Sue will approve of this execution

[liberty]

Sue will approve of this execution. She is on record as saying that traitors should be executed, and that anyone who supports them should be executed as well. Hassan not only committed murder—of which he was found guilty—but also committed treason. He admitted that he did it to help defend the Islamic empire, which makes him a self-admitted traitor. At the time, he was still a commissioned officer in the United States Army and a citizen of the United States. To avoid being guilty of treason, he should have done two things: resigned his commission and renounced his citizenship. However, if I understand Sue's position correctly, even if he did that, he'd still be a traitor just by being born in America, and he can never escape a charge of treason.

It was the Obama administration that insisted it be classified as domestic workplace violence instead of treason. I wonder why.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/penta ... cc20&ei=36

During his subsequent trial, Hasan admitted to the shooting and claimed it was necessary to protect the "Islamic Empire" from American forces.

The Pentagon had categorized the massacre as an act of "workplace violence," a decision that drew sharp criticism from lawmakers, victims’ families, and national security experts. They argued it obscured the ideological and terrorist motivations behind the attack.

He has been held on death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, ever since.

After years of appeals, Hasan's final legal challenge was rejected in April 2025, clearing the way for execution.

"I am 100 percent committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Nidal Hasan," Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News Digital. "This savage terrorist deserves the harshest lawful punishment for his 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood. The victims and survivors deserve justice without delays."

Hasan is one of just four prisoners currently facing the death penalty under military jurisdiction.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Shame about the gratuitous slur against Sue, but par for the course.

On the merits, I don't think he's a terrorist because he lacked intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy. "A terrorist is an individual or group that uses violence or the threat of violence to spread fear and achieve political or ideological goals . . . Definitions vary, but core elements typically include the unlawful use of force or violence against people or property, with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy"

And I don't think he's a traitor because treason is defined as
(1) levying war against the USA and "requires an actual assembly of men and weapons to overthrow the government or resist its laws" and he made no such assembly and/or
(2) adhering to Enemies, Giving Aid and Comfort "This involves providing support or assistance to the nation's enemies. These enemies must be foreign powers in a state of open hostility with the U.S." Hassan did not provide such support or assistance.

He refers to the "Islamic Empire", a foreign entity that has not meaningfully existed since the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258 and by any definition cannot be in a state of open hostility with the USA.

One must admire the military precision of the court . . . he is not only condemned to death but (horror) is "dismissed from the service", no doubt with a DD.

[Sue U]

Sue will approve of this execution. She is on record as saying that traitors should be executed, and that anyone who supports them should be executed as well. Hassan not only committed murder—of which he was found guilty—but also committed treason. He admitted that he did it to help defend the Islamic empire, which makes him a self-admitted traitor. At the time, he was still a commissioned officer in the United States Army and a citizen of the United States. To avoid being guilty of treason, he should have done two things: resigned his commission and renounced his citizenship. However, if I understand Sue's position correctly, even if he did that, he'd still be a traitor just by being born in America, and he can never escape a charge of treason.

I do not approve of any execution as I am opposed to the death penalty. I dare you to actually cite ANY instance where I am "on record as saying that traitors should be executed, and that anyone who supports them should be executed as well." What you have posted is unmitigated nonsense, to the extent it is not gibberish, and you do not "understand [my] position correctly" on anything, since you choose to fabricate whatever you think suits the argument you' are incoherently attempting to make.

As for the balance, what Meade said.

[liberty]

Sue will approve of this execution. She is on record as saying that traitors should be executed, and that anyone who supports them should be executed as well. Hassan not only committed murder—of which he was found guilty—but also committed treason. He admitted that he did it to help defend the Islamic empire, which makes him a self-admitted traitor. At the time, he was still a commissioned officer in the United States Army and a citizen of the United States. To avoid being guilty of treason, he should have done two things: resigned his commission and renounced his citizenship. However, if I understand Sue's position correctly, even if he did that, he'd still be a traitor just by being born in America, and he can never escape a charge of treason.

I do not approve of any execution as I am opposed to the death penalty. I dare you to actually cite ANY instance where I am "on record as saying that traitors should be executed, and that anyone who supports them should be executed as well." What you have posted is unmitigated nonsense, to the extent it is not gibberish, and you do not "understand [my] position correctly" on anything, since you choose to fabricate whatever you think suits the argument you' are incoherently attempting to make.

As for the balance, what Meade said.

Well then, what was it that you said should happen to the Confederates? Because I remember clearly, it wasn't love and understanding.

[Scooter]

I was the one who said that everyone who fought for the Confederacy or gave it aid and comfort (defined as treason in the U.S. Constitution) should have been hung from the nearest tree or exiled to whatever country agreed to take them. Sue would never have such thoughts because she is a far more forgiving person than I am.

[liberty]

Sue will approve of this execution. She is on record as saying that traitors should be executed, and that anyone who supports them should be executed as well. Hassan not only committed murder—of which he was found guilty—but also committed treason. He admitted that he did it to help defend the Islamic empire, which makes him a self-admitted traitor. At the time, he was still a commissioned officer in the United States Army and a citizen of the United States. To avoid being guilty of treason, he should have done two things: resigned his commission and renounced his citizenship. However, if I understand Sue's position correctly, even if he did that, he'd still be a traitor just by being born in America, and he can never escape a charge of treason.

I do not approve of any execution as I am opposed to the death penalty. I dare you to actually cite ANY instance where I am "on record as saying that traitors should be executed, and that anyone who supports them should be executed as well." What you have posted is unmitigated nonsense, to the extent it is not gibberish, and you do not "understand [my] position correctly" on anything, since you choose to fabricate whatever you think suits the argument you' are incoherently attempting to make.

