I did ask my original question directly of you; hence I quoted your post. Just as this post asks you questions directly.

[Attarderb]

Nice cut and paste.

Yaaaaaawn.

That whooshing sound you heard was the joke going over your head. Stick to flaunting your hypocrisy and moral depravity, and you won't make yourself look so unintelligent.

[soyclocky]

Instead of trying - poorly - to emulate me,

You're right, the cut and paste lacked a certain pretentiousness that oozes from your tedious C v's.

why not get TJ's question answered by telling TJ to ask me directly?

1) TJ's his own man, why would I need to tell him to do something?

2) TJ DID ask you directly. As you once said in your usual condescending tone:

You need to slow down and read EVERYTHING to avoid missing something important.

[Gudronich]

That whooshing sound you heard was the joke going over your head. Stick to flaunting your hypocrisy and moral depravity, and you won't make yourself look so unintelligent.

Cheddah. :*

[Zhgrlpil]

And.........I didn't get any answers.

Wait, let me put on my surprised face................

[weluvjessicaalba]

This is still not already at a trial?>? WTF. Wonder if the defense is the one stalling, so they can then sue for "not honoring my clients right to a speedy trial"

Actually, most of the time, it's in the defense's best interest to stall, so they can gather more evidence, experts to give opinion, etc. Many times, they will ask to have the right to a speedy trial waived, just as soon as they appear before a judge.