As for the balance, what Meade said.

I have a very difficult duty to perform here. Honor requires me to offer an apology to you, Sue; it wasn’t you who said it; it was Shit Head. However, considering your general attitude, and the fact that I believe you're a communist, I naturally assumed she would support executing opponents. But I have to apologize in this instance, because you were right, you did not say it



Views: 2074
Re: Insurrection in Los Angeles
I actually said everyone who fought for the Confederacy and/or who gave it aid and comfort should have been executed because they were traitors, because Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines them as such in black letter law * . I would certainly never have never limited it ...

[liberty]

Now, back to the original topic. I believe that Hassan should die for his offense. I know this is a concept that civilians are not going to be able to understand, but he committed a form of treason that is totally unacceptable and can only be properly punished by death. He murdered fellow brothers while claiming to be one of them.

There are certain things in the military we don't do. We don't harm each other. We don't lie to our commanders. Instead, we help and support each other.

Now, I'm talking about military people. There are those who masquerade as military but are actually civilians in uniform, and I've met some, but they are beside the point.

I won't get any pleasure out of his execution. It's just one of those hard things that has to be done. However, if I were ordered to participate in the firing squad, I would do it, because it is an appropriate order. However, I would not obey an illegal order.

[MajGenl.Meade]

“When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.” ― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

he committed a form of treason

Ah, you have clarified you are speaking of "personal treason", the action of betraying someone or something as in "treachery". I think there's a link to an older feudal expression "treacher" which was applied to a servant who killed a master - or indeed a vassal who rebelled against a lord. OK I hear that.

So you're saying that because he killed soldiers, his crime deserves harsher punishment than if he'd just killed 13 random civilians and wounded another 30 at a Walmart?

[Sue U]

However, considering your general attitude, and the fact that I believe you're a communist, I naturally assumed she would support executing opponents

What you believe is irrelevant, not to mention idiocy. I have corrected you numerous times on my political affiliation, but you refuse to learn anything because it is clearly not your intention to learn a goddam thing. What I said nearly 5 years ago is still true:

***

If you actually had a genuine interest in political philosophy, you might recall that I have specifically argued against Leninism, which is fundamentally a justification for anti-democratic suppression of counter-revolutionary opinion. But you are only interested in mindlessly labeling everyone a "communist" so you can advocate for their murder. You really should consider exactly who is the "mass murderer" in the fucked-up world inside your head.

[liberty]

“When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.” ― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

he committed a form of treason

Ah, you have clarified you are speaking of "personal treason", the action of betraying someone or something as in "treachery". I think there's a link to an older feudal expression "treacher" which was applied to a servant who killed a master - or indeed a vassal who rebelled against a lord. OK I hear that.

So you're saying that because he killed soldiers, his crime deserves harsher punishment than if he'd just killed 13 random civilians and wounded another 30 at a Walmart?

I figured you wouldn't get it, being a civilian and a Limey. You are a Limey, aren't you? It's not just that he killed soldiers; it's that he was a soldier, and he killed other soldiers. It didn’t involve a personal dispute. He killed them because they were soldiers. It wasn’t just an attack on individuals; it was an attack on the army, all soldiers. That’s why it’s so heinous. He was accepted, he belonged, and then he turned against his own people. And he did this for the purpose of advancing the interest of a foreign entity.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So you ARE saying that because he killed soldiers, his crime deserves harsher punishment than if he'd just killed 13 random civilians and wounded another 30 at a Walmart. OK we can discuss

It not an attack on one civilian an attack on all civilians? Why are civilians not a killer's "own people"?

Why is it that shooting soldiers is somehow worse than say, shooting a Democratic senator, spouse and the dog? [The latter at least is unforgivable]

Pity you had to use the race card there. Limey, eh?

[liberty]

So you ARE saying that because he killed soldiers, his crime deserves harsher punishment than if he'd just killed 13 random civilians and wounded another 30 at a Walmart. OK we can discuss

It not an attack on one civilian an attack on all civilians? Why are civilians not a killer's "own people"?

Why is it that shooting soldiers is somehow worse than say, shooting a Democratic senator, spouse and the dog? [The latter at least is unforgivable]

Pity you had to use the race card there. Limey, eh?

I will try one more time and make this as short and simple as I can. It involves three issues:

The military is not the same as the civilian world.

All military positions involve some level of trust, and officer positions require a higher level of trust.

Hassan was an officer, and the murder of fellow soldiers was a violation of that trust.

He was charged and found guilty of murder, which alone is enough to warrant execution. However, his betrayal makes him even more deserving of it. His actions cast doubt on the dependability of other Islamic soldiers.

[ex-khobar Andy]

From Wikipedia's entry on 'fragging':

By the end of the [Vietnam] war, at least 450 officers were killed in fraggings; the U.S. military reported at least 600 U.S. soldiers killed in fragging incidents with another 1,400 dying under mysterious circumstances

and

Sentences for fragging convictions were severe—but the few men convicted often served fairly brief prison sentences. Ten fraggers were convicted of murder and served sentences from ten months to forty years with a mean (average) prison time of about nine years.

Very few fraggers were ever prosecuted or convicted. I'm guessing that many of them were Christians.

So lib's final sentence should probably read:

His actions cast doubt on the dependability of Christian and Islamic soldiers.

[MajGenl.Meade]

His actions cast doubt on the dependability of other Islamic soldiers.

Well, you finally agreed with me that you DO think killing soldiers deserves harsher punishment than killing civilians.

I am thrilled that you are worried about how his actions may have cast doubt on the dependability of other Islamic soldiers. How thoughtful. Why should it?